@blackwhitegold said in [Madge Maguire \- Mega Thread](/post/1477258) said:
I understand there is a lot at play in this decision but I reckon the Board needs to show some backbone in backing in Madge. He has been all about the future, fixing the player contract mess & setting us for long-term success. Fans & media get so fixated on the 'now' but should be looking at where we are heading.
1) Look at our Jersey Flegg result this season (and the potential Panthers-like era we could have if we keep these mates together)
2) Look at our recent junior recruitment (Simpkin, Saukurus, Fautimaus etc)
3) Look at our junior stars coming through (Solomone Saukuru, Brandon Tumeth, Justin Matamua to name a few)
4) Look at our good buys in recent seasons (Utoikamanu, Blore, Doeuhi, Laurie, Maumolo, Tuilagi, Simpkins)
To me our team has only a few key parts of the puzzle to assemble (2-3 players with leadership, experience, intensity & aggression in forward pack & halves; some x-factor with strong defence in the backline; and some good assistant coaching support for Madge). We have Sheens, Hastings, Gildart coming in which can all be positives.
Don't get sucked in by the media's focus on headlines & creating disunity.
We need to stay true & let Madge see out his contract. Otherwise the vicious circle starts again!
Keeping Madge for 2 more years will destroy the club to the point of no return. We need someone who can attract players, coach well or preferably both. His last 5 seasons have proven he can't coach in the modern game.
I think the concept of "the modern game" is a myth and is entirely overused.
How do we define "the modern game"? 2021 only? The past 2 years? The past 3 years? The predicted forthcoming season?
Surely we can argue, given the ARLC's recent affinity for fiddling with the rules, there has scarcely been any sustained period of established rugby league paradigm. It always flips and flops between defence-focused, attack-focused, wrestle-focus, refs heavy touch , refs light touch etc. Part of the beauty of the game is the unpredictable nature of play and which styles dominate in a given season. Part of the frustration of the game is that the controlling body feel compelled to tweak rules to improve the TV spectacle.
However in contrast the the unpredictable football styles, the dominating teams have become all-too predictable - a core 4 or 5 teams for at least a period of 3 to 4 years, with some teams rarely falling out of the top echelon and, by corollary, some teams rarely making it into the top echelon.
I think this is another argument against the concept of "the modern game": if certain clubs are able to maintain a stranglehold on the competition, it argues that the current paradigm / "modern game" is a less relevant predictor than the established flexibility and mental/physical domination of the best sides and coaches.
In other words, the best rosters win regardless of prevailing conditions, because they adapt to those conditions.
And none of this is even considering the long-term impact of COVID, including player bubbles, player mental health, relocations, family separations and lack of lower grade play etc.
There's certainly no argument to support an idea that a younger or newer coach is more "in tune" with the modern game - the most successful coaches (and the ones currently left in season 2021) are also the 3 oldest, barring Ivan Cleary.
There's also an assumption, within the idea of "modern game", that it is predictable, i.e. that the rules and rule interpretations will not change and that most sides will handle those conditions in a similar manner to the previous seasons. Clearly this wildly speculative and the previous seasons have in fact shown great variability in the way the game is played and policed.
Aside, of course, from the fundamentals - that the fastest, strongest, toughest and most skilful sides tend to be the best, regardless of variations in what comprises "the modern game".
So ultimately I think the argument of "a modern game" against a coach, or even for a coach, is misguided. Specific to Madge, I think the history of the Wests Tigers and the known abilities of the current roster are far more predictive than the concept of whether or not Michael Maguire knows and can coach to the prevailing paradigm. Aren't people always telling me that it's a simple game and you just need to bash the opposition?
Before he died, The Don was asked if he would score as many runs in "the modern game". His answer went something along the lines of '''No, I wouldn't. Back then the pitches were flatter, the outfields were quicker and the bowlers didnt watch videos of you. But I would still score more runs than the next bloke." Winners gonna win. Losers gonna lose.
I dont think this is a real quote for many reasons.
Firstly the pitches werent flatter, they played on unprotected pitches that were much harder to bat on than the current roads, the outfields werent faster.
The quote I have read attributed to him went along the lines of, "these days they have video analysis, professional training, but of course I m 80 years old"
Apologies 5150, I down voted you on this one, and I'll tell you why.
Fair enough you're giving an opinion, but what are you saying? That you don't think the original quote was real? It was included with the proviso that the quote went something like this, admitting that it isn't word for word. I don't know what your basis is for the quote to be determined as 'real', but the gist was the same from what I could see. Whether the pitches were flat or outfield fast, it doesn't matter, the message was that different factors in a different time would make a different situation. The specifics really didn't matter to that in this context.
