Michael Maguire leaves club

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a quick chaser, if Noddy starts winning, every win is another $20k discount off Ciraldos or the new coaches asking price.

That could be used to offset Madgeā€™s golden showery handshake.

I think we should have offered him half that to be honest.

We spend like drunken sailors, youā€™d think we are Chelsea or something.

We make Bill Gates blush.
 
LeichhardtTiger said:
Was Madge a development coach? - probably not. He already had the nucleus of a very good team when he arrived.

With Sam Burgess and Greg Inglis in your stable, you'd be pretty happy. Did he need to develop Ben T'eo, Lote? Nope. Plus he had plenty of depth players who'd been around the park - like Joel Reddy & Bryson Goodwin and a young bloke at heart in Robbie Farah. That's not to say that some of the young ones like Cameron McInnes & Angus Crichton didn't benefit from their time at Souffs but arguably McInnes & Crichton were fully developed at Cronulla & Easts respectively whilst Damien Cook & Cody Walker both started 1st Grade in their mid 20s so they had matured certainly but weren't on the radar as Development players.
Click to expand...
I believe that's an overly simplistic take.

Souths made the finals once in 22 years before Madge joined, then he got them to the finals 4 years in a row, including a premiership. That's too epic a turn-around to be convenience, and the Souths team was in a very Tigers-like position of not being serious finals contenders, finishing 14th, 10th, 9th, 10th after Taylor got them to their maiden 21st-century finals.

Any coach walking into most sides will expect to have at least the "nucleus" of a good team. Most clubs don't have an issue with a nucleus, they have an issue with filling in the other 25 spots and having adequate depth.

For example the new coach of Tigers 2023 would walk into the club having Hastings, Stefano, Laurie, Doueihi, Blore, Simpkin, and they can all be recognised as young (enough) and promising players. Then you add Api and Papi, and it can possibly be the makings of a good side.

Of course to get Tigers to the finals in 2023 would be another epic result, even though you could fairly say the nucleus of the team was already there. I wonder if, should Tigers actually make the finals in the next year or two, whether Madge will get any retrospective credit.

Specifically to development though, the following players all debuted or were recruited by Madge at Souths: Adam Reynolds, George and Tom Burgess, Luke Keary, Alex Johnston, Api Koroisau, Cody Walker, Cam McInnes, Angus Crichton, Damien Cook, Cam Murray. The ones that remained at Souths became the cornerstone of their ongoing finals aspirations and GF appearance last year. The ones that left Souths became key components of premierships at other clubs.

Surely you have to give Madge credit for both the ongoing performance of the existing players, and the development of the young players he brought in. Or even more - the older fringe players like Walker and Cook that he brought in and they became rep-level players after failing to make it earlier in their careers.
 
We paid Packer what $2.4m and the biggest contribution he made to the club was running over Mattā€™s and breaking every bone in his body.

Sometimes when youā€™re a WT fan, this is simply a cost of doing business and nobody raises an eyebrow.

Very matter of fact, nothing to see and the caravan rolls on.

Thatā€™s us, thatā€™s who we are and in our DNA.

We just approach the whole league circus differently!
 
Last edited:
jirskyr said:
I believe that's an overly simplistic take.

Souths made the finals once in 22 years before Madge joined, then he got them to the finals 4 years in a row, including a premiership. That's too epic a turn-around to be convenience, and the Souths team was in a very Tigers-like position of not being serious finals contenders, finishing 14th, 10th, 9th, 10th after Taylor got them to their maiden 21st-century finals.

Any coach walking into most sides will expect to have at least the "nucleus" of a good team. Most clubs don't have an issue with a nucleus, they have an issue with filling in the other 25 spots and having adequate depth.

For example the new coach of Tigers 2023 would walk into the club having Hastings, Stefano, Laurie, Doueihi, Blore, Simpkin, and they can all be recognised as young (enough) and promising players. Then you add Api and Papi, and it can possibly be the makings of a good side.

Of course to get Tigers to the finals in 2023 would be another epic result, even though you could fairly say the nucleus of the team was already there. I wonder if, should Tigers actually make the finals in the next year or two, whether Madge will get any retrospective credit.

Specifically to development though, the following players all debuted or were recruited by Madge at Souths: Adam Reynolds, George and Tom Burgess, Luke Keary, Alex Johnston, Api Koroisau, Cody Walker, Cam McInnes, Angus Crichton, Damien Cook, Cam Murray. The ones that remained at Souths became the cornerstone of their ongoing finals aspirations and GF appearance last year. The ones that left Souths became key components of premierships at other clubs.

Surely you have to give Madge credit for both the ongoing performance of the existing players, and the development of the young players he brought in. Or even more - the older fringe players like Walker and Cook that he brought in and they became rep-level players after failing to make it earlier in their careers.
Click to expand...
You are one of the best forum posters yet the call that Madge debuted Reynolds is simply missing the point that I made. Reynolds was already in the South's system. Madge didn't develop Reynolds - he gave a potential superstar a shot that's for sure but it was under other coaches that he learnt his trade & that after a year in rehab well before Madge arrived. As for Cook & Walker they didn't play 1st grade until 25 & 26 respectively. BTW that was after Souths had won in 2014, but you knew that. That's not development it's a Bellamy trait of giving workhorses a job to do.

BTW Did you not read the list of players Madge inherited? - established 1st graders - Superstars in Burgess & Inglis, not young pups or scrubbers with turf toe. The Burgess brothers recruited the Burgess brothers (thanks to uncle Russell) Madge had nothing to do with their recruitment.

Api, McInnes & Crichton all moved away from Madge - so much for Development. Sure Api who will be older than he is today signed for Madge next year. Penrith wouldn't have let him go if they didn't need him.

BTW pt 1 my post was hardly overly simplistic - it is a fact:

Madge inherited an underperforming star-studded Souths lineup
The only point of difference was Adam Reynolds - FACT!
Madge inherited a bunch of West Tigers misfits
The main point of difference Salary Cap pressure and reserve grade players on Overs: Packer Mbye Reynolds McQueen

BTW pt 2 - I think you forgot the bloke that left Souths for a sunnier climate, when you spoke about "those that remained formed the cornerstone of finals etc" - a reasonably experienced codger called Wayne Bennett had a little bit to do with that.

Cheers
 
By the way, unless I'm mistaken I recall when Madge signed his extension last year that there was a termination fee included in the contract, giving us a easier way to bail out should things not work out. We'll give you a 2 year extension and the chance to see through your vision if you agree to a cheap payout should it fail.

Would be very surprised if the sum was anywhere near the 800k figure mentioned, that would be almost paying out his contract in full, i'd guess half that amount...
 
LeichhardtTiger said:
You are one of the best forum posters yet the call that Madge debuted Reynolds is simply missing the point that I made. Reynolds was already in the South's system. Madge didn't develop Reynolds - he gave a potential superstar a shot that's for sure but it was under other coaches that he learnt his trade & that after a year in rehab well before Madge arrived. As for Cook & Walker they didn't play 1st grade until 25 & 26 respectively. BTW that was after Souths had won in 2014, but you knew that. That's not development it's a Bellamy trait of giving workhorses a job to do.

BTW Did you not read the list of players Madge inherited? - established 1st graders - Superstars in Burgess & Inglis, not young pups or scrubbers with turf toe. The Burgess brothers recruited the Burgess brothers (thanks to uncle Russell) Madge had nothing to do with their recruitment.

Api, McInnes & Crichton all moved away from Madge - so much for Development. Sure Api who will be older than he is today signed for Madge next year. Penrith wouldn't have let him go if they didn't need him.

BTW pt 1 my post was hardly overly simplistic - it is a fact:

Madge inherited an underperforming star-studded Souths lineup
The only point of difference was Adam Reynolds - FACT!
Madge inherited a bunch of West Tigers misfits
The main point of difference Salary Cap pressure and reserve grade players on Overs: Packer Mbye Reynolds McQueen

BTW pt 2 - I think you forgot the bloke that left Souths for a sunnier climate, when you spoke about "those that remained formed the cornerstone of finals etc" - a reasonably experienced codger called Wayne Bennett had a little bit to do with that.

Cheers
Click to expand...
I appreciate your reply but yes I think it's overly simplistic. You appear to have already reached a conclusion ("Madge does not get the credit for the players he developed") before you have raised your arguments.

I cannot understand any argument where the long-term first-grade coach of a club (he was there 6 years) does not get any credit for the performance of both established players and debutants during his tenure.

Adam Reynolds is a very appropriate example. Maybe he was in fact the best junior half ever in the Souths lower grades and maybe all those junior coaches hold 99% credit for his performance. Maybe also his parents and his high school coach get a cut, plus his parish priest , schoolboy friends and teenage girlfriend. Obviously the making of the rugby league player Adam Reynolds is a complicated project.

But Madge debuted him and he played his first 6 seasons under Madge. In fact Reynolds played more seasons under Madge than he has since under all other coaches combined. During this period under Madge Reynolds played his only Origin matches.

I cannot understand any argument that Madge gets no credit for the development and performance of Adam Reynolds. Maybe I could agree if it was only a transient correlation, but he was his FG coach for his first 6 years. Maybe Reynolds would still have achieved the same output if Trent Barrett was the Rabbits coach, but that's pure speculation.

So you can make your argument that the first grade coach doesn't get credit for the performance of the player first grade, but unfortunately that argument then nullifies any commentary about first grade performance, as it can equally apply to any player in the game. Most established first graders were notable junior footballers.

For example Stefano - he developed in the Eels juniors, so it your argument would be that Eels get the credit for his first grade career at Tigers, even though Madge signed him and set his development plan into the FG side. Similarly Benji is the product of the Kiwi Touch Football Association and a brief stint in QLD, and Tim Sheens gets no credit. Wayne Bennett cannot take any credit for Darius Boyd because he was not his junior coach.

In my opinion - either the first grade coach gets some credit for the performance of all his players whilst they are in his first grade side, or we don't give anyone credit at all and simply avoid talking about it.
 
jirskyr said:
I appreciate your reply but yes I think it's overly simplistic. You appear to have already reached a conclusion ("Madge does not get the credit for the players he developed") before you have raised your arguments.

I cannot understand any argument where the long-term first-grade coach of a club (he was there 6 years) does not get any credit for the performance of both established players and debutants during his tenure.

Adam Reynolds is a very appropriate example. Maybe he was in fact the best junior half ever in the Souths lower grades and maybe all those junior coaches hold 99% credit for his performance. Maybe also his parents and his high school coach get a cut, plus his parish priest , schoolboy friends and teenage girlfriend. Obviously the making of the rugby league player Adam Reynolds is a complicated project.

But Madge debuted him and he played his first 6 seasons under Madge. In fact Reynolds played more seasons under Madge than he has since under all other coaches combined. During this period under Madge Reynolds played his only Origin matches.

I cannot understand any argument that Madge gets no credit for the development and performance of Adam Reynolds. Maybe I could agree if it was only a transient correlation, but he was his FG coach for his first 6 years. Maybe Reynolds would still have achieved the same output if Trent Barrett was the Rabbits coach, but that's pure speculation.

So you can make your argument that the first grade coach doesn't get credit for the performance of the player first grade, but unfortunately that argument then nullifies any commentary about first grade performance, as it can equally apply to any player in the game. Most established first graders were notable junior footballers.

For example Stefano - he developed in the Eels juniors, so it your argument would be that Eels get the credit for his first grade career at Tigers, even though Madge signed him and set his development plan into the FG side. Similarly Benji is the product of the Kiwi Touch Football Association and a brief stint in QLD, and Tim Sheens gets no credit. Wayne Bennett cannot take any credit for Darius Boyd because he was not his junior coach.

In my opinion - either the first grade coach gets some credit for the performance of all his players whilst they are in his first grade side, or we don't give anyone credit at all and simply avoid talking about it.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, but Benji Marshall / Tim Sheens destroys your argument completly. Sheens held Benji back in order to develop him. He was a 17 yo kid at the time of his awakening.

Madge had a roster that had a Benji like maestro in Adam Reynolds at 22 not 17, come into first grade. That plus the FACT that Souths had a tremendous underperforming team with actual superstars that needed a spark, cos lets face it, Sandow was shit.

As for the 6 years stint - I made the factual point that Souths were in finals from day 1 for 4 years then fell in a heap cos who wants to be yelled at after being so successful? Sadly, at the Tigers, they got yelled at from day 1 under Madge, a hangover from the last two years of his time at the Bunnies. Living on his "Reputation as a successful coach" except he was the wrong type of coach for the rabble that we were at that time. I can't recall the other coaching candidates at the time but I reckon they would all have failed with the rubbish Cleary left.

As for giving credit where credit is due, the KOE Coach in Gardiner seemed to have a great rapport with a largely undeveloped squad. Sadly due to COVID that period of non-activity seemed to have affected the development of many players.

But why did other clubs survive the COVID fiasco and develop players like Nenai, Curran & Talakai? Too simplistic? Maybe doing things differently to us perhaps? Coaching techniques even?
 
LeichhardtTiger said:
I jumped onto www.rugbyleagueproject.org to reflect on Madge's time at the bunnies.
After John Lang got them to 9th & 10th following the disastrous JT period Madge was in charge from 2012.

Now Lang had a pretty handy squad back in 2011 - Main names Sam Burgess, Greg Inglis, Michael Crocker, Roy Asotasi, Issac Luke, Chris McQueen (the good version) James Roberts (the other good one) John Sutton, Chris Sandow & Dave Taylor.

So when Madge took over what happened? - cos they made the Prelim Final in 2012!

Well, not a lot actually - in fact Roy & Jimmy left & George B joined but only played 3 games off the bench. So what happened - Enter Adam Reynolds! The only significant move in that 1st Madge season.

They made the Prelim Final again in 2013.

Fast forward to 2014 - What did the Squad look like in just 2 years?

SPEED to burn - In the backs: Greg Ingliss, Alex Johnson, Kirisome Auva'A, Luke Keary, Lote Tuquiri, Dylan Walker, Mobile forwards to balance the Burgess brute force: Api Koroisau, Kyle Turner, Ben T'eo, John Sutton into the forwards.

They smashed the Dog's big men to smithereens.

IN 2015 they made the Qual Final from 7th and thus were never a real chance. Then 12th in consecutive years and Madge is off to England.

Was Madge a development coach? - probably not. He already had the nucleus of a very good team when he arrived.

With Sam Burgess and Greg Inglis in your stable, you'd be pretty happy. Did he need to develop Ben T'eo, Lote? Nope. Plus he had plenty of depth players who'd been around the park - like Joel Reddy & Bryson Goodwin and a young bloke at heart in Robbie Farah. That's not to say that some of the young ones like Cameron McInnes & Angus Crichton didn't benefit from their time at Souffs but arguably McInnes & Crichton were fully developed at Cronulla & Easts respectively whilst Damien Cook & Cody Walker both started 1st Grade in their mid 20s so they had matured certainly but weren't on the radar as Development players.

BTW Reynolds won the Rookie of the year Award in 2012 debuting at the ripe old age of 22 after missing 2011 with an ACL. But the point being that Adam was already a superstar having played NSW U/17s in 2007 then progressing through the Bunnies Toyota Cup U/20s team making the GF in 2010. Madge wasn't in the club at that time.

So, compare Madge's arrival here to his Bunnies arrival - a salary cap mess and players not worth the Dencorub bill vs superstars in Burgess & Inglis. That there was our dilemma - wrong type of coach for the time of our product life cycle!

I guess the expectation at the time was that we needed a coach who would rearrange the Titanic deckchairs. A tough disciplinarian expected to turn broken bums into well-oiled machines or move them on was a task too far. It created disharmony & the Matterson issue really reinforced our reputation as a basketcase club. He succeeded at The Bunnies quickly because he had the cattle.- 4 years of finals and a GF win, not bad!

So the last years at the Bunnies, if reports are true, may have resembled our terrible Wild West expose! But seriously, how many times would you put up with being yelled at?

Apologies for the long post but having got that off my chest I must say I am quietly confident that Sheens will prevail with Ciraldo who may just be the 5-year solution.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Exactly right. Madge winning a comp with Souths in 2014 was always a false positive when talking about his prospects at the Tigers. They were different contexts.
 
TSP said:
We paid Packer what $2.4m and the biggest contribution he made to the club was running over Mattā€™s and breaking every bone in his body.

Sometimes when youā€™re a WT fan, this is simply a cost of doing business and nobody raises an eyebrow.

Very matter of fact, nothing to see and the caravan rolls on.

Thatā€™s us, thatā€™s who we are and in our DNA.

We just approach the whole league circus differently!
Click to expand...
Higher. It was a four year deal
 
  • Like
Reactions: TSP
LeichhardtTiger said:
You are one of the best forum posters yet the call that Madge debuted Reynolds is simply missing the point that I made. Reynolds was already in the South's system. Madge didn't develop Reynolds - he gave a potential superstar a shot that's for sure but it was under other coaches that he learnt his trade & that after a year in rehab well before Madge arrived. As for Cook & Walker they didn't play 1st grade until 25 & 26 respectively. BTW that was after Souths had won in 2014, but you knew that. That's not development it's a Bellamy trait of giving workhorses a job to do.

BTW Did you not read the list of players Madge inherited? - established 1st graders - Superstars in Burgess & Inglis, not young pups or scrubbers with turf toe. The Burgess brothers recruited the Burgess brothers (thanks to uncle Russell) Madge had nothing to do with their recruitment.

Api, McInnes & Crichton all moved away from Madge - so much for Development. Sure Api who will be older than he is today signed for Madge next year. Penrith wouldn't have let him go if they didn't need him.

BTW pt 1 my post was hardly overly simplistic - it is a fact:

Madge inherited an underperforming star-studded Souths lineup
The only point of difference was Adam Reynolds - FACT!
Madge inherited a bunch of West Tigers misfits
The main point of difference Salary Cap pressure and reserve grade players on Overs: Packer Mbye Reynolds McQueen

BTW pt 2 - I think you forgot the bloke that left Souths for a sunnier climate, when you spoke about "those that remained formed the cornerstone of finals etc" - a reasonably experienced codger called Wayne Bennett had a little bit to do with that.

Cheers
Click to expand...
This is the question I've been going on about for weeks now.
The new word for the day is "development" coach.
It should be renamed "finishing touches coach" because I don't believe that a first grade coach can develop a player in pathways entirely, that comes from the so called pathways coaches.
It's the flegg coaches..the under 8's coach for that matter.
A young player needs to be taught all the basics of rugby league.
An NRL coach shouldn't have to teach someone fundamental footy.
Really the proper name for a coach is manager.
The way in which all the good the coaches that I played under were those who gave extra time to those who needed help, eg. taking the halves aside while the team did some defensive work, and explained to them what he wanted to see then just put those 2 through some drills..."finishing touches"
Our new coach can also put his stamp on lower grades and feeders by telling or showing the pathways coaching director how he wants young players to be coached so by the time the reach NRL they are already on board and only need that bit of cream on top to play well.
In essence, a development coach is only as good as the product supplied to him by pathway coaches.
Talent, determination, toughness and that something special has to be there in the first place for the coach to mold a winning side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cobarcats said:
This is the question I've been going on about for weeks now.
The new word for the day is "development" coach.
It should be renamed "finishing touches coach" because I don't believe that a first grade coach can develop a player in pathways entirely, that comes from the so called pathways coaches.
It's the flegg coaches..the under 8's coach for that matter.
A young player needs to be taught all the basics of rugby league.
An NRL coach shouldn't have to teach someone fundamental footy.
Really the proper name for a coach is manager.
The way in which all the good the coaches that I played under were those who gave extra time to those who needed help, eg. taking the halves aside while the team did some defensive work, and explained to them what he wanted to see then just put those 2 through some drills..."finishing touches"
Our new coach can also put his stamp on lower grades and feeders by telling or showing the pathways coaching director how he wants young players to be coached so by the time the reach NRL they are already on board and only need that bit of cream on top to play well.
In essence, a development coach is only as good as the product supplied to him by pathway coaches.
Talent, determination, toughness and that something special has to be there in the first place for the coach to mold a winning side.
Click to expand...
Iā€™d say Madge was more the example of a finishing touches coach and I believe there are more then even just the two varieties of coaches.
Wayne Bennett would also be an example of a finishing touches coach.
I think Madge was invested in rebuilding / redeveloping the tigers and his vision was aligned with what the Tigers are hoping to achieve but ultimately I think his delivery and patients with his squad let him down.
Anyway. Your second point regarding coaching a style. I believe this is the most important factor in bringing sheens on board and I see the creation or identity of our style will be developed from the juniors up, not round the other way.
The first grade coach will have input collectively but may have to coach to the style already ingrained in the club.
Iā€™d say Noddys job being the current development coach at the pathways level, is to bring the first grade team in line with the style they want to see the club play throughout.
Those that canā€™t adapt and struggle with the change may have to look at other clubs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 329 (members: 9, guests: 320)
Back
Top