Sheens future Safe at Wests Tigers

[Guest]

Really liking what I'm seeing from the new and improved CT. Remarkable how much more informative and valuable a serious post like that is. Good insight.

 

[supercoach]

Really liking what I'm seeing from the new and improved CT. Remarkable how much more informative and valuable a serious post like that is. Good insight.

Than it all goes out the window when he starts the Fitzy talk!!!

 

[Staks]

So it's ok to take pot shots at Fitzy at every opportunity but when CT praises him it's a NO-NO, is called spam and not offering anything towards the topic at hand. Some of you really need to look at your own posts before throwing your weight around.

 

[Balmain_Bug]

Coaching is a lot more than just win/loss ratios and stats guys.
Coaching is about being a mentor to players, being able to communicate and develop young players of the modern era and much more. If the players have the mutual respect of the coach, then that is already key to long term success. No respect, no long term success. Simple as that.
Many saw today what is involved to coach a team and run the club. Did you see a bunch of rabble out there on the field at Concord? A bunch of misfits who looked like the Bad News Bears or Mighty Ducks? You saw a professional outfit who have their game on whether it be behind closed doors or open to public.
One main thing i usually consider when i look at a coach's ability is: Do players improve under that coach. If the answer is yes, they that is also a tick of approval towards long term success. If players become stagnant more often than not, then this usually sets off alarm bells for me meaning there is actually coaching techniques applied incorrectly or inefficiently.
As far as players who have come and gone under the Sheens regime, IMO i would say Tim has a fairly decent strike rate, regardless of a player's natural ability. There are a few that come to mind but not many player's careers that Sheens has ruined so to speak.
In recent times i have monitored Brian Smith's coaching abilities, and have found myself asking a few questions to make sense of what has happened to him and how he became sacked from a few clubs which have left plenty scratching their heads. From what we all know of him and how he handles himself publicly, he is a no nonsense type of coach, who is willing to call a spade a spade. Clean out the house with a dust broom and get his hands dirty.
I usually think this has a lot to do with hierarchy within a club and how the coach imposes himself within that club. For example, Brian Smith has gone to clubs and really turned their fortunes and momentum around in years gone by, and after he manages to do so, there is a following trend…they turn on him and bite the hand that feeds. From players to club boards. There must be a lot more to this that meets the eye. I've come to a few theories of how this may eventuate. It can come to either a coach who gives his players too much power, or a board who does not like the authority of power the coach has introduced to a club, to clubs who are hard set in their "traditional" ways and not willing to accommodate for change.
There are certain key people who should hold a lot of power at a club: coach, club CEO, club board, team captain. When the power of authority is not in the correct order, then usually this is the start of the in-house problems arising.
We all saw what happened when Longmuir was promoted from within, there were a few things which went under the radar to which has not even been made public. And not long after, with Humphreys at the helm, the club once again takes a sharp turn. From what happens within the club heirarchy, always rears itself in true form in public which can be seen when put under the microscope.
Now going back to Sheens, i sometimes question his selections, but they are just experimental or plans he has in place, which is fair enough. Many of which i don't agree on, but that is just personal. I've even thought he's lost the plot with what he does sometimes!! But boxes of approval are ticked for thinking differently and outside the square.
But as far as i'm concerned as he is the club coach, then i really don't see a need for warranting sacking at this stage. I believe he holds the correct amount of power at the club to make things happen. That is one of the main objectives for WT long term success. Many on here hail the great Humphreys for what he has already achieved since his inception, but you can thank Sheens a lot for what has happened too. Many of you don't see what is going on behind closed doors at the club to suggest otherwise.
If Sheens has the backing of the board, his CEO, his team captain and the rest of the key staff and most of all, the mutual respect from the players, then that in itself means he must be doing something right at the WT and can only be a good thing.

Very good post as per usual CT. I agree with what you mean about stats.

I agree with 95% of what you have written. **Do you think he should be retained in his position if we dont make the Semi's this year though?** Even if all the other box's are ticked?

A company can have the best moral, the best structure, the best training, the best development, the best medical care, the best equipment etc. Companies put all these things together to achieve success where they need to.

So WT have all the boxes ticked, but the equation is not adding up. We are not winning as many games as what we are losing and have not done so in 4 years. So the outcome is not what it is supposed to be. Where are we faulting? Is it the actual team selections and positional selections? Yes it is.

When we did win more games than what we lost in 2005, were all the box's ticked? No they weren't. Our structure was not as good as it is now but players were picked in their best positions.

So ultimately what I want to say is that I agree with you 95%. What I have been saying on these forums is that the Fonz has been directly responsible for us not getting into the semifinals because of his selections, his ideas and his bias of picking some players over others.

That is all I am and have been saying. At the end pf the day, in 2010 there will be no excuses like he has thrown up in the years prior. He has not kept the players coming off contract and he has signed some others. This side is exactly what the Fonz wants minus one front rower (his words).

He himself has recognised that there are no excuses.

Hopefully he can have a successful year.

 

[crouching_tiger]

**Do you think he should be retained in his position if we dont make the Semi's this year though?** Even if all the other box's are ticked?

Yes.
As long as he himself improves on the areas he has failed to deliver on in the past. Nobody is perfect in their job but if they make changes to improve areas of fault, then that in my books doesn't warrant sacking.
In 2006 and 2007, Sheens continued the same strategies which "fluked"(to some extent) him a competition to which the NRL rules would not allow him to do so. Was that a mistake in my view? Yes and no. Yes, i do believe that trying to outpace an and be a less sizeable and more mobile forward pack is a great idea. Many other NRL clubs have realised and adopted this from their old school bash and barge type footy with a combination and ability to do both nowadays. But the players will tell you this, in 2006 they got the hammering of their lives every week when they ran out on the field, being the "defending premiers" is not as simple and prestigeous as it may sound. Every single team runs out to belt you for that reason alone. This is where Sheens i believe may have underestimated the rules which didn't allow for that same style of football. No, it was not a mistake in trying the same technique that won the club their maiden trophy. Sheens was not to know the rule changes to slow the play the ball was to have such a big impact on the WT style of play. Would you tell me that you wouldn't attempt to recreate the same methods if it was already once successful?
2007, Sheens should have and did attempt to bolster his pack but financially we do not know if the club was able to help provide this with the loss of Prince and having to buy a player simple just to cover this weakened area, with the same results and still trying to same technique which "fluked"(to some extent) him a competition. Once again, the NRL rule changes proved that a team could not play this type of football and expect to win the competition.

**IMO This should have been the point Sheens should really have made the necessary changes to turn things around. After 2 seasons of not delivering a back up to 2005.**

Now before anyone denies 2005 was a fluke to an extent, then you are kidding yourselves. Sheens openly stated at the start of 2004 that he was aiming to deliver WT fans a premiership in 2006\. One year AFTER they actually did. But i don't doubt for a second that it was his coaching which made the difference in getting the boys through in certain areas. I know for FACT that our players were told to preserve their fitness against the Panthers in late 2005 when we smashed them in the opening few mins to lead 18-0(?) and then went on to lose that match. I also know for FACT that WT strategically positioned themselves on the finals standing to avoid playing Storm that year. This is where Sheens experience and knowledge and coaching played the vital role of getting the team through to the grand final and in with the best possible chance to win.

Onto 2008 and 2009, WT began locking down key contracts and looking to rebuild for the future. Many of you will have noted that players such as Lawrence, Ryan, Galloway, Moltzen are all getting to a stage now where they can be classified as "seasoned" NRL players with match experience under their belts. Still all without "big match" experience which will come in due course.
All this i believe is ALL part of the rebuilding process when a club begins to lose their Premiership winning players and time to regenerate. We HAVE seen this happen before our own very eyes. Many may not see it now, but they will in time.
WT have not had the financial luxuries to be able to maintain a team for a few years such as other clubs, but i think there are some changes being made here right now.

Where are we faulting? Is it the actual team selections and positional selections? Yes it is.

WT are faulting in many areas. But if you honestly think it all comes down to JUST the team and positional selections then i think that is just looking for an area to point the finger of blame. Although IMO i also think this is a key area where Sheens needs to improve.
But can you honestly tell me that if Farah doesn't kick the ball out on the full in that crucial match to get the Tigers in the top 8, loses his feelings in his legs due to an injection or Ben Te'o manages to get trapped with the ball on a crucial play, referee 50/50 calls go against us, that this is Sheens' doing?? With many factors at play, such as the players on field and also the ability to follow through with the coach's instructions,club financial disposition, WT make the playoffs and all these stats of "1 finals appearance in 20years" rubbish goes out the door.
These are areas which are out of a coach's control.
IMO i believe the NRL is corrupt to an extent where most 50/50 calls go to the underdogs in each match. ONLY "good teams" can overcome this hurdle. Don't believe me? Pay closer attention to the refereeing this season. Lets just hope that these players have become one of these "good teams" now.

When we did win more games than what we lost in 2005, were all the box's ticked? No they weren't. Our structure was not as good as it is now but players were picked in their best positions.

If i recall WT saved up their pennies and spent up big to bring the likes of Hodgson, Whatuira, Richards, Prince etc to the WT. A similar trend i see happening once again in 2010.
But a point which is hard to argue with. Sheens' selections do my head in too Bug! This is no secret.
but if you believe Laffranchi is a prop i will deadset give the game away!
\

So ultimately what I want to say is that I agree with you 95%. What I have been saying on these forums is that the Fonz has been **directly responsible** for us not getting into the semifinals because of his selections, his ideas and his bias of picking some players over others.

You won't see me disagree there…except this bit.

 

[Balmain_Bug]

**Do you think he should be retained in his position if we dont make the Semi's this year though?** Even if all the other box's are ticked?

Yes.
As long as he himself improves on the areas he has failed to deliver on in the past. Nobody is perfect in their job but if they make changes to improve areas of fault, then that in my books doesn't warrant sacking.
In 2006 and 2007, Sheens continued the same strategies which "fluked"(to some extent) him a competition to which the NRL rules would not allow him to do so. Was that a mistake in my view? Yes and no. Yes, i do believe that trying to outpace an and be a less sizeable and more mobile forward pack is a great idea. Many other NRL clubs have realised and adopted this from their old school bash and barge type footy with a combination and ability to do both nowadays. But the players will tell you this, in 2006 they got the hammering of their lives every week when they ran out on the field, being the "defending premiers" is not as simple and prestigeous as it may sound. Every single team runs out to belt you for that reason alone. This is where Sheens i believe may have underestimated the rules which didn't allow for that same style of football. No, it was not a mistake in trying the same technique that won the club their maiden trophy. Sheens was not to know the rule changes to slow the play the ball was to have such a big impact on the WT style of play. Would you tell me that you wouldn't attempt to recreate the same methods if it was already once successful?
2007, Sheens should have and did attempt to bolster his pack but financially we do not know if the club was able to help provide this with the loss of Prince and having to buy a player simple just to cover this weakened area, with the same results and still trying to same technique which "fluked"(to some extent) him a competition. Once again, the NRL rule changes proved that a team could not play this type of football and expect to win the competition.

**IMO This should have been the point Sheens should really have made the necessary changes to turn things around. After 2 seasons of not delivering a back up to 2005.**

Now before anyone denies 2005 was a fluke to an extent, then you are kidding yourselves. Sheens openly stated at the start of 2004 that he was aiming to deliver WT fans a premiership in 2006\. One year AFTER they actually did. But i don't doubt for a second that it was his coaching which made the difference in getting the boys through in certain areas. I know for FACT that our players were told to preserve their fitness against the Panthers in late 2005 when we smashed them in the opening few mins to lead 18-0(?) and then went on to lose that match. I also know for FACT that WT strategically positioned themselves on the finals standing to avoid playing Storm that year. This is where Sheens experience and knowledge and coaching played the vital role of getting the team through to the grand final and in with the best possible chance to win.

Onto 2008 and 2009, WT began locking down key contracts and looking to rebuild for the future. Many of you will have noted that players such as Lawrence, Ryan, Galloway, Moltzen are all getting to a stage now where they can be classified as "seasoned" NRL players with match experience under their belts. Still all without "big match" experience which will come in due course.
All this i believe is ALL part of the rebuilding process when a club begins to lose their Premiership winning players and time to regenerate. We HAVE seen this happen before our own very eyes. Many may not see it now, but they will in time.
WT have not had the financial luxuries to be able to maintain a team for a few years such as other clubs, but i think there are some changes being made here right now.

Where are we faulting? Is it the actual team selections and positional selections? Yes it is.

WT are faulting in many areas. But if you honestly think it all comes down to JUST the team and positional selections then i think that is just looking for an area to point the finger of blame. Although IMO i also think this is a key area where Sheens needs to improve.
But can you honestly tell me that if Farah doesn't kick the ball out on the full in that crucial match to get the Tigers in the top 8, loses his feelings in his legs due to an injection or Ben Te'o manages to get trapped with the ball on a crucial play, referee 50/50 calls go against us, that this is Sheens' doing?? With many factors at play, such as the players on field and also the ability to follow through with the coach's instructions,club financial disposition, WT make the playoffs and all these stats of "1 finals appearance in 20years" rubbish goes out the door.
These are areas which are out of a coach's control.
IMO i believe the NRL is corrupt to an extent where most 50/50 calls go to the underdogs in each match. ONLY "good teams" can overcome this hurdle. Don't believe me? Pay closer attention to the refereeing this season. Lets just hope that these players have become one of these "good teams" now.

When we did win more games than what we lost in 2005, were all the box's ticked? No they weren't. Our structure was not as good as it is now but players were picked in their best positions.

If i recall WT saved up their pennies and spent up big to bring the likes of Hodgson, Whatuira, Richards, Prince etc to the WT. A similar trend i see happening once again in 2010.
But a point which is hard to argue with. Sheens' selections do my head in too Bug! This is no secret.
but if you believe Laffranchi is a prop i will deadset give the game away!
\

So ultimately what I want to say is that I agree with you 95%. What I have been saying on these forums is that the Fonz has been **directly responsible** for us not getting into the semifinals because of his selections, his ideas and his bias of picking some players over others.

You won't see me disagree there…except this bit.

\
\
\
Ok, am now agreeing with you 97.5%.

:slight_smile:

 

[crouching_tiger]

Ok, am now agreeing with you 97.5%.

:slight_smile:

Why does everything have to have a % with you Bug? I think you need to start drinking some 5.2% beers with me at games!! :wink:

 

[hybrid_tiger]

So you would give him a five year deal which basically means we could finish last every year and he would still have a job. Genius.

Pressure is a part of coaching and its a results based business.

Yet you rate Brian Smith with no result since about 1985 as a better coach than Sheens. Take the blinkers off.

Err, when did I ever say Smith was a better coach than Sheens? Please point this out to me? All I said was Smith unfairly cops a pasting because he hasn't won a comp. He has turned rabble teams into genuine forces and gets absolutely no credit for it.

Regardless, a five year deal for any coach is just ridiculous stupidity and I maintain that if we don't make the semi finals this season and you still want Sheens coaching us in 2011, then you're an absolute idiot.

 

[southerntiger]

Not only is it stupid but it is unnecessary.

I do like Sheens and think he has done an amazing job with this club. However, subject to certain factors, I would agree that if we dont make the finals this year, his position is untenable. I believe Sheens himself would probably agree.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

Not only is it stupid but it is unnecessary.

I do like Sheens and think he has done an amazing job with this club. However, subject to certain factors, I would agree that if we dont make the finals this year, his position is untenable. I believe Sheens himself would probably agree.

I agree with you.

And just for the record I don't want Sheens sacked now, never said that. I don't think Sheens is a bad coach at all, and generally speaking he's done a great job for us.

However I believe we've dropped the ball since winning the comp.

Just because I believe this doesn't automatically mean I think Sheens is a crap coach. I just don't think he's a "supercoach", I dont think he deserves a lifetime contract and I don't think he should remain free of criticis despite mediocre results. That is all.

 

[Knuckles]

I think STT sums it up best when he says the Wests Tigers are very fortunate to have had Tim Sheens as its coach. When the day comes that Tim does move on, he will leave the club in better shape to what he inherited. That to me is success.

 

[The_Tooth]

With stats flying around left right and centre, I just want to add one factor that has had a huge bearing on our final position on the ladder each season. Scott Prince.

I think its a very fair argument to say if he was still with us we would have won atleast 2 or 3 more games each year. Enough to secure a finals campaign each year. Excluding 2006 with Benji's injuries.

The point is a coach can look incredibly good, average or plain hopeless depending on his squad. Bugger the stats, they just cannot take all aspects into account.

Considering the loss of a key member and rep player in Prince along with the likes of Laffranchi and Richards, I feel we haven't gone backwards in any way. We haven't exactly gone forward either, but we have rebuilt and ahould be ready for another charge (now that Sheens has the squad to do so).

 

[hybrid_tiger]

With stats flying around left right and centre, I just want to add one factor that has had a huge bearing on our final position on the ladder each season. Scott Prince.

I think its a very fair argument to say if he was still with us we would have won atleast 2 or 3 more games each year. Enough to secure a finals campaign each year. Excluding 2006 with Benji's injuries.

The point is a coach can look incredibly good, average or plain hopeless depending on his squad. Bugger the stats, they just cannot take all aspects into account.

Considering the loss of a key member and rep player in Prince along with the likes of Laffranchi and Richards, I feel we haven't gone backwards in any way. We haven't exactly gone forward either, but we have rebuilt and ahould be ready for another charge (now that Sheens has the squad to do so).

Sheens signed John Morris to replace Prince. No more comment needed on that one.

 

[southerntiger]

Yep and he made a mistake. Which coach hasnt made poor recruitment decisions at time. I actually think if Benji had played as well as he did in 2005 Morris wouldnt have looked half bad. Prince didnt look that crash hot in 2006 with Benji out injured.

 

[The_Tooth]

With stats flying around left right and centre, I just want to add one factor that has had a huge bearing on our final position on the ladder each season. Scott Prince.

I think its a very fair argument to say if he was still with us we would have won atleast 2 or 3 more games each year. Enough to secure a finals campaign each year. Excluding 2006 with Benji's injuries.

The point is a coach can look incredibly good, average or plain hopeless depending on his squad. Bugger the stats, they just cannot take all aspects into account.

Considering the loss of a key member and rep player in Prince along with the likes of Laffranchi and Richards, I feel we haven't gone backwards in any way. We haven't exactly gone forward either, but we have rebuilt and ahould be ready for another charge (now that Sheens has the squad to do so).

Sheens signed John Morris to replace Prince. No more comment needed on that one.

And his other options were?

 

[hybrid_tiger]

With stats flying around left right and centre, I just want to add one factor that has had a huge bearing on our final position on the ladder each season. Scott Prince.

I think its a very fair argument to say if he was still with us we would have won atleast 2 or 3 more games each year. Enough to secure a finals campaign each year. Excluding 2006 with Benji's injuries.

The point is a coach can look incredibly good, average or plain hopeless depending on his squad. Bugger the stats, they just cannot take all aspects into account.

Considering the loss of a key member and rep player in Prince along with the likes of Laffranchi and Richards, I feel we haven't gone backwards in any way. We haven't exactly gone forward either, but we have rebuilt and ahould be ready for another charge (now that Sheens has the squad to do so).

Sheens signed John Morris to replace Prince. No more comment needed on that one.

And his other options were?

So the justification for signing a mediocre utility and playing him at halfback (IMO the most important position on the field) is because there were apparently no other options? Promote one of our juniors. Or sign someone else. Yes good halfbacks are hard to come by, but we could have done FAR better than Morris. (which admittedly would not have been very hard).

Anyway, this topic has been done to death. Let's re-visit this thread at the end of the season.

 

[The_Tooth]

As terrible as it sounds I'm more happy that Morris is gone then I am about the inclusion of Tuquiri. Not to contradict myself as I can understand the gamble Sheens took on Morris (an experienced hard worker playing 5/8 with a strong Parra team at the time), but it was a dismal failure and painful to put up with. Worse than his acquisition was that that Sheens persisted with him.

Yeah, its in Sheens hands now. And agian I feel the telling factor is what he does with the number 7 yet again. This time he has options within and a change can be as soon as a week away. Lets hope he uses the depth of this squad.

 

[Knuckles]

I think you're right Tooth. The Benji to half didn't work and the Farah to half didn't work and the purchase of Morris didn't work either. Tim did say it was hard to recruit any name player to come to the Wests Tigers but that looks to be changing now. Finding someone to replace Scott Prince has turned out harder than we all thought and we've all suffered as a result. But it does appear we have half back covered now.

 

[Balmain_Bug]

Ok, am now agreeing with you 97.5%.

:slight_smile:

Why does everything have to have a % with you Bug? I think you need to start drinking some 5.2% beers with me at games!! :wink:

I agree 100%.

 

[Eddie]

Yep and he made a mistake. Which coach hasnt made poor recruitment decisions at time. I actually think if Benji had played as well as he did in 2005 Morris wouldnt have looked half bad. Prince didnt look that crash hot in 2006 with Benji out injured.

Your right he should not be crucified for making a mistake. However he should be crucified for failing to recognise his mistake 2-3 years on. Thats the problem with some of Tim Sheens mistakes. They are repeated and repeated criminally. Whether it is ego, or pride or whatever. Anyway I think this past 6 months he is starting to sound a lot clearer. I saw the lowest the 5 SMH Journos had us finishing this season was 5th. So there will be no hiding this season.

Have a winning season for the first time in 5, then go and collect your new deal. Earn it.