SMH: Maguire not the problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
@red88_tiger said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334735) said:
@jirskyr said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334731) said:
@furious1 said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334413) said:
If the powerbrokers are asking the question of this figure, maybe they should be approaching the person for a paid role in getting this place sorted.

My guess it's Phil Gould, and whether or not that guess is accurate, I would suspect the "powerbroker" is either not interested or too busy to become a Tigers consultant. Gould has that gig with Warriors in 2021, time will tell if it makes a difference, because they are traveling no better than us.

There are a lot of folks in rugby league who actually don't have much skin in the game, upon which it's easy to provide feedback and suggestions. And I'm not saying the commentary isn't valid, just that it's a different thing to give advice compared to actually having to execute the advice.

Lee also sponsors the blues so it could be Freddy

The thing is Gould made several comments on social media about it not being the coach.
 
@jirskyr said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334731) said:
@furious1 said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334413) said:
If the powerbrokers are asking the question of this figure, maybe they should be approaching the person for a paid role in getting this place sorted.

My guess it's Phil Gould, and whether or not that guess is accurate, I would suspect the "powerbroker" is either not interested or too busy to become a Tigers consultant. Gould has that gig with Warriors in 2021, time will tell if it makes a difference, because they are traveling no better than us.

There are a lot of folks in rugby league who actually don't have much skin in the game, upon which it's easy to provide feedback and suggestions. And I'm not saying the commentary isn't valid, just that it's a different thing to give advice compared to actually having to execute the advice.

Probably was, we could do alot worse then listening to Gus.
Commentary is garbage but understands the game

Im all for Brooks moving on after 10 years, its not all his fault but he isn't part of the solution
a sea change for all involved.
Will probably extend his career as well
 
@jirskyr said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334738) said:
@red88_tiger said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334735) said:
@jirskyr said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334731) said:
@furious1 said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334413) said:
If the powerbrokers are asking the question of this figure, maybe they should be approaching the person for a paid role in getting this place sorted.

My guess it's Phil Gould, and whether or not that guess is accurate, I would suspect the "powerbroker" is either not interested or too busy to become a Tigers consultant. Gould has that gig with Warriors in 2021, time will tell if it makes a difference, because they are traveling no better than us.

There are a lot of folks in rugby league who actually don't have much skin in the game, upon which it's easy to provide feedback and suggestions. And I'm not saying the commentary isn't valid, just that it's a different thing to give advice compared to actually having to execute the advice.

Lee also sponsors the blues so it could be Freddy

The thing is Gould made several comments on social media about it not being the coach.

Probably a better bet. Joey and Freddy do parrot and idolise Gus a lot though
 
@innsaneink said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334428) said:
.............. At half time one of the most respected figures in rugby league walked into the corporate suite full of Tigers directors and hanger-onners to an avalanche of questions............

Blocker?

Nah they said "respected" :joy: Hopefully Gould, at least he has some clue of what he's talking about.
 
@cultured_bogan said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334635) said:
@geo said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334594) said:
Chammas best bud Sam Ayoub..Sam Ayoub manages Jackson Hastings..interesting..

Club drip feeds Chammas as well too though.

I've been told Tigers don't have a special relationship with any one journalist, even ones they dislike they can't simply avoid because that's not how rugby league journalism works.

So I wouldn't assume that one journo or another has inside running every time they go to print.
 
@innsaneink said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334428) said:
.............. At half time one of the most respected figures in rugby league walked into the corporate suite full of Tigers directors and hanger-onners to an avalanche of questions............

Blocker?

I wonder whether Gus ducked in there during the channel 9 halftime break.
 
@jirskyr said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334731) said:
@furious1 said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334413) said:
If the powerbrokers are asking the question of this figure, maybe they should be approaching the person for a paid role in getting this place sorted.

My guess it's Phil Gould, and whether or not that guess is accurate, I would suspect the "powerbroker" is either not interested or too busy to become a Tigers consultant. Gould has that gig with Warriors in 2021, time will tell if it makes a difference, because they are traveling no better than us.

There are a lot of folks in rugby league who actually don't have much skin in the game, upon which it's easy to provide feedback and suggestions. And I'm not saying the commentary isn't valid, just that it's a different thing to give advice compared to actually having to execute the advice.

They've beaten the Titans and the Raiders. They are travelling much better than us. Yes they lost to Manly but we wouldn't have beaten Manly in a million years.
 
@jirskyr said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334736) said:
It’s funny, I hate most players that leave Tigers, however if Brooks was to leave and find success somewhere else, a little part of me would feel happy for him.

Same. The only other former Tiger I cheer is Thommo.
 
@sco77y said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334750) said:
@innsaneink said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334428) said:
.............. At half time one of the most respected figures in rugby league walked into the corporate suite full of Tigers directors and hanger-onners to an avalanche of questions............

Blocker?

Nah they said "respected" :joy: Hopefully Gould, at least he has some clue of what he's talking about.

I find it strange that anyone on this forum is unaware of the disdain that Gould has for Wests.
It's even more annoying that the architect of the greatest piece of treachery perpetrated on this club would ever be mentioned in a positive light.
Gould is loathsome.
He never misses an opportunity to kick the club when it's down with a snide tweet or remark.
 
The bottom line is the main reason to keep Madge on is stability and because of all the negative stuff before...

In other words, keep him because of so many problems in the past...not based on his own record / coaching.

This is a huge issue as, yes, we need stability. Big time.

But we also need a good coach and his record to date has been very poor...there seems no real game plan and the D is terrible.

So, do we let the past instability dictate we keep him? I don't know.
 
@bigscreentv said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334622) said:
The rules change to enable piggy-back sets off poor discipline in the ruck. Maguire response? Let’s build a massive, immobile forward pack for 2021 - he’s not a progressive thinker…the best coaches are.

In defence of all coaches the 6-again rule only began in Round 3 2020, which means only 1 offseason to prepare and the minimal amount of time to adjust your roster. Nobody is going to be shaping their rosters to that extent in just 12 months, it's not realistic.
 
@elleryhanley said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334761) said:
The bottom line is the main reason to keep Madge on is stability and because of all the negative stuff before...

In other words, keep him because of so many problems in the past...not based on his own record / coaching.

This is a huge issue as, yes, we need stability. Big time.

But we also need a good coach and his record to date has been very poor...there seems no real game plan and the D is terrible.

So, do we let the past instability dictate we keep him? I don't know.

There are no coaches available with a long term proven track record of being better than Madge. John Morris has done well in a short period but people said the same of Seibold at Souths. If we sack Madge and the next coach turns out to be a dud, that will be the end of this club.
 
@jirskyr said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334752) said:
@cultured_bogan said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334635) said:
@geo said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334594) said:
Chammas best bud Sam Ayoub..Sam Ayoub manages Jackson Hastings..interesting..

Club drip feeds Chammas as well too though.

I've been told Tigers don't have a special relationship with any one journalist, even ones they don't dislike they can't simply avoid because that's not how rugby league journalism works.

So I wouldn't assume that one journo or another has inside running every time they go to print.

Yeah fair enough, I get the feeling just by his journalism regarding the club appears to be either better reasoned or first to break. Just came to the conclusion that some at the club might be directing the narrative. Kinda the same way Crawley simps for Bennett.
 
@dwight-schrute said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334760) said:
@sco77y said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334750) said:
@innsaneink said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334428) said:
.............. At half time one of the most respected figures in rugby league walked into the corporate suite full of Tigers directors and hanger-onners to an avalanche of questions............

Blocker?

Nah they said "respected" :joy: Hopefully Gould, at least he has some clue of what he's talking about.

I find it strange that anyone on this forum is unaware of the disdain that Gould has for Wests.
It's even more annoying that the architect of the greatest piece of treachery perpetrated on this club would ever be mentioned in a positive light.
Gould is loathsome.
He never misses an opportunity to kick the club when it's down with a snide tweet or remark.

Didn't he lose his job as a part of Ivan being returned?
 
Your patience can be tested but that first half performance on Sunday was all about effort and attitude.”

The Wests Tigers lost 34-30 and were booed off the paddock at half-time, trailing 28-6.

**“This is something no administration has got control over,” Hagipantelis said.**

“Once the boys cross that line and run onto the paddock they’ve got to do their jobs.


What garbage.... They weren't ready, they didn't turn up... That's meant to be addressed by the head cosch BEFORE and in the lead up to the game
 
@avocadoontoast said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334756) said:
@jirskyr said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334731) said:
@furious1 said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334413) said:
If the powerbrokers are asking the question of this figure, maybe they should be approaching the person for a paid role in getting this place sorted.

My guess it's Phil Gould, and whether or not that guess is accurate, I would suspect the "powerbroker" is either not interested or too busy to become a Tigers consultant. Gould has that gig with Warriors in 2021, time will tell if it makes a difference, because they are traveling no better than us.

There are a lot of folks in rugby league who actually don't have much skin in the game, upon which it's easy to provide feedback and suggestions. And I'm not saying the commentary isn't valid, just that it's a different thing to give advice compared to actually having to execute the advice.

They've beaten the Titans and the Raiders. They are travelling much better than us. Yes they lost to Manly but we wouldn't have beaten Manly in a million years.

We beat Manly 6 weeks ago. Don't come and qualify with "yeah but they left players out, it was a trial" etc. - you can only play and beat what is in front of you.

Yes Warriors beat Titans, Rd 1, but they couldn't beat the Knights, who we did beat. They got over an injury-depleted Raiders at the death, and almost lost it. 1 win more than Tigers in 2021. Lost to Manly. 100% loss record to teams outside the Top 8. Couldn't ice the Manly game.

I find it very hard to accept an argument that Warriors are traveling much better than Tigers. Maybe in 5+ rounds we can look at it again.
 
@jc99 said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334420) said:
@tony-soprano said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334418) said:
@jc99 said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334412) said:
I don't think Brooks is the main problem but he's clearly not a 7.... he can play well but he's not the man you want to have leading your team around. He's much better suited to 5/8. You cannot blame the club for giving up on him though, he's been here for 8 years and has had 2 good seasons?

Also I'm glad the club has a fail safe in case Madge fails - should help the people worried about his extension sleep at night. Club was very smart in their dealings there.

Do we agree AD is a 6 yet?

He's definitely a 6. Needs to work on his short kicking but he's got good passing, good bombs and a good running game and he's still only learning. Been one of our best lately

His defence is abysmal. Seriously for a big guy he just never finds his shoulder
 
@avocadoontoast said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334464) said:
I’m no longer a believer in Brooks but he’s not the reason we’ve let in 20 points for 15 games straight now.

There are massive issues at the club. Huge issues. I think the Madge experiment has failed, I think the recruitment (which I thought was great) in the off-season has been a failure and I think the culture of the club absolutely sucks.

Yesterday was an important day but ended up an embarrassment, starting with our sponsor holding up the number 7 jersey. We absolutely deserve to be ridiculed by rival fans and the media because we are a joke. There is no way to defend yesterday.

It was a joke. I said if we lost yesterday it would be so embarrassing - after all the fanfare and the occasion itself. And we did.. The other clubs must feel sorry for us, we're hopeless.

I found it interesting yesterday I saw an interview with Paps and he was asked how Bellamy felt about his 52 points in three games or whatever it was. He said Bellamy had no opinion whatsoever about that as he's only focussed on defence first and foremost and was ropeable that they'd let in 18 points against the Bulldogs.

Madge is in the same mould as Bellamy, so I'd like to think he's instilling some sort of defensive structure and attitude in the team. It's mind boggling.. Good luck to whoever tries working out this puzzle.
 
@dwight-schrute said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334760) said:
@sco77y said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334750) said:
@innsaneink said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334428) said:
.............. At half time one of the most respected figures in rugby league walked into the corporate suite full of Tigers directors and hanger-onners to an avalanche of questions............

Blocker?

Nah they said "respected" :joy: Hopefully Gould, at least he has some clue of what he's talking about.

I find it strange that anyone on this forum is unaware of the disdain that Gould has for Wests.
It's even more annoying that the architect of the greatest piece of treachery perpetrated on this club would ever be mentioned in a positive light.
Gould is loathsome.
He never misses an opportunity to kick the club when it's down with a snide tweet or remark.

I recall Gould referring quite fondly to the Tigers on many occasions.
 
@jirskyr said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334774) said:
@avocadoontoast said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334756) said:
@jirskyr said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334731) said:
@furious1 said in [SMH: Maguire not the problem](/post/1334413) said:
If the powerbrokers are asking the question of this figure, maybe they should be approaching the person for a paid role in getting this place sorted.

My guess it's Phil Gould, and whether or not that guess is accurate, I would suspect the "powerbroker" is either not interested or too busy to become a Tigers consultant. Gould has that gig with Warriors in 2021, time will tell if it makes a difference, because they are traveling no better than us.

There are a lot of folks in rugby league who actually don't have much skin in the game, upon which it's easy to provide feedback and suggestions. And I'm not saying the commentary isn't valid, just that it's a different thing to give advice compared to actually having to execute the advice.

They've beaten the Titans and the Raiders. They are travelling much better than us. Yes they lost to Manly but we wouldn't have beaten Manly in a million years.

We beat Manly 6 weeks ago. Don't come and qualify with "yeah but they left players out, it was a trial" etc. - you can only play and beat what is in front of you.

Yes Warriors beat Titans, Rd 1, but they couldn't beat the Knights, who we did beat. They got over an injury-depleted Raiders at the death, and almost lost it. 1 win more than Tigers in 2021. Lost to Manly. 100% loss record to teams outside the Top 8. Couldn't ice the Manly game.

I find it very hard to accept an argument that Warriors are traveling much better than Tigers. Maybe in 5+ rounds we can look at it again.

Surely you're not counting a trial game as an actual victory? It doesn't matter, and we actually did play a full strength team against their reserve grade team. So saying "they left players out" is relevant because the team they played has zero resemblance to their first grade team.

I can't recall seeing the Warriors put in an exhibition like we did yesterday.
 
Back
Top