@twentyforty said in [The Papenhuyzen decision\.\.\.](/post/1251041) said:
Gosh Earl, I wasn’t aware that WT coaching was superior than Storms, Eels and Roosters. There must be some other reason those teams made finals and we finished14th? I wonder what it could be? According to you … we give them our best players and they don’t improve.
There are people that believe you can coach someone to greatness. There are people who understand reality and know that talent trumps everything else. You can be talented, do little work, have personal problems including drug habits and still be a great player.
One of the best athletes I've ever seen is Maradona. There isn't a rugby league player that has been born that can compare with the ability of that guy. His personal life was a mess.
It's pretty obvious that the teams that out-performed us had better rosters. That is the no 1 determinant in relation to performance. Coaching can make a difference but not in the way you are talking about. A team can have a good game plan for the opposite team and some set plays and defensive and offensive structures.
Out under performance isn't a simple issue. We need a better squad. Unfortunately though we've had some good players come through who wanted to leave or we didn't hold onto. That isn't all the clubs fault or down to some idea that the other clubs offer specialized coaching to improve performance because the data or facts don't support that opinion and we see that with players like Tedesco, Moses, Matterson and Woods. If anything I'd argue our specialized coaching is better than other teams because players who leave us tend not to go onto greatness.
RP is a different case but he was very young when he left us and I suspect we would have coached him to being just as good as what he is now.