dailywaffle wrote:In retrospect, he was extremely vulnerable from the date of the EDF debacle.
Agreed. This whole tawdry affair has left a slightly bitter taste in the mouth, but I am (slowly) coming around to the thought that this was perhaps the best course of action.
John
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".
But one wonders what actually went on at the interview(s) - "what are your views on modern coaching techniques?", "what would you bring to the Leicester Tigers coaching regime?", "what's your approach to player motivation on matchdays?" are presumably questions that didn't get asked on the day. Anyone want to guess what questions were asked of Marcelo?
This year I'm on the Whisky diet. It really works - last week I lost three days!
I still have major doubts Bruce about the actions of the Board in bringing an amateur coach to a professional club then being unhappy that he was rather amateurish by all accounts.
I am broadly of the opinion that the board were right to remove him at this time, but that does not get around the fact that IMO they made a mistake in his appointment.
John
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".
Yes, I pretty much agree with that, Westy. But in a business of this size, it was a huge but probably avoidable error - again, if the Telegraph article is accurate
This year I'm on the Whisky diet. It really works - last week I lost three days!
Bruce Hornby-Trainset wrote:it was a huge but probably avoidable error
For a professional business of this size, it was a problem that should Never have happened.
You never know how something will pan out, but I still have serious doubts about the entire selection process (which I accept I know nothing of what went on).
John
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".
Leaks, rumours, smoke and mirrors. Describes the whole season really.
All I know is if you check out all the braodsheet coverage of the ML saga over the last few days the club does not come across in a positive light.
I find it difficult to beleive ML was so inept. Problems more likely came about through not preparing the way properly for a non english speaking outsider who was joining in the middle of the season and who would have different ideas. They interviewed him I am sure at some length and Cusworth knew his background.
We need a proper statement from the club from somebody offical rather than leaks here, Steve Booth
there.
The sooner the club comfront the concerns head on and show an understanding of the criticisms dirrected at their handling of events the sooner everyone can move on. This needs to be done before the signing of a new head coach. The rumours, leaks (maybe delibrate) and acusations and not helping. Just look at this thread posts.
But, and I appreciate that I am doing the broken record thing:
I am sure that the club are restricted in what they can say at the moment, and
Full disclosure of the 'reasons why' would hardly be helpful to Loffreda at this time.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
I really can't see how clarifying the facts can be to the detriment of anyone. Unless of course those facts showed certain Tigers Board members/coaches in a bad light or certain ex-coaches in a better light?
As for ML. Well I can't see how anything can make it look any worse for him than it already is, being fired by a top club after just a few months is pretty bad.
The words under, swept and carpet spring to mind here.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
Initially I took the Ackford article at face value.
However the more I think about it the more I wonder if he has been used by someone within the club to promote their version of events.
I don't recall anyone accusing the Argentinian's playing of having 20 year old tactics when they outplayed the Irish and French in RWC2007, and find it hard to believe that Les Cusworth would have endorsed someone using that approach to us.
The language issue must have been a possible concern before Marcelo arrived, so surely a plan would have been put in place to address this?
It also does not explain the complete inability of Cozza to make decisions about whether to kick for goal or touch in games at the end of the season without referring to the bench.
At the end of the day, the board have more information than us with which to make a decision about Marcelo's suitability or otherwise for the job, but I can't help but feel that there's an element of him being made a scapegoat for other failings, primarily because he's an "outsider".
Lolfreda is an amateur coach whose methods are totally inadequate for a professional GP team. So how come Tigers appointed him?
The Board and staff at Tigers totally failed to provide Lolfreda with adequate and necessary support? Why?
Now pitch it anywhere and any which way in the middle.
Has that helped? Does it matter where you pitch it?
I think not!
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
Mr_Ben wrote:
I don't recall anyone accusing the Argentinian's playing of having 20 year old tactics when they outplayed the Irish and French in RWC2007....
Just on that particular point, I don't think that's right. Or to be more precise, some people were not claiming the 20 year stuff, but they were certainly pointing out the limited, spoiling nature of Argentina's play.
As I've posted elsewhere, many (including me) got sucked into the whole Pumas underdog thing and didn't really assess what they were really bringing to the party. Team spirit and inspirational players they had, but an advanced gameplan they certainly did not.
Mr_Ben wrote:
I don't recall anyone accusing the Argentinian's playing of having 20 year old tactics when they outplayed the Irish and French in RWC2007....
Just on that particular point, I don't think that's right. Or to be more precise, some people were not claiming the 20 year stuff, but they were certainly pointing out the limited, spoiling nature of Argentina's play.
As I've posted elsewhere, many (including me) got sucked into the whole Pumas underdog thing and didn't really assess what they were really bringing to the party. Team spirit and inspirational players they had, but an advanced gameplan they certainly did not.
Bit like England and the 2003 WC then?
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
gkbradley wrote:I really can't see how clarifying the facts can be to the detriment of anyone. Unless of course those facts showed certain Tigers Board members/coaches in a bad light or certain ex-coaches in a better light?
As for ML. Well I can't see how anything can make it look any worse for him than it already is, being fired by a top club after just a few months is pretty bad.
The words under, swept and carpet spring to mind here.
Well, when you consider that a very popular (on here), highly regarded international who is one of the first names on the teamsheet was happy to describe just how chaotic, unstructured and regressive Loffreda's sessions at Oval Park were, then I can certainly see how clarifying a few things may not exactly help Marcelo Loffreda. But then again maybe he is just part of the greater Tigers conspiracy.
My honest view is that until the 'smoking gun' is found then many on here will continue to kick the board any which way they can.
Bill W wrote:Bit like England and the 2003 WC then?
Its true that England were already going backwards by the time of the RWC, but in the preceding couple of years noone could deny the ambition in their game.
Argentina were never close to playing with the same imagination or creativity as Sir Clive's pre-RWC England.
