Ackford's Article may be closest to truth so far

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Post by Bill W »

dailywaffle wrote:
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.
True daily. And they had about 1/20th of his budget!!
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.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
dailywaffle
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: NW Leics

Post by dailywaffle »

Oh, there's no doubting the inequalities of finance, but when it came to vision I think that Sir Clive's England absolutely knocked Loffreda's Argentina into a cocked hat.
Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Post by Bill W »

dailywaffle wrote:Oh, there's no doubting the inequalities of finance, but when it came to vision I think that Sir Clive's England absolutely knocked Loffreda's Argentina into a cocked hat.
Actually I ould run it closer than that.

SCW had the vision to demoralise the opposition ahead of WC 2003 and then play very negative rugby to win the title for which he has to thank Catt for protecting Wiljo and Johnno for his on field leadership.

ML created a myth of creativity and then played very negative rugby which resulted thanks to odd snatches of brilliance from JHM et al in a very creditable out come.
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.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
Iain D
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 579
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:32 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by Iain D »

A short, totally fictitious story.

Pat Howard tenders his resignation. Tigers decide (rightly) that they should look outside the club for a world class coach to take the team forwards. However, with this being the run up to a world cup, very few good coaches are interested in moving and so the search takes longer than expected. The saga drags on...

...Finally they find a coach interested in the opportunity, one that has tons of promise and is well respected. He agrees to join the team, but only after the World Cup. Since he doesn't speak English very well, and since he will be joining the side mid way through the season, Tigers come up with a contingency plan.. Back and Cockers (both of whom have been working with the club for eons). This should be a marriage made in heaven: an excellent coach that's well respected as a good strategist and a back room staff that know the team, local idiosyncrasies and can control the egos.

However, it is assumed that at some point in his tenure, ML will want to bring in his own back room staff (as most good coaches understandably want to do). I think that anyone with a sound mind would agree that ML probably wanted to bring in at least one other coach to support him, someone he knows and can work with. It would appear that this was not afforded to him.

After a while things go a little pear shaped on the coaching front. The 2 internal guys decide that they actually quite like their jobs and aren't too keen to be replaced by someone appointed by ML. Since ML finds it difficult to effectively communicate, tweedle dumb and tweedle dee decide to work things to their advantage. We all know that Cockers and Backy were fierce competitors on the rugby field, why would they be less so now? A few choice comments here, a miss-interpretation there.. nothing too terrible, but enough to sow seeds of doubt and upset some sensitive types in the dressing room.

Things become less and less stable, on-field performances suffer. All of a sudden the board are faced with a decision.. either back the coach and let him pick his staff (thereby effectively releasing 2 stalwarts of the club), or fire the coach and start over.

You can pick the ending...
Last edited by Iain D on Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gizmo
Top Cat
Top Cat
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Behind a post in the Caterpillar

Post by Gizmo »

And just which side in RWC 2007 played with creativity and imagination? It wasn't S Africa for me, despite being very efficient.
Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Post by Bill W »

Iain D wrote:A short, totally fictitious story.

You can pick the ending...
From so far you have 20/20 vision!
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.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Post by Bill W »

Gizmo wrote:And just which side in RWC 2007 played with creativity and imagination? It wasn't S Africa for me, despite being very efficient.
And as sure as g*d made little apples it was not England!!
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.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
Iain D
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 579
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:32 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by Iain D »

DW, your previous post highlights exactly what the problem is.

`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.`

I haven`t heard any of this before. None of these reasons are in the open. Of course there are smoking gun issues out there, especially when people don`t name their sources. We have all be through this time and time again... rumour has it this.. someone said that.. etc. Until someone stands up and sets the record straight there is going to be upset and conjecture. Keeping quiet isn`t helping anyone.

If ML was really that bad, then perhaps some home truths will help. He`s been through enough already, some facts might just make things more believable. It certainly won`t make things much worse.

Also, we are going to question everything. Personally I am upset with Backy and Cockers. It`s totally unfounded other than comments that were made which were out of order, but I have nothing else to go on... so that`s where its at. Lack of information regaring ML certainly isn`t helping the public profile of those 2, or the board.. or whomever else people blame for the fiasco.

Until the `very popular and well respected person comes` forward this has to be as sound a piece of information as all the transfer rumours that go back and forth from supposedly reputable sources.

Edited after posting..

I just saw the interview with Peter Tom on the other thread (someone actually coming forward and speaking up).. and I feel a little better about the situation.

Like I posted on that thread, it is good to see someone come forward and take some responsibility.
Last edited by Iain D on Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Post by Bill W »

And this highly rated international player had voiced his concerns to all, repeat all, the coaches, with suggestions for improvement? And they had gone unheeded?

Grapes, sour, kick the :censored: when he is down, not my fault boss. i told you so.

We really do not want or need to know the inside story of this extremely distateful episode in Tigers history.

IMHO no one emerges from it well.
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.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
dailywaffle
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: NW Leics

Post by dailywaffle »

Iain, Bill et al

The object of my post, which I will expand no further on, was to illustrate why 'full' disclosure is not beneficial.

Peter Tom's more restrained disclosure is far more appropriate, but is clearly insufficient for some posters.

Bill is quite correct in saying that we do not need the full inside story, although it is clear that some want it.
G.K
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5787
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:19 am
Location: See SatNav

Post by G.K »

Iain D. I really do take great exception to your story. I find the use of the word 'fictitious' particularly misleading.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
triage
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Ospreylia

Post by triage »

dailywaffle wrote:

<snip> same imagination or creativity as Sir Clive's pre-RWC England.
please don't tell me that you put the words Imagination, Creativity and sir CW's England in the same sentence....come on DW I know that supporters can be blind and that particular team were very good.....however it was 10 man rugby at its best....certainly not creative or having imagination.

/just realises on english forum so runs to hide for cover :smt002
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
dailywaffle
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: NW Leics

Post by dailywaffle »

Oh come triage. We get on well, but anyone who claims that Sir Clive's pre-2003 England was '10 man rugby at best' is just pedalling stereotypical nonsense.

No offence.
triage
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:50 am
Location: Ospreylia

Post by triage »

dailywaffle wrote:Oh come triage. We get on well, but anyone who claims that Sir Clive's pre-2003 England was '10 man rugby at best' is just pedalling stereotypical nonsense.

No offence.
Can you honestly tell me that it was fast open running rugby? the 2003 world cup was the one where the southern hemisphere sides had no legal answer to your driving maul and superb forward play....hence you gained lots and lots of penalties (which wilkinson kicked)...It was effective and you were good at it however it prompted the southern hemispheres to complain A/. about penalties and B/. about the Maul (amongst other things) as a result we had a review and have these ELV's being introduced.....You had great backs but chose quite often not to use them.

However I do not condemn you for using those tactics. nor do i condemn any side for doing it...you play to your strengths....the law doesn't stop you playing that way and it is one of the things that makes rugby great.....you can have a side with great forward play and another with great back play...it makes it interesting.....These ELV's are trying to stop that and penalize anyone with great forward play (IMO).
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
dailywaffle
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: NW Leics

Post by dailywaffle »

triage, I think there may be a genuine misunderstanding here. I am referring to the England team before the 2003 RWC.

As already observed, England were going backwards by the summer of 2003 and Clive was unable (or unwilling) to play the brand of rugby that he had previously built towards.
Post Reply