• You must be logged in to view threads on this forum. Please sign up by clicking here to continue viewing content on the mighty South Sydney Rabbitohs.

News, General Articles and Discussion

I reckon that might throw Reynolds future up in the air a bit, as a player & as an assistant coach
Alfie would be sweating bullets too

Madge would be a special wouldn’t he?
 
Last edited:
ziggy said:
There are so few good coaches out there that they’re saying JD is on the list of possibles. And so is Barrett. Honestly, why sack the bloke without a better replacement. It’s like Rule #1 of league… never pass it to someone in a worse position.
Click to expand...
They already sacked JD when he was linked to us, if he goes back and gets sacked again will he be the first coach to be sacked by the same club twice?
 
captainsutto said:
I hear people say this but it never has a follow up as to why🤔
Click to expand...
Two reasons for me.
1. It looks like a conference system will shorten the NRL season. While our competing codes would like that idea, I definately don't.
2. There would be a reasonable number of NRL teams that we would not play against for the entire season. I don't like that either.
 
PrideOfTheLeague said:
They already sacked JD when he was linked to us, if he goes back and gets sacked again will he be the first coach to be sacked by the same club twice?
Click to expand...
To be sacked as an assistant coach and then at a later date to be sacked as a head coach of the same club is actually a career advancement.
 
I was surprised that Broncos and Walters have parted company just one year after their GF appearance. Must have been really toxic this season. My tip would be Madge to take over but I would not rule a line through John Cartwright being promoted to Head Coach either. Also a post career involvement with the team for Adam Reynolds would, in my opinion, be likely with either of those 2 coaches.
 
captainsutto said:
I hear people say this but it never has a follow up as to why🤔
Click to expand...
Because you’d be restricted to who you play in regular season etc… if the conferences get mixed up like Kempy suggested them I’m more for it. Don’t support only playing 18-19 games though.
 
Rabbits21 said:
Because you’d be restricted to who you play in regular season etc… if the conferences get mixed up like Kempy suggested them I’m more for it. Don’t support only playing 18-19 games though.
Click to expand...
Tv deal will dictate how many games arr played per season
 
We already have a version of a conference system to some extent. There are teams we play twice, while others play other teams twice. The main difference being that regardless of which sets of teams you play twice currently, you’re still directly competing for a final spot with someone like the Sharks.

Yes you can still have a tougher run than someone else with a conference system. But at least every conference has a set number of final spots assigned (plus wild cards). At the moment, you could have 6 teams with what ends up an easier draw make the finals, and 2 of those with a harder draw.

Changing season to season doesn’t help either. Firstly you lose the rivalries a conference system sets up. And secondly, last year’s performance has little to do with the following year.

If you got the Broncos and Warriors this year that should have been a death sentence, it was not.

Like people have mentioned, we already play the Roosters, Parra and Dogs twice every year. This would just formalise it and put us in direct competition with them (and ensure they play the same schedule as us to make the finals - which is fair).
 
Pplspoet said:
We already have a version of a conference system to some extent. There are teams we play twice, while others play other teams twice. The main difference being that regardless of which sets of teams you play twice currently, you’re still directly competing for a final spot with someone like the Sharks.
Click to expand...
It’s not even close to a conference system when it’s randomly done and you’re not playing the same teams twice as the others. We played top 8 teams 14 times this year where the Sharks only played them 9 times.
Pplspoet said:
Yes you can still have a tougher run than someone else with a conference system. But at least every conference has a set number of final spots assigned (plus wild cards). At the moment, you could have 6 teams with what ends up an easier draw make the finals, and 2 of those with a harder draw.
Click to expand...
Please don’t ever go down the path of the NFL. I have seen team that have been 11-5 miss out on a wild card spot and a team finish first in their division with an 8-8 record and be ranked 4th.
Pplspoet said:
Changing season to season doesn’t help either. Firstly you lose the rivalries a conference system sets up. And secondly, last year’s performance has little to do with the following year.
Click to expand...
I agree rivalries are a huge thing. It would be a reason why I’m reluctant to go down the path of using ladder positions. But I also don’t want to be playing the same teams twice each year.

The Roosters I get.
Pplspoet said:
If you got the Broncos and Warriors this year that should have been a death sentence, it was not.
Click to expand...
It will happen every year. There is no perfect way to have a fair draw unless you play each team twice which the only way that happens is less teams which isn’t an option.

Even playing each other once can have its inequalities.
Pplspoet said:
Like people have mentioned, we already play the Roosters, Parra and Dogs twice every year. This would just formalise it and put us in direct competition with them (and ensure they play the same schedule as us to make the finals - which is fair).
Click to expand...
We played the Dogs only once this year and last year Parra only once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top