What’s caused the slump?

[Mike]

The problem is we are paying ex players wages as coaches

Does this count on the salary cap? If it does then ide glady lose both for two good players

No coaches wages don't count on the cap.

[Mike]

Most of the posts on this thread are talking about why are bad in general. I feel the question is more about what's different now vs the first 10 matches of the season and why. This squad clearly can compete at a much higher level than we're doing at the moment . So why aren't we?

[EagleEyePie]

Most of the posts on this thread are talking about why are bad in general. I feel the question is more about what's different now vs the first 10 matches of the season and why. This squad clearly can compete at a much higher level than we're doing at the moment . So why aren't we?

I think it's got to be the loss of key forwards like Cooper, Ellis (aren't we lucky he wasn't out for longer), Havard, Isa and KPP, coupled with the merry-go-round of playmakers from Cust to Field to Shorrocks to Hampshire to Cust to Field to French.

The loss of the forwards makes it harder to make ground and play in the oppositions half more than ours. Our pack might not have been the best but there was a spell where most of those players were playing close to their best all at once.

The constant changing of the playmakers means we can't make up for our lack of possession through being more clinical, because the changing personnel has made the attack less fluid. That means we're struggling to do what Salford do so well, which is use the attacking cohesion of their outside backs to make up for a relatively unimpressive pack of forwards.

I also think for the first time under Matt Peet the confidence of the team seems a bit low. It's inevitable that doubts can creep in when things don't go your way, but it's a real test of a teams resilience in how they deal with it. That's what's being tested the most right now. Saints had a slump and came back through it. You don't win so many titles in a row without being resilient. We're going to learn a lot about the squad and the coach over the next few weeks because turning things around when you're lacking some key players and there aren't any obvious answers isn't easy.

[Flash]

Just picking up on one point from the above posts. It's not true that top players rarely make good coaches. Our own Andy Farrell and Shaun Edwards are regarded as among the best in the world, albeit in the other code. The current State of Origin coaches (Brad Fittler and Billy Slater) were pretty handy players, as was the current Australian national coach, Mal Meninga. Lam seems to be flourishing in his current environment and was a highly regarded assistant coach before that. Both Ellery Hanley and Graham West won plenty in their times too, both as players and coaches. A certain Lee Briers seems to be doing alright for himself and many are bemoaning his loss. Arthur Beetson is regarded as among the best there's ever been! There are loads more examples but you get the picture. It might be true to say that not all top players go on to make good coaches but it's by no means mutually exclusive.

Some of the best players have become coaches at representative level, but it seems the requirements are a little bit different when it comes to coaching at club level. I'm not sure there are that many club legends or legends of the game who were top coaches so I'd still say it's still a rarity, just not impossible.

Though to negate my own point slightly, Leuluai was a fantastic player but I don't think there was ever a point where he'd have been considered one of the very best players in the competition. He was never selected for the SL Dream Team and I don't know if he was ever awarded a player of the season award at any of his clubs.

I've always thought that coaching ability was determined by how much a player had to learn and develop as a player. The most talented players often have natural ability that needs little coaching and don't have to work as hard to keep playing at the highest level, and it's harder to impart what comes naturally to them. But I wouldn't really know what I'm talking about on that one.

Really I'm just worried we'll have a Keiron Cunningham scenario.

I think there's an element of self fulfilling prophecy about that though. Most top players don't even become coaches in the first place as they are amongst the highest paid during their playing career and their profile lends itself to other, perhaps less stressful, work such as in the media etc. Do we think, for example, Sam Tomkins could become a top coach? I, for one, believe he has the necessary requirements but of course we'll never get to find out. As I say above, the ones who do choose this route seem to do well. Farrell, Edwards, Slater, Fittler, Beetson, Meninga etc. have all done well. The most successful coach of all time, Wayne Bennett, was a Queensland and Australian representative during his playing career.

I get your point but I think it's a case of seeing the odd high profile failure such as Keiran Cunningham that clouds the issue. There are far more successes than failures if you dig down a little and I would also add that there are definitely far more failures amongst non elite players who turn to coaching than there are from elite players.

[Exiled Wiganer]

In answer to this question, I would ask a broader one: why is that, in the 27 seasons of super league, the vast majority with a salary cap in place, Saints have been better than us constantly, aside from 2 brief periods where exceptional coaches made a difference, in opposite ways (Maguire and Cunningham). That’s nearly 3 decades of relative failure. And that’s with our having brilliant support, a reputation that attracts players and a schools and youth set up in the area second probably only to Leeds.

My view at one step removed is that structurally we must be inferior. We must have inferior people at every level of the organisation. Our board, the people who make investment decisions, our administrators (with Radlinski the most prominent example), the people who identify talent, and the people negotiating contracts. The results on the field, and Saints’ clear superiority, flow from the strength of the organisation. People respond to the culture in the club. My father worked as a coach at one time for Saints (we didn’t talk to him) and then Wigan. This was during the Daniel Anderson era, a time when we still had Farrell playing for us. He said there was a gulf in the intensity with which the respective sides trained, the level of professionalism and engagement. This is a snapshot from a long time ago, but is there anything to suggest things have changed?

When we had Lindsey and co in charge their simple focus was on being the best. In everything. Now, they didn’t have a salary cap, but nor did we have a sugar daddy: the money we invested was earned through success. We had a zero tolerance policy for players that were not good enough, or past their peak. We moved heaven and earth to find the best talent and the finest coaches. The answer to today’s problems go back to years of failure to have a culture of excellence at every level of the club. In simple terms, if I had to pinpoint the one thing that means we will continue to be second best for years: McManus is far far better then Lenighan.

[Mike]

In answer to this question, I would ask a broader one: why is that, in the 27 seasons of super league, the vast majority with a salary cap in place, Saints have been better than us constantly, aside from 2 brief periods where exceptional coaches made a difference, in opposite ways (Maguire and Cunningham). That’s nearly 3 decades of relative failure. And that’s with our having brilliant support, a reputation that attracts players and a schools and youth set up in the area second probably only to Leeds.

My view at one step removed is that structurally we must be inferior. We must have inferior people at every level of the organisation. Our board, the people who make investment decisions, our administrators (with Radlinski the most prominent example), the people who identify talent, and the people negotiating contracts. The results on the field, and Saints’ clear superiority, flow from the strength of the organisation. People respond to the culture in the club. My father worked as a coach at one time for Saints (we didn’t talk to him) and then Wigan. This was during the Daniel Anderson era, a time when we still had Farrell playing for us. He said there was a gulf in the intensity with which the respective sides trained, the level of professionalism and engagement. This is a snapshot from a long time ago, but is there anything to suggest things have changed?

When we had Lindsey and co in charge their simple focus was on being the best. In everything. Now, they didn’t have a salary cap, but nor did we have a sugar daddy: the money we invested was earned through success. We had a zero tolerance policy for players that were not good enough, or past their peak. We moved heaven and earth to find the best talent and the finest coaches. The answer to today’s problems go back to years of failure to have a culture of excellence at every level of the club. In simple terms, if I had to pinpoint the one thing that means we will continue to be second best for years: McManus is far far better then Lenighan.

So in answer to my question you would answer your own. Fair enough.

I think we can do better with this squad than we've done for the last few weeks. We have some and I would hope the coaching team is capable of getting our form back for the last third. I have my doubts about them TBH. My opinion of last season is it was a failure as we lost form at the important moment. Cup win is fine, but it's all about the GF.

In my view I'd say there are three things going on. Badly timed injuries in the pack. Poor confidence in the halves. Very passive defence. I'd say the defence is the most worrying. We won't aggressively move up at the moment and other teams do. Other packs roll over us and gain field position way too easily. I'm concerned this passive defence is an actual tactic, because it would be easy to modify by the coaching team.

My solutions would be to get wane back as a directly involved defensive and motivational coach and we build from that base. Let Peet work from there.

[archiekeith]

No thanks Mike another retrograde step too many

[Suzieb]

I agree they are still being payed as players even though there bad coaches if I was the defence coach I would be ashamed

[Euclid]

In answer to this question, I would ask a broader one: why is that, in the 27 seasons of super league, the vast majority with a salary cap in place, Saints have been better than us constantly, aside from 2 brief periods where exceptional coaches made a difference, in opposite ways (Maguire and Cunningham). That’s nearly 3 decades of relative failure. And that’s with our having brilliant support, a reputation that attracts players and a schools and youth set up in the area second probably only to Leeds.

My view at one step removed is that structurally we must be inferior. We must have inferior people at every level of the organisation. Our board, the people who make investment decisions, our administrators (with Radlinski the most prominent example), the people who identify talent, and the people negotiating contracts. The results on the field, and Saints’ clear superiority, flow from the strength of the organisation. People respond to the culture in the club. My father worked as a coach at one time for Saints (we didn’t talk to him) and then Wigan. This was during the Daniel Anderson era, a time when we still had Farrell playing for us. He said there was a gulf in the intensity with which the respective sides trained, the level of professionalism and engagement. This is a snapshot from a long time ago, but is there anything to suggest things have changed?

When we had Lindsey and co in charge their simple focus was on being the best. In everything. Now, they didn’t have a salary cap, but nor did we have a sugar daddy: the money we invested was earned through success. We had a zero tolerance policy for players that were not good enough, or past their peak. We moved heaven and earth to find the best talent and the finest coaches. The answer to today’s problems go back to years of failure to have a culture of excellence at every level of the club. In simple terms, if I had to pinpoint the one thing that means we will continue to be second best for years: McManus is far far better then Lenighan.

Couldn’t agree more. I think there is a fair bit of complacency both at the club and among some fans.
The circumstances are a bit different from the glory years, but the club at the moment reminds me somewhat of the late 70s/early 80s when there were some very ordinary players about and the club was very lax on training and fitness. In all successful organisations, the culture of excellence applies from top to bottom and vice versa. Nobody is left out of that.
I had the privilege of leading an elite and very successful (not sports) team some time ago, and after I retired from my first career I lectured on leadership here, in the USA, UAE and China. I found that in the UK particularly many organisations seemed to think that if they ponkled along without really going for it, success would come along as a result of the “Buggins turn” theory.

I would not like to see a world renowned rugby club like Wigan slide down that slippery slope.

[MadMaxWarrior]

Think the drop is down to injury in the pack coupled with coaches only having a plan A.
Concerning thing about the squad is are we going to be ruthless enough for 2024 and the only way to make next year's marquee rule change work is to get British or French players which if are available I'm guessing everyone will be in for them.