Eels Blogs

Calling Out Frankie Fong

OK Frankie, time for you to try and actually debate some things - if you are able. I'm sick and tired of the incessant Roosters this, Roosters that - it's an Eels site mate. I'm not sure how you survive, you couldn't go into a Coles or Woolies to shop - you'd hit the deli section, see chicken breasts and start having a tug, same for the frozen section and the old steggles chook would have you dropping your strides again, chip aisles and the Samboy Chicken chips set you off again, chicken noodle soup and chicken nuggets - you'd be red raw. I'm also sick of that fact that whenever anyone questions your narrow minded views, instead of debating them, you immediately revert to trying to belittle them. You carry on like you're some massive leader of Industry with friends in the highest places. You try and force your views down peoples throats and then have the hide to come back with insults and name calling when they post an opposing view. Mate, it's getting very, very boring and oh so predictable, I actually now start to chuckle when I read some of the dribble and feel sorry for you. If you are such a heavy hitter, like you love to tell us, instead of telling anyone and everyone how the club should be run - despite some of your ideas being completely illegal (Rooster like), a fact you still won't admit - how about you get off your arse and actually do something? Or are you too busy propping up Politis and the Roosters, your number 1 loves?

So you're number one go to is the old Bush Coach call, something you seemed proud to claim as the catchphrase you invented. Unfortunately, this means you have also labelled some very good coaches as Bush Coaches, as there's plenty that have a similar CV to BA over the last 5-6 years. Funnily enough, you don't seem to have put forward a suggestion as to who this new master coach we should be chasing is - well not that I've seen? Immediately I ask legitimate questions, you revert to your normal defense mode - belittle, name calling and ignoring the question. So once again, for the last time, here's your chance to actually answer some real questions, if you have the balls to do so.

According to you I am some BA lover and head of his fan club. That's complete BS, but your normal go to response to anything I post. I've questioned BA's selections, bench rotations and I am not happy with the way we are world beaters one game and absolute duds the next. I've also openly admitted many times that I don't know if BA is the right coach for us going forward. I've openly stated my assumptions of what has happened behind the scenes and not once has anyone actually answered the questions I've asked, not once - crickets. So here they are again in bullet point form. I'd appreciate if you and your "followers" can actually debate these rather than reverting to your usual cheapshot fallbacks. Now I stress, I'm not talking about on-field results, as I've claimed many times, the on-field stuff is affected by the off-field issues - something you have to agree with given your love of posting how all things Roosters start with your bum buddy Politis. SO, please comment on these assumptions that I've posted several times in the past for someone to clarify or refute:-

  1. BA took over a team that won 2 wooden spoons
  2. We improved the next year, 2015
  3. We improved even further the next year, 2016 and would have played semi final footy except for the salary cap saga
  4. We lost several players like Peats and Junior
  5. We were not able to recruit players due to the issues, we had to shed blokes on decent coin and replace them with "cheapies"
  6. We had Administrators come in and they're still here to this day due to the factions not allowing the Liquor and Gaming reforms to go through
  7. Despite this, we certainly overachieved in 2017 and should have gone further except for the NRL making sure the Storm won by any means in our first semi. We were flat for the next one against the team that also made the GF, the Cowboys
  8. 2018 was diabolical, results were terrible and we deserved the spoon 100%. However, I maintain that the loss of Semi was a bigger hit than anyone expected. Also, the NRL's last minute decision to have the refs blow 30-40 penalties a game slowed the game dramatically, which suited the bigger packs and crucified our smaller mobile pack that was so strong in the late part of 2017.
  9. Under Administrators funding was cut to the footy department, we were not staffed even remotely as close to other NRL teams
  10. We have not recruited well up until the end of last season after the review, which clearly showed the funding cuts were a reality and the powers that be agreed to open the chequebook some more
  11. We started to recruit to fill the gaps we were shown to be deficient at in 2018 - Junior added the big body in the middle, Fergo and Sivo added size and the carry back to the back 3, Lane has been a great edge forward signing. It's a start but we are still carrying too many non-NRL quality players
  12. We have started to have the Juniors come through from the systems that have been put in place - what % of those systems is down to BA I don't know, but apparently he's been a decent part of it. If someone in the know can clarify how that all panned out since BA arrived, that would be great to know
  13. The likes of Brown, Niukore, Mahoney and Kaufusi have debuted. We have Stefano coming through Wenty, both Under 18 NSW props are Eels juniors. These guys are just learning the ropes of being an NRL player week in week out, look at how many other clubs have promising juniors coming through that at some stage need a break or to go back a grade and work on things - it happens to everyone, it takes time. Are the signs positive? I'd suggest YES, very positive
  14. Has BA been granted unfettered, complete autonomy in the retention and recruitment of players? I'd suggest NO based on what I've read and heard
  15. Has BA been allowed to chase whomever he wants and for whatever price to compete with the top teams? I'd suggest NO
  16. Has the affect of the Administrators and cost cutting affected our on-field situation? I'd suggest absolutely YES
  17. If the assumptions I've made in numbers 13-16 are true, is it fair for people to be blaming BA for the on-field performances? In part YES (strategy, bench rotations etc), but in part a massive NO (I believe he's doing what he can with the cattle he's been allowed - remember, zero current rep players, at least $50K under the cap)

Now Fong, try and respond to as many of the above as you can, no belittling, no chest beating and name calling, no mention of the Roosters. Here's your chance to show me that you can actually be a positive contributor to this site, not a whingeing Roosters fanboy. I've stated several times, and I'll say it again. I'm not a BA fanboy, I'm a lover of the Eels first and foremost and I want us to be competitive each and every year. I've openly said BA may not be the right coach for us, I 100% agree, but I don't think he's been given even close to the tools he requires to have a fair crack at the job. So any coach that follows him will also struggle if my assumptions above are correct. It appears that things are changing, we seem to be more active in the player market, we've dropped and are releasing some deadwood, we are being linked to some decent quality players, we've had more support staffed employed (something that I think we can defintiely improve on in quality as well). If you can prove to me that my facts and assumptions above are incorrect (particularly 13-16) I'll happily post another blog entitled "Brissyeel was Wrong, Fong was Right, BA needs to be sacked immediately". But for the life of me, I cannot see how people can blame BA for 100% of our issues, especially if some of my assumptions are correct. Every time I've stated this I get comments about our results on-field. It's not about the on-field stuff, that's a flow on from the off-filed things - Fong, your own recent blog about the Roosters highlights the fact you believe it all starts at the top with strong management - yet you put on your Eels hat and place the blame 100% on BA - mate, that's a complete contradiction!!!!

 

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Email me when people reply –

Replies

      • Cheers Brissy. You asked for a point form debate and in 19 pages of comment no-one seemed to want one. Go Eels

  •  What a low low c..t this Snake must be to make fun of  someone else',s misfortune in life. I don't know you Fake Midget but I say sorry for this low life c..t's insult to you

  • Brissy old mate this was a bit too long for a demented old man to get through in one sitting - -HOWEVER - not the Fong needs a minder I must take his side on many of your points.

    1) Bush Coach call - Fong did invent this title from memory and the reason it has stuck is more than obvious to even Blind Freddy. Mr 45% (working on lowering that) has only one current rival for worse stats, and that is Dean Pay on 31%.

    2) BUT..... you are nearly right to say Frankie should write a blog titled  "Brissyeel was Wrong, Fong was Right, BA needs to be sacked immediately". Fong has enough inteligence to write ".......should have been sacked years ago."

    3) IF the coach is not the TOP for the team's performance, then who is the top?

    The attitude of any organisation does start at the top (Front office as Jack Gibson called it) but sorry mate - if the best a coach can do is 45% over five and a half years with massive changes at the top then one has to question his ability to coach above u12s.

     

    • Thanks for the reply, Col, much appreciated. As I just responded to Snake in another post -

      "I wasn't debating whether BA should be coach, I'm debating if he has been given ample opportunity to coach. So I'll paraphrase for those that want to comment but admitted they haven't even bothered reading the post - quality contributions right there.

      • Known off-field events - salary cap drama, losing players, not being able to recruit to cover losses (ie. shed blokes on good coin and replace with "cheapies"), funding cuts (quite clearly accepted as fact after the Review) that reduced staffing etc
      • Assumed off-field events - inability to recruit sufficient quality players due to spending cuts (ie. $500K under cap etc.), resigning "duds" on the cheap, lack of input of coach into retention and recruitment (ie. Gurr said he was controlling aspects of the footy club) etc.

      The knowns are knowns, simple. The assumptions are mine from what I've read and heard. Now regardless of who the coach is, once again take BA out of the equation, would these issues hamper any coach, including the Bellamy's and Robinsons? I'm suggesting yes they absolutely would. So the constant bleating of sack BA will continue for the next coach, and the next coach, and the next coach."

      Col, you've pointed out organisations start at the top and that there's been massive changes at the top - that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm simply asking how have those changes and any potential restrictions on the coach affected our on-field performances regardless of who the coach is? Tell me honestly what you think Bellamy or Robinson could have achieved given the same cattle (and lack of resources) ie. how much higher than 45%? I doubt some current NRL coaches would have even got that high. I'm defending the coach - not BA himself personally, but the actual job title Coach - from the constant abuse because I think the off-field stuff has a huge impact on our on-field results. The people calling for BA's head will be calling for the next coaches head as well unless it changes. It's just a vicious circle.

      • Brissyeel, Once again your blogs are worth reading, but unfortunately only understood by intelligent people without an axe to grind. I would like to know how many whingers are football club voters, who would be partly responsible for electing idiots on past Boards. I agree that a 45% winning record is acceptable considering the poor teams he had at his disposal. The winning percentage is not the only equasion as his for and against record does not make for good reading.Recruitment is also a negative for him.Worst of all is his ability to get the best out of our players. You and I can find excuses for his failures, but on balance I don't think his record deserved reappointment.

      • This reply was deleted.
        • Well said. 

        • Not a problem Fong, I really look forward to it if it's valid and reasonable. As I said to Col above, this isn't a BA defence - I'm trying to ascertain if the role of the Eels Head Coach, regardless of who that may be, has been compromised by off-field issues, which then translate into on-field problems due to lack of quality, lack of resources etc. Is it something that can be fixed? I believe your Bush Bum coach tag will not solely be owned by BA, it will transfer to everyone coming in after him. There are definitely deficiencies in BA's coaching, I've agreed on that ad nauseum, but given the right backing off the field, I'd love to see how he performed. If he fails, so be it, he's gone - pretty simple really.

           

          • Mate you say that you want measured responses but it seems from where I'm sitting that you're mainly responding to people that agitate.

            I asked this in another thread but you didn't reply:

            Further to that, he keeps putting his hand up to do it. If you believe that he is not able to do the job, isn't it wrong for him to do that? Shouldn't he be honest with himself, the club, and supporters and step aside?

            You also didn't answer my question. How and when do you, Brissyeel, judge his success or failure?

            • I apologise for not answering. So I obviously don't know what his reasons for re-signing are, he clearly loves the club and what he's doing. Maybe he was told that things would be changing after "The Review" - it appears to slowly be the case. As I've said, he has some shortcomings, probably every coach does if you wanted to look into them as closely as BA gets critiqued on here, but nothing that I think can't be fixed with the right assistance. How do I judge his success or failure? if he's had total control over the footy department he's already failed, simple. If he hasn't (which I believe is the case) then he needs to be given a fair crack at it. Now he may still fail, but at least he will be the sole factor for his failure and the consequences and the current incessant bleating of fans on here will actually be justified.

               

              • No problem. Fair enough, but how do you define "fair crack" and how much time would you give him?

                > probably every coach does if you wanted to look into them as closely as BA gets critiqued on here

                Mate I think you're looking at that through blue and gold coloured glasses. Every coach in the NRL is heavily scrutinised, it's not just the Eels coach.

                I also responded to your questions in this blog and I thought Bup had a great response as well.

This reply was deleted.

Social Blogs