first time in many years we were feared , with an attacking game plan (mainly for the 2nd half)
players raised above their ability

Macnamara?
Is Radford the exception that proves the rule?

Pffft what do Sinfield and Peacock know anyways, some posters on here have had conversations with McDermott and they know much better than them.

Not IMO. Hull are pretty average in attack, I think.

Just on the man-management stuff, I don't know why anyone would be surprised that BM has issues with some players. So does Wayne Bennett (Gorden Tallis for one publicly doesn't have much time for him). It goes with the territory, particularly when the coach has been in place for a long time.

Most coaches work far more on defence than attack probably because its easier and the professional mentality seems to if we concede less than our opponents we can lose rather than if we score more than our opponents we can't lose - Cas are the exception which reflects the fact they have an ex-back as a coach.

I wouldn't be surprised with any coach having issues with certain players, don't know why you've bought it up to be honest.

Agreed. I would argue Hull's success in attack is in spite of Radford, rather than because of. They have the best attacking talent in SL but it is not a coordinated approach.

Powell has obviously done a shed load of work on defence; the second best in SL now.

But an equal amount on attack which helps to explain why they have the second best defence in SL.

If you are putting big scores on opponents then the amount of defending you will be doing is pretty limited and that will be a contributory factor as to why you have conceded less points than most

Yeah the way some go on about it you'd think it doesn't happen at other clubs. Look at the other coach/team to have won some GF's recently in Wane and Wigan. Surely he has his fall outs with players especially in defeats and sometimes they can't stand him.

Plus two more (halfbacks at least) in Sheridan & Orr.