They would certainly bear responsibility. But I'm only speculating and there could easily be other explanations.



I don't recall saying we play anything other than conservatively. I think I've been pretty consistent over the last two seasons in saying our strength is largely based in the forwards and we play to capitalise on this fact.

Would I prefer to see us zipping the ball from flank to flank? Sure. But to do that effectively and consistently (the hallmarks of a championship side) you need the players. We DON'T HAVE those players and any gameplan which ignores this fact is likely to end in catastrophe.

Whilst it's possible to play poker and win by pretending you have cards you haven't been dealt - it doesn't work so well in team sports.

But unlike cards, you are not dealt your players. You are free to cut them loose and sign some new ones that can play the way you want. Personally I think we're trying to play like an NRL side, but have awful players and a rookie coach who is in the job as he thought it would be fun rather than because he's got any coaching ability.

I disagree completely if you think our current group of players cannot play more expansively. I'm not saying go from flank to flank, I'm just asking for an improved, more potent attacking style that doesn't result in half the ground on their phones or talking to people round them as we complete our 58th drop off of the half.

Sure you can hire players and pass up the opportunity to renew their contracts should their form dip or other factors come into play. But the timescales involved are prodigious. If the club's strategy goes belly up it can't just snap its fingers and create a new team out of thin air. Some calamities or outright blunders can take years to correct.

A good example is Luke Walsh. On paper he was a good signing. The kind of player you can build an entire strategy around. But put him in the wrong square foot of pitch at precisely the wrong split-second in time and your strategy breaks along with his leg.

It's easy to say [i"We should have had a contingency plan"[/i in retrospect. I'm pretty sure the club figured they could at least count on Johnny Lomax to come to the rescue (a player who got us to Old Trafford in Walsh's position). Trouble is he ended up in precisely the wrong square foot of pitch at precisely the wrong split-second in time, too.

As the saying goes ....[i the best laid plans of mice and men[/i.

Every SL club is vulnerable to being caught out in precisely the same fashion. Just because it's not apparent doesn't mean it isn't true.

I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with since I don't recall ever saying we can't play better football.

Well if you now believe we actually do have the players to play better football then we agree that the coach needs to address that fact as his current style isn't getting us far.

Isn't the point of coaching to work with the players to get the best out of them? Coach them to improve and coach them to play the style of rugby you want them to play.

If we accept that all they can do is trundle the ball in for 3 tackles then kick it, and we accept that that is the limitation of our game plan, why do we need a coach at all? Just pick the team and let them get on with it. As it is, I don't accept the mantra that ultra-conservative is the only style of play this team is capable of.

They are not improving as a team and they are not improving as individuals, and that comes down to coaching.

I wouldn't mind the ultra-conservative stuff half as much if we were actually any good at it.

My opinions have been pretty consistent for some time now. If you can't keep up with them I'm not going to lose any sleep.

Look, we are two games into the season. TWO. At this time last season Paul Anderson's Huddersfield couldn't buy a result. The last time I checked Huddersfield neither bought a new team nor changed a great deal between then and finishing as arguably the form side going into the playoffs.

I'm not saying there aren't issues which need to be addressed. But two or three wins and the entire emphasis of the side can change.

As the saying goes, [i"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs ..."
[/i

It was the 'WE DONT HAVE THE PLAYERS' followed by the 'I never said we didn't have the players to play more expansively' that confused me.

They (Hudds) also finished 3rd due to our capitulation in the super 8s, got nowhere near a challenge cup win and got spanked in the semi final by an ordinary Wigan side.

At the end of the day we both want the same things I'd love nothing more than for KC to prove me and many others wrong and bring a good style back and good results. We have a capable squad and hopefully he uses it to it's full potential as nobody enjoys criticising a club legend.

I don't think I'm saying anything revelatory in pointing out that we don't have an exceptional group of backs. Couple this with one functioning playmaker out of three and I think our situation is plain too see.

I've already said that we do have a lot of options in the forwards and we should definitely be offloading the ball more and running one forward off the shoulder. But beyond that I don't think we have the personnel to effectively and consistently create holes outside the centre channel.

I think we should see were we are come Easter now that the world club challenge is out of the way and hopefully KC starts looking at our playing options, Lomax, Percival and Fages will improve our attack but they need to be on the park.