Perhaps Potter needs a hard man as assistant to kick ass. Something tells me Cummins isn't that person.

None of the current coaching staff appear to be able to inspire the players even be consistently average, let alone anything else. That includes all of them.

I think saying the team is soft might be a bit harsh but maybe it's the lack of an enforcer on the pitch that's the issue? As a team we were always known for our big pack (at times overlooking the fact that our backs were quite handy as well) but we also had big personalities in the pack who wouldn't give an inch... the sort of player who the younger players could look up to.

Do we have that sort of player at the moment? Someone who can inspire the team with a powerful burst or a big hit? Someone who can get the fans roaring for blood?

And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the case for the prosecution.

In fact, its the best pithy summary I've seen.

It correctly identifies the plain fact that, while is some games, the team very clearly shows aggression, steely determination and intent for 40 minutes, (nay, on occasion even the full 80!) they simply cannot do so CONSISTENTLY.

Are the players capable of being inspired? (Whether by the coaching staff, or something else) - obviously yes. Those occasional great performances are irrefutable evidence.

Is our coaching team able to inspire these performances? Seemingly no, since we have had such a catalogue of humiliations for such a prolonged period, that it would be hubris of whale-sized proportion for any one of them to claim "Yes, I can consistently inspire my players to be at or near their best". As well as obviously just plain rubbish.

Could Potter turn our fortunes around with a complete turnaround of the other coaching staff? For example, bringing in a Karl Harrison figure as No. 2 with special responsibility for defensive coaching? I wouldn't rule it out.

Was the secret of Potter's success at Catalans and to a lesser extent Saints maybe due to the fact he had people in post to do those parts of the job he can't? Maybe. Brian Clough was I think as good a manager as football has ever seen - but he was lost (or at the very least, much diminished) without Peter Taylor.

As I don't think paying Mr Potter off at this early stage is a wise use of money, maybe the next thing to try is a shakeup of the other coaches, and try to recreate the mix of abilities that Potter could rely on when successful at his earlier clubs?

It is not to accuse any individual player of being "soft" to say we are soft as a team. Of course they are all hard men, you couldn't get to the top echelon of SL not being a hard man, but in context we are soft, we ARE seen as a soft touch, teams like Wigan and their fans EXPECT to roll us over, and this is just fact, that we all know. And the players know it too, and too often play like they don't even want to make a secret of it.

If we weren't comparatively a soft touch, we wouldn't keep getting fifty put past us, would we?

Defintely soft. I've said it for a bout a year, we just get bullied off the park. We have no aggression. Someone should have belted Hock. Luckily we had Ganson to tell him to stop bullying us. It's pathetic.

But it's mainly down to Potter. If we had Noble back i gurantee Hock would have been belted on Sunday. Either that or he wouldn't have daren't do anything. Yes Noble had Vagana, Fielden, Gartner Peacock etc, but they won't a dirty or a pariculary agressive team. Noble just made sure that other teams wouldn't mess with us. I would hate to be a half back now for the Bulls as if i got taken out, not one of our so called forward would come in and get hold of the player. They'd just stand and watch. If we do anything remotely illegal to Tomkins, Wigan have about 4 or 5 players coming inprotecting him. This is why they are such a good team.

We were playing the challenege cup holders at home in round 3 of the season. If you can't get a bit of fire in your belly for that then don't play rugby league. I'm fed up of only seeing any fight or aggression from the forwards against Leeds. Although having said that Paul Mcshane who is about 2 ft, pushed all our forwards around last year with only Elima standing up.

Pathetic.

Too many SL teams seem to be mentally soft - i.e. they give up the ghost way too easily when they go behind. Its awful watching your side do it - as a number of Leeds sides in the past have. You'd concede a try, visibly see the team wilt and like as not let in another try moments later. IMO it does start with the coach, but too many players seem to lack basic pride in their performance.

Players are too used to only having to be mediocre in order to get a career in SL. Those that are really committed stand out a mile (Peacock, Sinfield etc), neither was blessed with great natural talent yet they achieved loads through dedication. I can think of many others with all the physical attributes but non of the desire and it frustrates the hell out me.

OK Mick, they're not soft. They're as hard of a team as ever walked the earth. So what would you say the problem is, then, though? Why do we keep conceding cricket scores given that we aren't a soft team to play against?

Too many sleepy Sunday games and ''we'll be ok if we get into the top 8 mentality''.

Never agreed with the Grand Final system TBH.

I think the competition is a good idea but the pinnacle should be to win the league IMO.

I just watched the highlights and Wigan looked quite impressive - lots of off the ball movement, dummy runners etc causing havoc. Having said that, it seemed to me that Bradford's defensive line was altogether in disarray at times.

I could be wrong (I've only watched the highlights) but it looked as though they were trying to compress in the middle and slide out wide at the same time, and got caught in no-man's land with the defence stretched out of shape far too easily (also leading to what look like badly missed tackles on the inside as players are desperately moving to cover out wide).

If you compress up the middle you simply have to stop the offload and control the PTB. Otherwise you'll be easily done for numbers. If you're failing to control the PTB you're better off giving up trying to compress at all IMO.

Somebody mentioned Peacock/Sinfield. It seems to me that Bradford really need a couple of players to take responsibility for organising the defence in the way those sorts of players do - including conceding penalties if required to slow everything down/give your side a breather.

I don't think the Bulls are soft, but they could and should do a lot better in defence than that showing.

This guy knows what it takes bigpondnews.com/articles/Sport/2 ... 21569.html

This guy knows what it takes bigpondnews.com/articles/Sport/2 ... 21569.html

I don't really see the point in having a coach, afterall it's all down to the players on the park.

You forget the rest so I put it in!

Having seen the tries again on SL show I'd say 5 of them were down to pretty soft defending on our part.

I'd agree, and on those, much of the problem seemed to be failing to get back the 10, turn and face in position, and then rush forward as a line, and close down the attackers. Stop the ball getting wide. Many defenders were static, some moving forward, some still retreating, and thus gaps all over the place. On others, just people never getting into position, leaving runway-sized areas totally undefended. The kick to Charnley's space being one example, he could have put up a tent before touching down.

I can admire much of Wigan's flashy passing and fancy footwork, but if the man receiving the ball is surrounded and flattened then you don't get that problem.