We are all depressed but we need to support them right to the end of the season i know i will, its very disappointing to see ourselves go from a champion team to a bottom four club i know we will back and hopefully this season will have been a good kick up the a*** for some of these players.

TBF I thought Deacon saw the funny side and talking to him after the game he did!

The only player that should be sited after today is Scruton, it's an awful long time since I have seen such a dirty "I'm really gonna hurt someone today" go un punished, if I was a Bradford fan, personally I would be ashamed

From a Bradford perspective, Scruton was one of the few that stood out as being fired up for the game. If only a few more had shown similar fire and passion and we might have gone home smiling. As for this disgraceful incident, I didn't get a good view of it so we will have to see what comes of it during the week.

I understand the point, I just think it's too simplistic, that's all. But I'm not looking for an argument, it's just that I think the sort of things which drive players on to "give 110%", in that abominable cliche of a phrase, are more down the positive road of inspiration by example, a fierce loyalty to team-mates and a willingness to die for the cause. I think those sort of passions have much more influence than a hair-dryer for a coach.

What I believe I am seeing with the Bulls - whatever they say -is a team divided, where a lot of the players don't always put it all in, and where several are not that bonded to the team unit, and so consequently won't bust their balls. If I had to pick one phrase myself to sum up this team's problem then it would be "SOFT UNDERBELLY". And it seems to me we know it, and every opposition team and coach knows it.

And that's why I'm pointing the finger at the players, although I am not (cannot be) exempting the coach. It's just that I don't know why they're like that. Maybe it is something coaches can fix, but equally maybe it's not, maybe the problem we have is on similar lines to the GB problem, something like factions within the team, or whatever.

But we have heard several comments from players themselves this year pointing the finger and saying almost in as many words that not all the team was giving it all in certain games (which is something fans can accuse teams of but you very rarely read players admitting candidly in the press).

Whatever happens now and regardless of his abilities as a coach or not, I am convinced more than ever after HKR that Mac is dead man walking (as the alternative of sacking 60% of the players can't be done) but I doubt that anyone has a big enough stick or magic wand to make those we have persisted with as our main players ALL be prepared to die for their mates all of the time. Too many games now many play as if they couldn't really give too much of a fsck; whatever brave words we read to the contrary, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and limps like a duck then I'm afraid it's a lame duck.

Or, more likely, a turkey.

It looks for all the world like early 1998 and first half 2005 again.

rlFair report?rl

Yep, pretty fair.

Langley's try should have stood, but ultimately it would have mattered little, with our defence being almost non-exisitent at times. Their first try was laughable.

Pretty much, yes. For instanceAnother game that promised so much ended in another abysmal final result for the Bulls.'"

Wary to post ths again as I realise that this sounds like excuse-making for SM... but this...


...is worth discussing at least, isn't it?

I've been saying the same for quite a while. Our underperforming players are not doing it because the coach tells them to.

I've noticed a correlation in sport & in work. That people consistently perform better for better managers.

The players clearly need to take some flak, its ultimately them that misses the tackle or drops the ball. But there is an argument that these errors from otherwise professional sportsmen could be coached out of them by good coaching is there not? And indeed if we agree its all the players fault and we have signed a bunch of duds, who signed them and who keeps playing them?

The problem McNamara has for me is the Warrington example from this year. Yes they have a backer and a new staduim. But taking just this season (so the finances were already set and the staduim has no effect), they were a collection of players who were making daft errors, finding ways to lose games, looking low on confidence and looking like a bottom 4 team. (sound familar?) They then change coach, dont sign anyone for cash just do one player swap to get a full back in and then they start to look like a unit, cut out most of the daft mistakes, play well, gain in confidence, rise up the league and very probably will be making a trip to wembely and make the playoffs with room to spare. Would this approach really not have worked at Bradford?? Would our players have posted better results under Smith?

I dont think there is an easy distinction to be made between the players faults and the coaches fault, both are to blame for different aspects as both are essentially the same unit. It is clearly not all McNamaras fault, but he does have issues that IMO he is not addressing so he is also accountable, and ultimately he is responsible for the players actions, fairly or not.

But the coach has the backing of the club, and McNamara is putting the side together for 2010, so its the players that we need to talk about changing as the coach is not changing.