https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8HQhV3ujyg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8HQhV3ujyg

In fact
How did you like our coach laughing and joking with the Salford coach immediately after the game?

That's exactly the point. Showing respect AFTER the game would have been fine. Showing it during is not. I'll take you back to something Tyson once said which was that he had opponents beaten before they stepped into the ring. You can't go into games with anything less than an 100% attitude or you'll come unstuck. That's what Hastings did yesterday. Do you think you can just turn it off and on at will? We've seen numerous times that you go into a game with the wrong attitude and it has a snowball effect. Our attitude was wrong across the board yesterday and it certainly wasn't helped by our main playmaker's 'respect' for his former team.

I'll answer your questions.

Any and all reactions have an effect on a rugby field. You can't pick and choose which matter. We were still 14-2 up but would you say we put our foot on their throat during that first half? The attitude you have dictates the way you play. But here's the real point. Don't specifically relate it to the first half where you can find an argument to support your view. Relate it to the whole game and,in particular,the second half. Does your assertion still hold true? I would say not.

So patting Powell on the head negates interviews, pre meditated statemens that he won't celebrate if he scores, ignoring his own players when they come to celebrate his try and an all round deference to Salford? Have a word with yourself!

What does 'park the bus' even mean? Perhaps you'd better ask Hastings himselfas your now arguing with him.

Lastly, attitude is cumulative. Do I think him not celebrating is alone responsible for our loss? Of course not. But if no individual action is ever responsible for the outcome of a game then all those individual actions don't matter, do they? Of course,, we both know that isn't true. In top level sport all actions contribute to the whole. The team can win or lose by one person's attitude as it filters through the team. We've seen it often enough in a positive sense from Lockers or when Barrett pulled the 30-31 rabbit out of the hat for example. We've also seen it many times in the negative sense (the difference between the Noble and Madge versions of basically the same team for example or, even more telling, the Millward version of it).

Attitude is everything in top flight sport. I can't believe for a moment that you think any different.

I'm not sure that's the same, mate. As you say that was after the game. It didn't sit well in truth anyway but would have been infinitely worse had it happened during the game.

So what was is attitude when he scored? If what you are saying is true surely he wouldn't have scored the try in the first place?

He regretted it for the rest of his life. It was the wrong attitude. Read what he says.. it's written above! Moreover he was substituted moments after because of it. It exemplifies what I'm saying in a nutshell.

(For the record he didn't relegate them. That's a myth)

Typed a reply and phone went dead (not surprisingly) before I hit submit.
Cant be bothered rewriting it all but I'll keep it short

If you believe 100% attitude is everything the you cant pick and choose what does an doesnt count.
Lam Joking with Watson at the end of the match, that's a sign that he doesnt want to win 100%, that will have an effect on the next game and more than likely he will have shown those traits in training and at precious games so that will have an effect on that.game and the whole club.
Any messing about in training, any messing about in the stands laughing at something they're looking at on their phones (hint) or any other kind of messing about I.e. at training or even when sat at home having a sneaky chocolate bar or beer and not being or having 100% attitide has an effect.

To provide a single example of a player who in I think most peoples opinions was just showing respect and use it as some kind of bench mark for any loss or perceived problem at Wigan is IMO just ridiculous.

Tou carry on blaming Hastings
I'll look at why weve not played well nor tha 4 times in 40 plus games (90% of which Hastings wasnt here for).

So he did his job, didnt like that it contributed to their downfall, what should he have done? Not played?

What should Hastings have done last night?
Jumped up and down like a school boy to show how much he wants to win?
He still scored the try
He still would have felt sorry that it was against a precious employer and their fans that he has respect for.

Should he have not played?
Surely that would show he has a weakness

If he does or doesnt play in that scenario he has a weakness that can never be fixed so get rid.

I agree. All those things do matter to some degree. It's what determines the culture of a club. There's a whole thread on whether Lam is the right person to lead us and a lot of that comes down to whether he can get the best from these players. Radford has just lost his job because in large part because of his inability to spark the right culture at the club. How many times a day would you say the typical sports coach uses the word "attitude"?

As for the rest of it and your subsequent post you're starting to use straw man arguments which is a sure sign you've run out of relevent things to say. Would you care to point out where I've used Hastings attitude going into this game as "some kind of bench mark for a perceived problem at Wigan"? Further would you point out where I've said his attitude was any more than a contributory factor? As a matter of fact I've specifically said it wasn't the sole reason we lost. However it did play it's part.

That's exactly the point you seem to be missing (I'm guessing as it suits your argument).

He says, in his own words, that he specifically DIDN'T do his job! His whole career was based on scoring goals and this was the one example where he wished it hadn't gone in. In his own words: "That's a shame".

Thanks for telling me what I'm thinking and that I've run out of arguments (a sure sign that your running out of counter arguments, I dont believe that, just pointing out anyone can claim something that isnt true as fact just to try and prove their right)

I can sit here and claim all your points are "strawman" arguments just to discredit you when in fact they are what they are, points that are relevant to your initial post which IMO was a post that laid the blame for last nights defeat solely at Hastings feet.

You also then say that it was a conributing factor to the loss, not the only, but in the original post you make no reference to their being a dozen other issues that contirbuted to the loss. You just seem to blame hastings.

Look,
I've asked twice now

Let's get rid of him?
Yes or No?