The point remains regardless on field results, which are satisfactory and a long way from the perennial strugglers of yesteryear, since Kear has been here the whole ethos of the club appears to have changed. It is much more professional now and the academy is developing nicely.

The players who are at Wakefield may have been brought by Kear but how many would’ve actually featured on his wish list if the club had the means to purchase ‘in their prime’ SL and NRL players. Not many. That’s said the players he has drafted in has done a remarkable job in getting the team into playoff contention not just this year but for the past three seasons, we have never seen consistency like that at Wakefield in SL. It has been disappointing to see the team fade away towards the end of the past two seasons but that’s sport. There were better teams who made the playoffs.

Without a doubt there is no one better placed to guide this club. If Trinity fail to make the playoff s this year then so be it, there is always next year, and the year after that. Franchising, if nothing else, is here to bring stability to all clubs. Changing your coach, and one who has such an influence on the club as Kear, could undo all the good work that has been done so far.

If Wakefield had Warrington’s finance and repeatedly failed to make any sort of impact on the playoffs then it may be a different story and the future of a coach who failed to deliver that would perhaps be shown the door.

But for now, and the foreseeable future, it is imperative that Kear remains at the helm. As long as the off-field criteria are looked after the on field criteria will look after itself.

My judgement is not based on 6 games in 2006, it’s based on the past 3 years of progression as a club.

There have been many occassions when JK has had the opportunity to play players in position and he hasn't.

The fact that we have no wingers makes it even stranger that Petersen has apparently left for some unknown reason.

Perhaps a good comparison to the Trinity’s current situation is the plight of Charlton Athletic. An un-fancied side with average players who performed very admirably in the money obsessed Premier League. At first the supporters were happy just to be in the top flight, but the longer they remained in that division the stability of keeping the same man at the helm enabled the club to progress year on year up the league and become a club on the fringes of a European place.

After a number of seasons of just missing out, the supporters grew restless and demanded that their manager be removed as he was unable to take them on to that next level. Eventually they got their wish and after 15 years the manager stepped down.

A year later the club was relegated from the Premier League, three years later they now are set to face Wycombe Wanderers in footballs third tier.

Surely peaking early in the season is a tactical decision. Sure, if you want to win Super League you have to peak at the end of the season. But when that's not a realistic goal then peaking early allows you to pick up wins against teams having a slower start to the season.

It does but if your goal is the play offs then the fact that in the last 2 seasons we have fallen away in the last few weeks would suggest that maybe it is time for a different tactic.

he didnt do to bad against saints the gripe i have and its only a little one unless he was carrying a knock why drop latu? at the beginning of the season he stated that players wouldnt be brought right back and would have to have a run out in the a team so why change a winning team by picking drew ahead of latu.

I believe Latu was injured or he may have left it's hard to know these days!

1 Latu picked up another injury , so he was not dropped.

Latu hardly played his part in the wining team did he.

no al he didnt i am just stating what john kear said at the begining of the season

and although latu may or may not have had a injury why did he warm up he was in 18 so he must have been prepared to play

Possibly the mistake JK made was in his original statement/promise. It was a big statement to make at that time, imho you have to asses the needs of the team at that time and react accordigly, which is what JK has tried to do. I think in an ideal world he would have liked to stick to what he said.....................but it's not an ideal world is it

Apparently it was what the players wanted ie every player needs to earn their place after injury via the 'A' team. However this 'rule' seems not to apply to all players.

I'm pretty sure that if we have a hooker, for example, coming back from injury and teher are no other hookers available, that the rule doesn't mean he has to play someone else!
I think if there is someone playing that is earning his place then a newly fit player does not automatically take his place, but form and ability still apply in the decision of who to pick.