Acceptable return for me would be an improvement in the consistency of our weekly performances and a sign that our attack is improving. I would even accept a lower placed finish next season if it meant that the team are starting to gel on the pitch.

Another one prepared to give Radford an easier ride than Gentle had.

A lower placed finish would mean we were less consistent. If the team are 'starting to gel', we should win more games and finish the same or higher. 6th with a higher points return is the absolute minimum he must deliver.

What if other clubs (Salford, Saints and Hkr) are stronger?

You're really ed aren't you?

Why shouldn't Radford have the same leeway as Gentle? PG wanted his squad and he and McRae built it. They put together some truly appalling performances with his team. Allow Radford at least a year before you all start creating terrible, rudimentary MS Paint avatars.

Final league position shouldn't be the only thing that we judge Radford on. If Radford can knock the shocking performances on the head such as Widnes away, Saints at home, Huddersfield last week and Wembley then I would say that's an improvement even if we still ultimately lose those games. At this time it's impossible to tell what FC team will turn up each week and if he can create a team that we know plays with heart and passion every week and gives their all then I would consider that an improvement even if they still end up losing the game.

I think it's a poor appointment, but I'm utterly baffled by the differing attitudes towards Radford compared to any other coach. Radford himself said there would be no excuses that it "isn't his team", yet plenty of people are already making that excuse on his behalf. Maybe AP knew a 'local boy' would get more latitude and has appointed him because of that.

To me, it's quite simple. We would have expected - demanded, even - an improvement next season if Gentle had remained in charge. If Radford is a better coach than Gentle (which he must be considered to be since he took Gentle's job), then surely the minimum we should expect him to deliver is what we would have expected Gentle to deliver.

Minimum should be top 6. He is taking over from a "failed" coach who had two 6th place finishes. When you consider the injuries and retirements and disruptions to the squad then Radford should find top 6 a walk in the park.

If we 'knock the shocking performances on the head', we should win more games, shouldn't we? We lost quite narrowly in a few games we were expected to win this season, and improved performances in those games should have seen us win. We can't possibly improve performances across the board and win fewer games. And even if we could, what's the point? Sport is all about winning.

If Gentle was still in charge and finished 7th next year, would he get away with that excuse?

I think Pearson has made some elementary mistakes since taking over.
My frustrations are centred around him more than the man we've just let go.