Quote: tommyfromhull "What exactly do you want Pearson to 'shake up'? We have a new coach and new players. I agree some of our players aren't good enough, we desperately need a half back to work with Rankin, and Radders is in the deep end, but would changing any of these make a difference half way through the season in our position? I'm not sure.
I say we go with what we've got, build our younger players up and keep working hard. Plenty of players will be in/out again next season, let's hope it's for the better. Pleasing tonight that we've shown a bit of fight, our backs not good enough to contend. Get Fetuli with Sa on one wing while Lineham is back, massively missing him and Crooks on our right. Another write off season, but I'm happy that we're still giving young players debuts and gametime, and they are genuinely progressing well. Going to take a long time to get out of the cack to where we want to be.'"
I keep hearing how pleasing it is that we made an effort tonight. Well, forgive me for disagreeing, but isn't this part of a wider pattern that stretches back years? We put in a good effort against a top side and pick up an unexpected win or a valiant defeat, then look only half interested as we get embarrassed by a side in the bottom half of the table. The idea that we should just blindly persevere with Radford will end up causing as much damage as Agar's tenure did. We're in a state of fairly rapid decline, and if we don't bring someone in to arrest that decline soon, we could end up languishing in the lower part of SL (or worse) for years to come.
I don't buy all this 'it will take years to sort' guff, either. Yes, it might take years to get us to the same standard as Leeds/Saints/Wigan, but it would take only a competent coach and a couple more players to get us competing for the 4th, 5th and 6th spots. Even with the squad we have, a good coach should have us around 6th. Which is where a supposedly poor coach had us for two years running.
