I only went to the Derby friendly because I was expecting it to be FC first team playing most of the game with a couple of fringe players showing their faces, I was happy with the first half performance but the second half tactics has made my mind up for next season Derby friendly I won't be going. The club need to be upfront with the players being used to stop fans going to games expecting to see a competitive game. What exactly did Wakefield get out of the game playing their first team against our second team, I agree with Pearson as they stand our friendlies in there current format are nothing more than a training session.

On topic, I'm pretty much with AP on this.

There will (hopefully) be a benefit to the team to play the games in the way we have and Radders will have the first 17 ready for next week, but I can't help feeling that fewer, more focussed games would be better, and that as fans, our attendance isn't needed at them. It's good to see rugby after so long, but if I wanted to see the U19s warm up games I'd move to Hull and go to them at Bishop Burton or wherever.

I don't want us to be underdone, but with the exception of the Rovers game, I can't see what benefit we will have got from, basically, opposed training sessions and I'm worried that we will be. Again.

Would also be interesting to see the overall preseason minutes played by each player in the three/four games. If, say, Ellis has played 80 minutes of the 240 available, yet, say, Turgut has played 120, is that a good use of the games to have Hull FC ready for SL?

And if so, is it worth my time, as a fan, to go and freeze my nuts off to watch? Already wondering if I'll be going to any next year.

nice one,ccs.

Way I see friendlies is we've had the most undisturbed pre season I can recall. Early at that. We've been training well apparently for months using the combinations we're looking at using and to be fair the squads not had a huge overhaul. So we play against lower league n run over them n go through them clinically as you'd hope too. Then against rovers which is as tough n super league like as you'd get for a friendly we carry on and are dominant for a long time so coach I assume is happy with what he's seen and decides he now wants to start his league campaign with a full strength team who are fit n also able to train together right upto the 1st game. If we'd lost sneyd n mini or Ellis the same way as rovers have lost Kelly n larroyer I'd be more upset than seeing the kids get beat at wakey.
What does anyone make of wigans pre season?

Just a few points on this. Firstly, the two concerns that Pearson has are that friendlies either disappoint fans or give them unrealistic expectations. Well, the club haven't exactly helped themselves on that, have they? The determination to crowbar in yet another derby is guaranteeing that at least one friendly will never be fully accepted as the training/preparation exercise that it is. If he genuinely wants friendlies to be seen for what they are, he should ditch it. And unrealistic expectations will always be risked when you field arguably your strongest lineup of preseason against the weakest opposition of the lot. It's practically guaranteed to be a blowout game where you look good and don't really get tested.

Secondly, I don't believe the claim that the Rovers game is the only one that's any good because of the intensity it provides. It's purely and simply money, IMO. It always gets the highest gate and is also the most expensive. The reason it will have been the most intense game is largely (maybe even only) because it was the only one of the 4 preseason games that actually featured close to 2 SL sides for any length of time.

Lastly, I'm not convinced that friendlies are a waste of time, although 4 may be slightly more than necessary. The teams you should be looking at as a yardstick (i.e. those that actually win things, not just the one you're playing first up who happens to fit your point) don't seem to think that way, either. I do lean towards them being a waste of time the way we have used them for the last few years, though. I really don't understand the 'all or nothing' approach we have with first teamers/youngsters. It's supposedly about seeing if the youngsters are ready for SL, but en masse, guess what - they're not. IMO it would be far more sensible and beneficial to be seeing the young players mixed in with the experienced ones, as that is most likely (at least hopefully) how it would happen if they got called up during the season.

The bottom line is that you can only judge how good preseason was once the season pans out. As much as we may question or compliment our approach at this point, it's only the competitive season that will tell us if Radford was right or wrong. The only thing we can then ask is that we learn from the experience. With this and the other Pearson story this morning he seems to be forming his opinion and 'digging his heels in' before actually waiting to see the results/evidence from which to form an opinion.