Given the choice, would the preference be Cookey or Webster as assistant/attacking coach?

What can James Webster bring, that Leon Pryce (who's won everything, twice, and reached a level far greater than JW ever did) can't?

webster every time. cooke has done nothing of note in the coaching game yet at the top level. webster has had a spell with us before when we improved as a team. the wakey team was left in a terrible mess by agar with little in the way of funds to improve their squad (they operate way below the cap) and anyway their chief problem has been woeful defence

A non playing role. I would love for Pryce to one day take on a coaching role (if he wants to go into coaching). But right now I'd prefer him to concentrate his time and effort on keeping fit and focused on things on the pitch. Though I do believe he will have had some imput into the apparent turn around in our playing style.

Do you not think that by Pryce in conjunction with Radford with regard the attacking strategy and its formulation that the analysis by the person directly involved with its implementation on the pitch is actually a better thing with greater understanding of what is being asked if you are part of the detailed process right at the beginning?

That's not to say that Pryce becomes a coach but if his input and indeed that of playmakers at an earlier stage gives more clarity/greater understanding of the how and why one would expect a better end result if that plan has any merit.
I'm sure Pryce is intelligent enough & experienced enough to not cave under a bit of added responsibility off the pitch, that said that responsibility can fall to some quite young and inexperienced, people are different, some are massively quick learners and/or are natural leaders, others are slow burners, some just want to be workhorses with fewer tasks but can carry them out superbly.

Poor understanding/poor communication of your plan is one of the major downfalls to achieve a goal
Add into that not all young men are good listeners and indeed can find it difficult to transfer that information into what is exactly required at X situation and further be able to adopt that accurately/repeatedly in a pressure situation (of a game of professional RL in this instance) AND to have the mental strength to correct failings/adopt changes in real time with minimal outside help, force yourself on physically, trying to nullify effects on your job (from a negative POV) it is hardly surprising you have some horrible outcomes and some very one sided games that on paper shouldn't be.

Trusting your soldiers as well as being honest and open with them not only can win you a battle & possibly even a war but it also gains you a hell of a lot of respect and from that you have a far greater chance of success, it's a symbiotic relationship.

I strongly believe that our about turn in attacking play is mainly down to Leon and NOT LR or indeed RH. So I agree with you. But there is more to it than simply implimenting actions on the park. Analysis of opposition for one thing which I would not want a current player spending his time doing. Mental tiredness is as much a failing as well as physical.

Do you have any insider knowledge on this or is it purely a guess?

5 years coaching experience?

David Brent in the house.

Guess - 1/10
Insider knowledge - 9/1

Having only played RL at youth level so I maybe wrong, but as a player I was told to follow instructions and concentrate 100% on playing.

Webster would have to time to analyse performance and work with individuals on certain skills. As a player Pryce would put him own playing performances at risk if he starts concentrating on formulating team tactics. I am not suggesting for one moment that players shouldnt have some input, but I cannot recall any notible player manager / coaches in RL in the modern era.