Can't fault Steve Michaels' approach to games since he's been here. He's not a world beater but there's not been a single time he's half dly stuck an arm out with no intent to tackle an opposition player. Good example of Radford getting the best out of a player with limitations I would say.

But the naysayers will probably say that this is the way Michaels always plays and has nothing to do with Radford.

That is not how I understand it. Apparently the good season he had, and made the dream team, had gone to his head but with Radford being the only one who thought this!! Radford thought it would be good to reel him in a little bit and not give him a game. I am well aware he needed to bulk up a bit, and definitely needed to work on his defence. But I thought the kid had real class. Ryan McGoldrick said he was the most underrated player he's ever seen.

Answer me this; How does a player go from being in the dream team one season, to not getting a game the next? Form is temporary, Class is permanent. You don't lose all your skill in an off season.

Michaels on the other hand has been a nice little find, and scored some good tries. He is highly dependable and is work rate is top notch. Well worth a second season in my opinion

If you had watched his performances in the NRL as I did then you would know he was a bloody good tackler for his size, his tackling was bob on from the get go & nothing to do with Radford frankly.

Players not on form = Radford's fault

Players on form = nothing to do with Radford

Bore off.