Well the only people who know for certain are the coaching staff and players.

Way back in 1994 when I did my coaching badges the official coaching manual, written by Phil Larder, stated that one of the tactics that RL had adopted from the NFL was gaining ground in defence by aggressively moving forward on defence and forcing the opposition back.

Though that may be a long time ago I do not know any team that has since decided to move away from it and deliberately concede ground in defence for the reasons I outlined above.

I would therefore be astonished if Radford had decided to innovate and deliberately adopt such a strategy.

Maybe someone could ask him in a post match interview.

I don't think we concede ground we just do not move up. We hold a constant sliding defensive line.

Hence why Austin had all the time in the world to kick with no pressure applied.

That's another reason why is important to move up quickly (but still as a straight line) to restrict the opposition playmakers, not allow them time to play and force mistakes.

Warrington did it really well for their first try. Came up really quick in defence, put pressure on Ratu (IIRC) who dropped it and they scored

I agree it's immensely frustrating to watch.

Me neither, I can’t believe a coach would encourage the defenders not to aggressively defend or allow the attackers to gain a few extra metres.

Out muscling the attacking line stifles the attack and to a degree gains psychological edge.

In some matches when there’s been a bit of a fight you’ll often see the aggression in defence increase and it certainly doesn’t do any harm

i think you're being a bit harsh here, you got near him a lot more than you think, maybe not every time but it was bugging me that he was being put under pressure when we were letting sneyd get touchfinders in the first half, unopposed.