When I first heard of Radford's appointment my concern wasn't his technical ability or his man-management skills per se, more his man management abilities over that particular set of men. Despite his and Pearson's assurances of his authority being absolute and the respect from the players equally so, I have retained doubts over how true this will come to be when push comes to shove.

It has been interesting to see how old friends such as Yeamo have perked up since his tenure. Not surprisingly, since Gentle took Yeamo out of his comfort zone and asked some hard questions. Now his mucker's in charge he's happy and pumped-up - and firmly back in the comfort zone. I don't know if a coup led to Gentle's demise (although I suspect it did) and I don't know which players are/were Radder's drinking buddies, although we do know he joined them all for the celebratory ding-dong in Blackpool, simultaneously heading jubilantly west en masse as we were all returning east shell-shocked after Huddersfield. Either way, rewarding players for the ousting of one boss to replace him with the one they all want is sending out a crazy message and is no way going to solve the cancerous culture at the club we're so sick of seeing.

Those players needed managing as it is intolerable that they should be allowed to wag the dog to their own ends. Now they've got what they want, their own manager who they picked and say they'll play for. And perhaps they intend to, in all sincerity. But what when it goes wrong and things need putting right? Will Radford drop Yeamo? Westerman? Crooks? Lineham? If necessary? If he was the coach of any other team I'd say yes, without a doubt. But I think he's too close to this particular set of men, who, to my mind have imposed on him a debt of gratitude by helping secure him the job on top of the fact that he was also a friend. Always a tricky one, and a situation which most companies avoid by moving newly promoted managers to a department where they've never worked before.

Hope I'm wrong, mind.

I agree with much of what you say and I was an advocate of outing every coach and backroom staff member when Agar was sacked in order to have a completely new broom with no previous relationships muddying the waters. We keep saying that there is something wrong year on year but we leave remnants of previous regimes in place so at least there is a suspicion if nothing else that they could be the common denominator. On top of that though is the problem that if Radford does leave someone out he just doesn't have any depth so cannot put in a player of similar quality despite the misguided talk of squad depth , youngsters coming through etc. and that would mean enforcing discipline at the expense of points which would no doubt see his coaching career become very short. The appointment was wrong in my view but now it's done the big problem is that the squad lacks quality. As you say I hope that I'm wrong and Radford can get his mates playing for him and punching above their weight in class terms but it's a tough job for a rookie coach never mind one promoted from within.

Tbh I think the importance of an "enforcer" coach is negligible.

If a player needs to be intimidated by his coach to get him playing, then he will never be a champion player. Top players take it on themselves to be proffesional and conduct themselves in a certain manor. If a player hasn't got the correct attitude then they need to be binned, because they will never reach the top.

I'd be interested as to whom Ellis is referring, and whether they're Radford's recruits or not. The majority of the squad is Gentle's,but Westerman, for example, extended on Radford's watch. We do seem to overindex on Cas players - Arundel, Watts, Thompson, Westerman.

do they have an agent called howes by any chance? apart from westerman all the rest were signed by mcrea/gentle, who i believe were influenced by howes

A Excellent honest articulate post.

And one I agree with wholeheartedly

Well if his pals got what they want in him being the coach, then they'll have to perform to keep it that way.

Sometimes you need to go "look, this is what you wanted, and it didn't work. Now stop asking!"
Alternatively, it might work and everybody wins.

There's no point in stubbornly creating a rebellious culture in the club. I'd risk a period like this if it has benefits in the end. Time will tell.

I use to think it was just football that had the problem of players having to much power. I now feel RL has a similar problem just not as large in terms of wages and lifestyle.

Professional sport has changed so much in the last decade and I feel some RL players want to live in the 80s and have the best of both worlds. They want the adulation that comes with being a local sports star but also want the easy comfortable lifestyle.

The Everton manager Roberto Martinez recently did an interview were he said modern footballers cannot be ruled with an iron fist any more, unless you are in a very unique position like Alex Ferguson. The way he works is by instilling an attitude of aspiration, he makes it very clear what is expected and when this is not met he makes it very clear how disappointed he is in the player. We all no that feeling as a kid when your parent tells you how disappointed they are in you, it cuts like a knife.

So on to FC and the sports news this morning and to hear Feka give an interview about how tough Radford is and that he is handy with his fists and I just feel nothing will change while we have a mentality of fear and not inspiration. This isn't a soft approach as you work on the principle that a player lets his team mates down and they quickly get left out of the culture you are trying to create. Remember RL contracts are short enough that you can let a player rot at a duel-reg club for the remainder of his contract.

I heard that and it sounded cringe worthy. Is that the message we are sending out now, our coach is a hard case and will rule by intimidation. I hope not.

Didn't sound great did it.

That's been the message from day one of his appointment. Doesn't seem to have borne fruit so far.

We won't know until at least half a season has passed and we see how the coach actually coaches. Which was my main point really.

And since Radford has already affiliated with not one but two duAl reg clubs let's hope that is a sign of his intentions.

Some people seem to have written Radford off on the basis of 4 pre season friendlies and the fact that he's a good boxer. I've no idea how he will go as a coach but I'm prepared to let him coach a SL season first and then decide.

Not writing him off, I would love him to succeed. He probably still has every chance. The problem with the fear approach though is that it has little effect on the seasoned professionals that have seen it all before and it just intimidates the younger players to the point where they are scared to death to play creatively and you just end up with them playing within themselves so they don't make mistakes.

That would presumably depend on how the 'stick' part of the approach is used. For example it might focus on preparation, lifestyle and attitude rather than mistakes on game day. In other words it's more to do with a player's overall attitude to his career and employment responsibilities rather than his stats in any given game. Once the potential talent has been identified and an employment contract has been agreed it's down to pure hard work and dedication, and a willingness to be the best that you can be. Come in to training worse for wear and not in the right shape to work and you get the stick. As you say some of our seasoned pros won't be worried because they have already bought into that regime - some of them becoming internationals as a result. If Radford can build in a winning attitude and mentality to the younger players then he will have progressed the club. Whether he can who knows at this stage ?