Wakey won't finish 8th, bottom all day long !

Back on topic, Radford reckons he knows his team

Can't see it being far off this one.

Shaul
Lineham
Sa
Yeaman
Talanoa
Pryce
Sneyd
Watts
Houghton
Paea
Mini
Ellis
Westy

Feka
Bowden
Thompson
Rankin

Haha are team and club are rubbish yet we won at your place and you got a last minute draw at are place.we are a little club yeh but your club as spent so much more money then us and still are no were near the top 8 so who is actually the rubbish club?

*our

Now I'm not wanting to get into the having a pop at Radford/the team/performance because a) I didn't go, and won't comment from a position of ignorance; and b) friendly results really do mean nothing.

However, I do just have something to mention on the above point. We've been training brilliantly since about 2008, but through all of that have still been monumentally tosh regularly on match days. I'm not privy to the reasons for team selection so I'm not saying it was right or wrong, but if it did happen to be because they're training well & it isn't considered necessary to see more match practice then it would be absolute lunacy IMO. One of the things we most need to do is to start getting our near-legendary training ground form onto an actual pitch.

Radford is hardly likely to say that training hasn't been going well, so the training ground form won't make a scrap of difference to anyone but LR.

And we will have played 4 times as many pre-season games as Huddersfield when SL starts.

We said the same today. We are world class trainers, and it pre dates 2008.



All I'm saying is providing the counter balance to the slating of this chosen policy. Which appears to be having an almost full squad available for round 1. Having done our recruitment early in theory less match practice may in a small way be compensated for by relative familiarity. It's not ideal, but I'd rather have Pryce available at Hudds than have him out due to 40 mins game time with Sneyd at Wakey. It's obviously not an either/or choice but two possible scenarios.

Yeah, you got me on that one but I was 12/13 right

Friendly analysis all done then. Now Lee and the squad really get analysed. By the League table.

Roll on SL. come on Boys !!!!

I can see what you're saying, I just still think that [iif[/i it was as you suggested and we (i.e. Radford) are happy to largely leave our first choice players out of the pre-season games because they're training well, then there are major question marks over it. It would seem strange to take a similar approach to last year given how that season panned out, what's that definition of insanity again?

There are, however, several reasons for the selections I could understand and get behind (including the fitness angle to a certain extent, I'm fully behind not playing people with knocks and risking aggravating them for a friendly. I'm less supportive of leaving players out if they are fit simply through fear of injury, though). That's precisely why I said I won't say it was right or wrong today because I don't know the thinking behind it.

One of the positives today, is that all these drama queens, get to have a pre-season party.

This last bench spot we've got (accepting the usual 2 props and a back rower) plenty of people have Rankin down for it, I'd just like to know why? Him playing at 9 was only ever mentioned by AP and laughed off by Rankin himself and Radford, yet suddenly people think he could go well there, his defence isn't anywhere near good enough for 9 either. I'm also not a fan of the idea of moving one of Pryce/Sneyd up and playing him in the halves, the least our HB's are disturbed the better. Plus there's the fact he's been training as FB all pre-season and I don't think players should be picked on a notion that 'we have to fit him in somewhere'.

For me, if form dictates, he should be our FB, if not then he doesn't play.

leaving players out for fear of risk of injury in a pre-season game just doesn't add up, not when you have what happened in the rovers game with the majority of the first team squad going off at half time. It's such a risky strategy..if indeed it is one.

Yes the near 1st team selection did well early doors against a very much under done rovers side, but to then make wholesale changes to the detriment in the result leaves a bitter after taste for fans & players alike and adds to everyone's concern. Why make all those changes when you had no intention of playing the body of the first 17 the following week and have another poor result which fuels more concern for fans and indeed the coach/players.
I'm sorry but on balance Radford has got this wrong, either play the 17 in a half of each game (or mix half and half) but don't leave them on the sidelines for 1.5 games with as another poster said some not getting any decent minutes together since the York game.

Injuries are totally unpredictable, you'll get them throughout a season no matter what, trying to cotton wool X player/s makes no sense at all despite the fear of what will happen if we have another dire season. Are we going to be resting players & take a hammering in the games we're likely to lose and just play strongest 17 against teams we have a chance of beating?
One poster has even said Hudds will have played 4 games less(which inaccurate anyway), it isn't how many games, it's the quality and so far aside from a training session againt York and one good half against rovers the first 17 haven't had enough pre-season IMO.

That said, results with points at stake are what matters, If we win then we'll be eating humble pie but if we lose (and I know it's only one game) fans will be looking to the pre-season prep as to why, we absolutely have to win this first game & get some confidence for the very winnable game at Salford. Get some momentum going into the Warry game and who knows where we might be after the first 6.

At this moment in time though I have very little confidence. I'm coming down for the Warry game anyway so hope we get a result beforehand.

The message from Radford was that this pre season would be different. He wouldn't make the mistakes of last year and would learn from his mistakes. Maybe he has but it's really difficult to see where or how. It's just the same old , same old , same old. It won't have added to the confidence of the "cannon fodder" played today , the potential walk up supporters for the first home game and I can't see any benefits of any sort to come out of the pre season. Before it happened unbelievably I was looking forward to the season with some confidence , albeit fragile , but now I'm just expecting more of the same.
If Radford has a plan buried in all this then I hope it works , the logic though escapes me.

As long as at the end of the season we are in the top 2/3 then we're safe from any relegation threat.

And yes, in the top 2 or 3 would be even better.

I can't see that Radford will have learned anything from yesterday's game, apart from maybe the fact that our squad players who wouldn't normally make the 17 weren't up to facing one of the weaker SL sides.

I also can't see how it helped our preparations for the Huddersfield match given that only about 5 of those who played yesterday will face Huddersfield.

Personally I feel more than a little short-changed having gone all the way to Wakefield and paid £15 to watch our U 19's get a stuffing.

I also feel that Ellis's testimonial match deserved more respect, as did Whiting's last year.

We've a better chance of been in the top 2/3 than yourselves this year. If Pryce and Sneed (both players have well truly been found out) are your first choice 6/7 your going to struggle for creativity. Whats the best price for you to finish bottom?

He should have played 90% of the team that is going to play against Hudds and then added 2 or 3 kids such as BTW, Lancaster and Logan for instance. Not thrown all the kids in together to get mullered by Wakey and knock their confidence.

Based on what? A friendly that saw 10 of our first 13 missing or the fact in the history of SL, you have regulary failed to finished above us?

How have Pryce and Sneyd (not Sneed) been found out, have you seen them both play for Hull, both players have been successful in top 8 sides, can the same be said for Miller and Smith?

I'd worry about your own team then ours and you might stop making silly posts were you will no doubt end up looking stupid at the end of the year.

like [ifuc[/ik you have. Just explain how Pryce and Sneyd have been found out exactly? Pryce was one of the leading try assists all season even until he was dropped due to signing for us, and Sneyd had a fantastic season even though he dropped off towards the end of the season but still wasn't poor. You come across as knowing feck all.

If it was my post you're referring to, I said we have played 4 times as many pre-season games as Huddersfield, which as far as I can tell is accurate.
Or I could have said we've played 160m against SL opposition and 160m again championship sides, compared with Huddersfield's 80m against a championship side.
Totally irrelevant, I agree, but If the positions were reversed I can imagine the outcry for being undercooked.

I'll be happy to revisit this point after ten games of the season. Sneyd is a player that had a decent run of form nothing more, and Hull jumped in with the cash. A world of difference between form and actual ability. Pryce while still a useful player hasn't been half as effective has what he was upto a few years ago. I don't know what wages but ill be surprised if you get value for money. Miller has had one bad season under a terrible coach at Hull, Smith in a Wakefield shirt has been one of the most consistent performers in the Super League. Don't forget we have Sammut as back up (or maybe first choice). I would say we edged you in the hooking department as well. The difference in performance expectation are wildly of mark, hopefully that will filter through to the betting markets and I can make a killing.

No we haven't..4times is just nonsense..the starting 17 will at best have played 2 full games. you forget that the Donny game was the youth side, the majority of the side against York played a half against Rovers and a couple of players will have played yesterday. The vast majority of the starting 17 have just about 2 games..that isn't 4 games or 4 times..IMO our prep has being e..same as last season

Oh for education eh!, this time yesterday you would not have been able to make this post without making a pratt of yourself