I think it's a decent move, watching Wakey they attack pretty well, but are poor defensively, he didn't stand much chance there, but made some silly comments about the middle 8's which really backfired.

I still think he has a decent coach in him, look at when he came to hull last time, before he came we finished outside the play offs, once he was appointed we saw improvements and finished in the play offs twice.

Could be a shrewd move.
Wakey came too early for him. That job would be hard enough for even the most experienced of coaches, hence why they've now had to go and hire Brian Smith.
Won't do our attacking structures any harm, and can only see it as a positive move.

If you look at my post I explicitly didn’t express any opinion, positive or negative. I simply quoted verbatim from the HDM. People can make up their own minds.

What you unwittingly did by jumping in with your “negative” comment was display your cognitive bias. You decided that my post was negative based on your own subjective view of the world.

How do you know that I don’t think that Agar was a good coach held back by bad management of the club (I’m not saying that’s my view but unless you can read my mind you wouldn’t know that). You just elected yourself judge of what’s “positive” or “negative” and came out all guns blazing.

I’m sure you don’t consciously mean it (and you’re by no means the only person on these boards who does it) but some of the intolerance on these boards verges on outright bullying.

The comment about “first post in a week” is another example. Where does it say in the AUP that there’s a minimum posting frequency? I have a highly demanding job that requires me to travel all over the USA, Europe and the Middle East, as well as having a wife and four young children. This means that posting on these boards is hardly a priority for me, but I’ll damn well defend my right to do so when I want to.

There is a debate necessary about how people treat each other on these boards. As long as posts don’t contravene the AUP no-one should be derided for posting their point of view. I often disagree with lots of different people on here, but if I do I post constructive counter arguments, not simply abuse and derision. A sense of balance is required.

The constant peer pressure to conform to what’s subjectively deemed as “positive” is unhealthy and will only lead to a self-reinforcing clique that renders any semblance of debate meaningless.

And when things turn bad, we see who the supporters are and aren't. You Seb, you've turned your back on FC many times. Without those fans in the bad times, there wouldn't be a club for the good time fans to watch.

Sport has ups and downs, deal with it. Success is cyclical. Sometimes that's due to factors of the clubs own doing, sometimes it's outside factors. Unfortunately, there will always be fair weather fans who abandon their club in the bad times, and hop back on the bandwagon when the good times come back around.

Without being disrespectful to Wakey but as the saying goes 'You can't polish a t urd'.

Webster and just about another other coach that took on the job at Wakey was on a hiding to nothing due to a number of reasons the main two being the funding available and the state the squad was in after Agar left.

For me if Webster comes in purely to assist with the aim of improving our attacking plays and last play options etc then I can not see any harm in it. He did a very good job at Rovers and thought he actually improved us when he came in even under Agar.

Can't see a problem with it, can really only improve us.

So is it a good or bad thing?

I daren't say.

You already have.

Where?

If I was to give my considered opinion on this I'd say that the Agar thing is actually a moot point. I posted it as a direct quote to see what reaction it got, which was quite revealing.

Given that the team has recently shown form that people have been crying out for recently why would you want to go adding a new coach into the mix. I think it has the potential to muddy the waters and undo a lot of the good work that has been done recently.

Totally agree. IMO there's been a steadily increasing trend over the past year or so of attempting to ridicule opinion and the poster instead of just debating the point being made. Often it also seems to be based upon a quite unusual/selective interpretation of what is actually said.

Here's the deal. We have a vociferous section on here who are prolific in slating the coach, raising public petitions and calling passholders "disgusting" for compromising the future of the club by having the audacity to financially support it. Those demonstrating some positivity are termed apologists/delusional/cuddle crew. Is this "bullying" too?

Of course it's up to you what you post on here and I don't think I've stipulated a postcount threshold requirement or told you what to say. Maybe that's your cognitive bias. If I come across as intimidating that's not my intention, but like you I'll defend my right to post.

On Webster, I'm not sure. He seemed popular in his brief tenure here and was a handy halffback who'll be better for head coach experience. Sounds like Horne is putting a big shift in on video analysis and prep so at worst it's another pair of hands.

I think both sides are as guilty as each other.

Agree 100%

As soon as someone has an opinion its shot down as it doesnt fit with a certain few. Some "adults" need to get a grip.

Webster did nothing as a player. So whats to suggest he'll "turn round" our already improving game?

Are you saying Agar should come back after he's been under Tony Smith a year or 2?

Maybe you should stick to slagging off the posters here and Yeaman, or has he now changed your opinion?