No one is saying Radford is immune from criticism but no one knows what his influence was in the FC camp until now so he deserves a chance to show us what he can do as our new Head Coach. He's not even been in charge a game yet and some people have the knives out. It's ridiculous.

This is what Radford had to say on the matter:

"It's about how you deal with players. Some you have to be aggressive with and be a dictator to, some you have to put your arm around.
"In all honesty I think it will be an easy transition from team-mate to coaching these players. I think my plus point is the relationship I have with a lot of them.
"I know when to poke a stick at these players, I know who needs an arm around them. If that past relationship is used wrongly it can be a weakness, but I want to use it to my benefit and make it a strength for me.

Let's give the guy a chance.

10 years with a 5 year option in Radford's favour.

Or 3 year deal.

One or the other.

So that could possibly be a season of employment followed by a large lump sum to compensate for the other two?
One hopes that will not be the scenario.

Totally agree.

Well, he was second in command, so one assumes he had at least some input into how the team performed.



Your suggestion that the 'knives are out' is faintly ridiculous, yes. A poster asked the (quite valid) question why Radford was unable to motivate the team as an assistant, and how this will be magically transformed when he is the head coach. The response he received was "Why not ask him to his face?" The obvious inference being that if you daren't criticise someone with the capability of beating you up to their face, that the criticism is somehow invalid.

There's a lot of assumptions going on but no one has any facts.



There are a few people on here saying they think appointing Radford is a mistake. I myself aren't convinced but I'm prepared to give him a chance but some on here don't appear to be willing to do that. Hence the knives comment.

I just feel that the guy deserves a chance to show us what he can do now he's in charge before he gets criticised. Save the criticism for then if it's necessary. But right now lets all get behind him and support him.

Do you think it's a fair assumption that the assistant coach has no influence whatsoever on whether a team performs to its potential or not? If they respect Radford and want to play for him, wouldn't they want to do so regardless of whether he was first in command or second?



Saying that they think the appointment is a mistake and 'having the knives out' are two very different things. This board is a discussion forum. There will always be differences of opinion. I've not seen a single poster saying they hope he fails or that they want him to fall down a mineshaft, or something. That would be 'having the knives out'. What you're seeing is some people adopting the perfectly reasonable stance that appointing someone with such a limited amount of experience, and who was part of a coaching set up that has been deemed a failure, perhaps wasn't the wisest option.



I think the criticism is more of Pearson's decision to appoint him, rather than of Radford himself.

I'm not making assumptions. I'm waiting to see what he does as our Head Coach.



You are right, people are entitled to their opinions and this is a discussion forum. As such I have given my own opinion on what I am seeing and what I think. Primarily that we should give Radford a chance.



Whoever the criticism is aimed at, it's hardly a vote of confidence and support is it?

Fine, that's your prerogative. Others prefer to think about things a little deeper, and this causes them to wonder why the players will respect him enough to perform consistently well when he's head coach, but not when he's assistant coach.



And that 'the knives are out'. Which clearly isn't the case.



It's certainly not a vote of confidence - I have no confidence in the decision. Would you like me to pretend that I do?

I never said I wasn't thinking about things deeper. I'm just not making assumptions and want to see what he can do as Head Coach. No one knows exactly what his influence was as Assistant so for that reason I am prepared to wait and see what he can do in his new role.



My opinion is that some people have the knives out and I am entitled to that opinion just as you are entitled to have the opinion I am wrong on that.



No, just support the team and give the guy a chance.

We know that he was at training every day and was always there on match day to help prepare the team. We know that he's supposed to be a 'natural leader' who the players 'look up to' and 'respect'. Adam Pearson has witnessed all this first hand. So, it's not making any assumptions to question why this wasn't enough for the players to give their best for him when he was only the assistant, and how this is likely to be any different just because he has a new job title.



I suppose everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, even if there's absolutely no evidence to support it.



As I said, these boards are for opinions. If everyone just said 'I support that' about every signing, decision or coaching appointment, there'd be little point in RL Fans existing. I think AP has taken a massive gamble with the club's short to medium term future by putting a 'management team' in charge with not a single experienced head involved. It might work, but I feel the odds are squarely against it. I'm deeply concerned that the little bit of progress we've made over the last two years could be undone just as quickly and land us back where we were under Agar. When the season starts, I'll be there at most of the home games supporting the team. At that point, I'll have little choice but to give the new regime a chance. That doesn't mean I'm happy or confident about the way I see things going in the meantime.

I suspect if we'd taken a 34-year-old assistant with only two years' experience from another club to be our head coach, many more fans would feel the same way. But because Radford is a 'Hull person', that seems to have been overlooked.

An assistant coach can have ideas about how to handle a team that he will put across to the head coach who may or may not take these ideas on board. Its possible LR was actively trying to persuade PG that his methods weren’t working and this may have been fed back to AP. AP may have seen how LR handled training sessions which again might have been different to the head coach.

Just because an assistant is around when a head coach is it doesn’t mean he agreed or had the influence to change things.

Not saying any of this has any weight to it but it’s a possible explanation as to why LR may do better (or worse) than PG.

For what it’s worth I do think you needed someone with a bit more experience as the job required at Hull is different (harder) to the one that both Shaun Wane and Anderson picked up.

My biggest worry in all of this is that AP said 2 years ago that he had the right man for the job in PG, so unless Radders hits the ground running in terms of results is AP is going to sharpen his axe if the players don't respond to his hardline approach.

Its hard to justify why Radford should be given any longer to get it right that Gentle was given.