how bad does it have to get before Radford is sacked?

Quote: Errlee Berd "For what it's worth, here's my two pennies worth.

Like most others I think Radford is currently out of his depth, and was promoted to Head Coach way too early in his career. Maybe the right time would've been to serve another 3/4 seasons as an assistant, then make the step up - but hindsight is a wonderful thing afterall. Whilst defensively we've been fairly good, in attack it's been very poor and his man-management skills apparently are lacking.

In roughly equal measures to the decision to appoint Radford, is the poor recruitment that we've seen under Pearson's tenure. Not every signing has been poor, and you can always expect the odd one not to work out, but we seem to have a big proportion of failed signings.

Just this year, we've had Pitts, McDonnell, Arundel, Crooks and Miller have had virtually no impact on our season whatsoever, and ultimately we have x amount of the cap not on the field. I think Radford does have a point when he mentioned our salary cap management, although that in no way excuses the performance at the weekend.

We also saw some decent, senior players leave at the end of 2013 (Tickle, O'Meley, Lynch, Briscoe, Holdsworth), and ineffectively replaced. The kicker situation was a farce, and we still don't have a halfback. Holdsworth wasn't great, but I reckon Radford would swap any of the current incumbents for him if he could.

The point I'm trying (probably badly) to make, is that Radford as our Head Coach is a problem and not working, but I think it's only a proportion of a much bigger problem that's festering within the club, ultimately at board level.'"

I have been one of the biggest critics regarding the impact that McRae had using Howes as almost an exclusive supply chain of players. However, I can't buy the argument that the recruitment has placed us in this position.

Many players are signed each season by all clubs, some work out and some don't. I have no idea if Pitts was signed on an excessive contract but one thing I do know is many on here were very impressed with his form at some stage last season. Just compare the signing of Carvell, which Radford was responsible for, and the contract he will have been on and tell me if Pitts would have been any less of a player to have in the squad.

My point is maybe some of the salary cap could have been better spent, but in reality we are talking about 20% of the cap. I am confident in thinking that Cas are spending way less than 20% under the cap and so are Wakefield. It annoys me that blaming the tools left at his disposal has turned Radford in to an apologist who doesn't seem to want to say sorry but I am not getting anything like what is capable from this squad.

If there are issues and weak areas in a team, play to the strengths that the team has. I see no tactical sense and structured play that would win games we are narrowly losing.

Radford was brought in to correct what was seen as player power and weak management. Well it seems to me that all Radford changed was to call players out in public and treat them like children with banishment to Doncaster. I feel like the so called soft approach of Gentle was misread as weakness when in reality it was probably good man management. You work with what you have and any problem players are slowly moved on while you still get the best possible from them, especially if they are key players.