Agree with pretty much everything you've said, however, Micheals has being our best defensive 3/4 IMO (misses fewer tackles per total tackle count than Shaul,Lineham, Yeaman & Talanoa) , he also makes fewer errors/game than all the 1-5 backs and yet makes more metres/carry than Yeaman & Lineham.
Given he's had feck all when it comes to getting the ball at all in attack never mind in space I think criticism directed at Micheals is unfounded, he is the least of our problems quite frankly, I'd rather keep him than yeaman all things being equal.

What we need is a creative/flair centre like the SL dream team centre our coach got rid of, Radford couldn't develop a dose of the clap in a whore house when it comes to the backs and Crooks was an especially bad situation that we won't resolve without paying big bucks for an Oceanic player, Inu would be perfect as the blockbusting centre but I just can't see him coming.

I agree with this, Michaels is so under used its unreal. Good in defence and I think if given space down the wing he'd beat most of his opposition.

Michaels is solid, good defence and runs well and makes good metres, but he has very little skill, has he made a break yet this season, he would never have scored a try like Naughton did against Cas, on Friday he had a bit of space and was caught within 5 metres by Watklins (who is fast, but you would think a winger would get further than that).

He is Ok as a winger, but not big enough for the centre, so not sure why he is being compared to Yeaman, pretty average signing for a quota player and wont have come all the way from Australia for small money either.

Just remembered he did make a break and score a good try against Catalans at home, but that's about it.

Crooks failed to develop at all while in Australia for the last yar. Was that Radford's fault as well?

The fact that he did not make the first team down under does not mean that he failed to develop at all. Powell has obviously seen something in Crooks and I would expect his assessment, with his record on signings, to be rather more accurate than your rather dismissive post. It probably was Radford's fault he went to Australia in the first place though.

Can understand what you're saying, but to say he's not big enough for the centres? Granted he's not the size of Pomeroy or Webster. But id say he's bigger than both Leeds, Saints, and Rovers centres for a start without bothering with all the teams in SL.

Regarding his contract situation, I expect him to leave due to the rumoured signings plus the fact he's a quota player who will no doubt be earning a good pay.

He is nowhere near the size of Watkins and Turner.

That's true, but the fact he couldn't even make 2nd grade does.

Probably especially highlighted on Friday by the calibre of players they were up against. When fully fit, does anyone else think that Leeds' current 2-5 is possibly the best SL has seen? Saints '05-'06, Wigan '01, Bradford '03 other contenders.

Hadn't got this far before my post.

I agree with you about Steve Michaels. Is he good enough to command a place in a top 4 team ? Probably not. Has he played more or less to the best of his ability CONSISTENTLY whilst he's been here ? - yes undoubtedly for me and that puts him above some of our other backs just on that basis. As for Crooks he just gets better the more memories of him fade.

So you don't deny that Radford handled Crooks poorly, didn't develop him and left him out to dry?
Crooks was 20 when Radford started pointing the finger (as well as the so called fans on here) for our failures and dropping him from the side yet we performed better with him than without.
Left out in the cold and told he wasn't wanted is enough to knock the confidence of anyone never mind a 20 year old kid, he's had a year with the magpies and you decree he's failed? What evidence do you have or do you have ability to read crystal balls to see into the future (with regard to how BC will play) amongst your many other people understanding talents?

All I know from what I saw was a young lad left high and dry by his coach and his confidence destroyed.
As I said Radford doesn't have a clue regarding development of the backs nor man management, both those aspects have been patently obvious to everyone except a certain few on here, presume you are one of them because your statement above just tries to deflect that fact

Unfortunately he was a bad apple time to move on like he has

The issues with our backs seem to me to be:
1 - Radford values their ability to drive the ball away from the line above all else. It means we end up with big hulking backs with little pace. It seems the top attribute he looks for when recruiting or picking backs is their ability to pick up hard yards down the middle early in sets.
2 - Radford is a defensive coach. So we have a natural try scorer in Callum Lancaster, but we rarely pick him because he's inexperienced and gets caught out in defence. We'd rather pick Michaels, Yeaman etc who offer almost nothing at all going forward but have got "great D".