Don't worry all, Radford was pleased with our perfomance at the weekend.

Yes we tapped into that energy but still didn't put right the things we'd talked about in the match preparation but a pleasing day day none the less.

Thats good coming from you.

That is the big worry for me that we still have the same fundemental issue in transferring what is worked on in training each week onto the pitch in a game, which has been going on since the days of Agar.

The club needed a clear out of the coaching set up not go with another untried inexperienced assistant as a Head Coach. Are we a SL club or an apprenticeship scheme for up and coming Coaches?

This is why I would take Noble in a heartbeat. I don't think he'll turn us into challengers but I think he could sort out the issues at the club.

Agreed. Radford was supposed to be an improvement on Gentle. I have yet to see this and doubt I will.

you can't be sensible AND want Noble in the same thread, it doesn't add up!

Don't quite understand your logic here.

The coach identifies specific areas which need tightening (as reported in HDM), the players train during the week to rectify these issues,
and then don't implement them during the game.

How does a clear out of the coaching staff resolve this?

a clear out of coaches and apologists would be great.

some people seem to accept mediocrity, and that worries me.

Ha ha. I honestly think he'd do a better job than Radford.

anyone could do a better job than Radford, he's not doing anything!

I think your right the problem is how to get the players to implement them during the game.

Plan A - Gentle was too soft so we get a coach that will be more aggressive and use fear to get the job done, this doesn't seem to be working too well. The issue is what is Plan B? can Radford change his approach with the same set of players?



I disagree and think Radford doing nothing would be an improvement

As I said we needed a clear out of the coaching set and not another untried & inexperienced assistant. Radford for me does not possess the skills yet to be a Head Coach or a SL club. Yes he may have indentified the issues which we have had as a club for years but little is changing if anything we are now starting to look worse. Anybody can identify issues but you have to be able to rectify them which is something he presently can not do and by his own admission has no idea of how to.

He was also a player under Agar when we had the same issues of 'Training the house down' but not putting it into practice in games, he was also the assistant to Gentle who was sacked.

Thats is why we needed a full clear out of the coaching staff, instead we have promoted failure and given another Head Coach Apprenticeship out.

But where does this fit in with Pearson's 'local boys for our local club' culture? The strategy of aping Wigan and Leeds and building a passionate and loyal local team around an empathetic Hull coach?

Are we to expect Pearson to perform a public u-turn just 6 months after his statement of intent?

The thing with Radford is that he might make a good coach one day but for me we have promoted him too soon. He needed to serve his time as an assistant like Wane and Anderson. Two years was not enough. Part of me would really like us to place Radford back as an assistant so he can learn the ropes a bit longer but I can't help but wonder if he is part of the problem as, like you say, he was a player under Agar when these same issues still plagued us. Can someone who suffered the problem really solve it and does having someone like that around perhaps hinder the head coach (i.e. Gentle)?