Guess we will see soon enough... the player I watched make dream team a couple of seasons back doesn't fit your description (granted defensively their were bad moments).

I think he will come back to haunt us (and by default prove LR was wrong to let him go, and that Powell really is a very good coach)

Powell is a good coach, but let's not pretend he makes every player into a world beater, Scott moore, Taney and Gibson are good examples. This isn't to say that he won't improve Crooks, but it will take hard work from Crooks and an improvement in attitude on what he showed at Hull.

Back on Michaels, certainly proved me wrong, although he was average at the start of the year, but has really improved and deserves a new deal. I still would have him as a backup next year though.

The Powell v Radford thing is interesting. I just think that the whole is less than the sum of the parts as far as we are concerned whereas with Cas it's the opposite. Is that because Powell is a better coach and gets more out of the team or because our individual players just keep making "one off" mistakes which destroys all of Radders good coaching? With the exception probably of Carney and Millington I would have said that we would/should be better or equal man for man in every other position. It was an exciting and entertaining game and everyone seemed to give their all but we lost and in the end it probably could have been by more. Radford is effectively saying that the players aren't good enough or aren't performing well enough but how many of the Cas players would you say would improve us other than the two mentioned?

And Michaels has been a very sound professional since he joined us.

Can't fault Steve Michaels' approach to games since he's been here. He's not a world beater but there's not been a single time he's half dly stuck an arm out with no intent to tackle an opposition player. Good example of Radford getting the best out of a player with limitations I would say.

But the naysayers will probably say that this is the way Michaels always plays and has nothing to do with Radford.

That is not how I understand it. Apparently the good season he had, and made the dream team, had gone to his head but with Radford being the only one who thought this!! Radford thought it would be good to reel him in a little bit and not give him a game. I am well aware he needed to bulk up a bit, and definitely needed to work on his defence. But I thought the kid had real class. Ryan McGoldrick said he was the most underrated player he's ever seen.

Answer me this; How does a player go from being in the dream team one season, to not getting a game the next? Form is temporary, Class is permanent. You don't lose all your skill in an off season.

Michaels on the other hand has been a nice little find, and scored some good tries. He is highly dependable and is work rate is top notch. Well worth a second season in my opinion

If you had watched his performances in the NRL as I did then you would know he was a bloody good tackler for his size, his tackling was bob on from the get go & nothing to do with Radford frankly.

Players not on form = Radford's fault

Players on form = nothing to do with Radford

Bore off.