Re Radford improving Griffin's defence, Fonua continued to struggle defensively all season, Logan was dropped on the back of defence and Talanoa is still a liability and Shaul is still not effective on his own line (elsewhere brilliant) We've conceded more points under Radford on average than under the previous coach and last season we were exposed far too often down the same side throughout so I'm really not sure what Radford can do with respect to any defensive frailties.
Where the results turned around were in attack, if we are going to play the 'Brazil' way of just scoring more than the opposition and not stress too much about defence then that's fine so long as the results keep coming in but I really want to see some improvement defensively.

Friendlies this early are virtually meaningless in the grand scheme results wise, trying to justify the score line with bickering about how many were out/not out from the opposition is ridiculous. It is what it is, getting players on the pitch as part of a build up is the aim no more.

All 8? I'd say that Gale is a cert, so that rules out that bet.

Well anything can happen in friendlies. Monaghan was injured a lot last season so whether Powell will risk him or not is a different matter. His experience will be invaluable though.

Have we?

I knew before I opened this thread that it'd be a tit-for-tat argument about how many first team players each side had playing. Should've known better - it happens every season after pretty much every friendly game.

I agree this petty squabling some indulge in is ridiculous and pointless also include the over analyzing lengths some go too.

It was just a friendly let's just leave it at that.
Both coaches will have had there own agenda and objectives and as long as they are satisfied and certain players benefited from the experience then it's job done.

deleted

I can understand powell putting out a good side when the cup holders come to town

Talanoa a liability? Very harsh

You continue to be an absolute virtuoso of idiocy. You render the phrase "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" obsolete. You're not even entitled to the oxygen you're stealing.

The tyson-wilsons.

No. Having double checked Bumpy is wrong yet again.

Average points conceded per game was 21.77 under Gentle, it's currently 21.27 under Radford.

So our defence has improved under Radford? Thanks for clearing that up.

Great to see so many Hull fans travel over to see an under strength side. Class support as ever. Looking forward to seeing you all plus some visit us in the league fixture!

I posted this up some while back, I'm sure you can find it with the average points conceded per game. With the very best squad we have assembled in 30 years we conceded 1.5 fewer points per game than the injury ravaged 2013 season, prior to that the 2014 and 2015 seasons were on average 1 point per game worse than the 2012 and 2013 season (combined) but we also scored fewer points overall in the 2014/15 seasons on average, that's why we were much lower down the table than the previous two seasons obviously. (2015 was 5 points fewer points scored per game than 2012)

If you don't agree with what I said with respect to those players I mentioned just say and make a case why. I just don't feel we've improved defensively in the areas that we needed to, just that we've improved leaps and bounds in attack in 2016 which was by far the biggest difference as to the table.

We can go further still IF Kelly can do what we know he can do and if we can improve defensively those areas we know we were weak as I mentioned, it's there to see to all but the blind and was mentioned throughout on these very boards by pretty much everyone even when we were on our winning run.

As I said, the result on Boxing day isn't important with respect to the points against, it's a run out as part of the build up so in that I'm not concerned in the slightest, I stillmaintain that I would like to see our defence shored up in those areas we have been weak consistantly.