Lots of dummy's out of prams . hopefully we can get a run together and get everybody more chilled

Simple, because I wouldn't sack him the day after. Just because I see 3 from 10 as unacceptable doesn't mean I would instantly look to remove him from his post. That's the difference. HTH.

What comments were these then? Because on our board I remember saying i'd have liked him to sign for us.

Indeed.

Oh and just to clarify it wasn't Dave K I replied to or accused of anyhting, thanks.

Can you just clarify what you mean please? Are you saying that if we fail to meet what you consider the bare minimum requirement Radford's job should be safe, or simply that he should then go at the end of the season?

If it's the former, then what sort of bare minimum is that?

If it's the latter (as I suspect), then that doesn't address the point I raised. The timing of him leaving bears no relevance, it's about when the call is made. I was asking if you and another poster (I actually think it was Diogenes who said it, my mistake ) both see tomorrow's game as the point after which to make the decision, why is one of you fickle (changing their mind from week to week, or whatever the precise wording was) and the other not? Both will be using the same game as the culmination point of a longer period over which to judge, not in isolation as the only evidence.

My mistake, apologies for the mistaken ID.

Thanks.

I can see your point about basing it on making the 8 or not, even though I don't happen to agree. However, I don't then see the point in the 'marker points' and labelling them as the minimum with any less being unacceptable if you're saying they individually have no ultimate bearing on the outcome. Semantics maybe, but when you say 4 from 10 minimum and any less is unacceptable it sounds like you're saying he should go if we don't achieve that, when what you've just said above suggests that it's less the minimum you expect/demand and more an indicator of how likely we are to make the top 8. That's why I asked you to clarify.

And whilst I agree that making the 8 would be progress from last season, there's a very valid argument that it wouldn't necessarily be progress from the situation Radford took over, and he would arguably be reaping the benefit from setting the standards lower because of how poorly we did last year. Outside the 8 is definite he should go for me, getting in it would then depend on whereabouts, the manner of how, and what happens after that. Scraping in with dull rugby and making no impact in the final 8s would be no good, either.

I see where the confusion was, sorry.

The basis of having marker points was strictly on a personal 'no need to panic' basis, as I don't see being 4 from 10 as particularly worrying, especially given the close nature of at least 3 of the other games.
I find it's good to have an overall objective with strategic performance measures within it.


It's only my opinion, but I subscribe to the thought that what was being achieved during Agar's last couple of years and Gentle's two years was as far as we could ever have gone without the complete overhaul of everything at the club that's been going on, especially last year. Therefore, for me last year was starting from scratch and that's why I see making the 8 as improvement.

Crumbs, based on all these formulas and calculations, Peter Sharp should have been given the job until he was as old as Methuselah, based on his winning 17 match run, broken only by a fluke 2 point defeat away to London!

For me, it's not about stats, it's about gut feeling and confidence in the team, the coaching and the atmosphere surrounding the club. For me, it felt positive overall when Sharp was in charge as his tenure was mitigated by the horrific injury toll he had to cope with. Similarly, with Gentle - even with the ups and downs the underlying trend was one I felt to be of building and strengthening - again, mitigating circumstances which in this case had nothing to do with injuries did for him, imo.

I did not feel that confidence under Agar's tenure, nor do I since Radford assumed the helm.

It probably won't surprise you to say that I don't. I wasn't overly happy with the rate of improvement in Gentle's second year, but I did still think we were improving, and was hopeful/believing that that would continue. 2 of the main reasons for reassurance being that the amount of close wins as opposed to close losses then gave me hope that we were gradually developing a winning culture, and the fact that we started to turn over the better sides with a bit more regularity and authority suggested that we were starting to have less fear of them. Consistency was still an issue, though.

Sums things up nicely for me. Sharp and Gentle I had confidence in. I'd like to throw John Kear into the ring there too as I had confidence in him. Agar and Radford, not so much. A lot of it is about gut feeling. I liked what I saw under Kear, Sharp and Gentle and would have happily seen them remain in charge at the club.

I agree. It feels worryingly like the Agar tenure again to me. Bad results/performances are easier to deal with if you think things will get better, it just doesn't feel like they will bar the odd game at the moment IMO.

Agree, Kear being another dispatched prematurely, again amidst mitigating circumstances and once again those alleged to be player power, if the Swain rumours are true.

I'm a fairly simple person, with a basic gauge system to measure my feelings - the primary emotion. I was frustrated and disappointed when the respective announcements that all three of Kear, Sharp and Gentle had gone. I felt each had more to offer and their chapters weren't closed even though the book was slammed shut.

Conversely, I felt sick with relief when Agar went, and hopeful for the first time in years. I don't feel hopeful now.