whether he cares or not, it doesn't alter the fact that a narrow win over rovers in a game we could have lost on another day makes not a shred of difference to peoples' concerns about his credentials for the job.

Yeah, almost as subtle as my response

There is going to be plenty of time for that!!!!!

Nor should it. People should stick to their guns if they believe in their position why shouldn't they ? My point was that all he can control is results.

Unless we lose then it's the players not following his game plan?

Unless we win then it's all down to Dennis Moore or having better players than last year ?

No, it's all down to my psychic powers when we win

No wonder we've been struggling.

I'm not sure about that, forgive the football analogy but look at Megson at Bolton.. He made some really good signings and wasn't doing too badly in the league (in the context of what their fans could realistically expect).But, because his style of football was dire and he showed no interest whatsoever in the fan's opinions on him, they ended up hounding him out of his job.

In fairness to Agar he oicked the right team and we won the game so fair play to him. 4th best defence and 5th best attack so far and sitting in 5th place. I'd have took that 9 games ago.

Not a bad analogy but IMO the Board decided a while back to try to develop a young British coach by backing him for 3 years with the signings he wanted and the time they thought he needed. That doesn't seem to me like a scenario where he will easily get the push, although I'd be surprised if there are not target clauses in his new deal. As I said the other day with record ticket sales, bags of sponsorship and no perceivable match day protests from fans over his tenure I don't see a Megson occurring any time soon. We're 60% without playing particularly well attacking wise. Couple of bad hiccups but it looks like the Board are taking a longer term view with this new squad.

so youd be unhappy with wayne benett?

or do you have to be succesful to earn the right?

Fair play to Agar, but I will judge him on more than this game, though he got the our tactics right, we also played some good rugby and scored good tries. I hope this continues.

We need to improve our ball retrention, at times we pushed too many passes and our displine was poor again, if this was better yesterday we would have won comfy, as we looked a much better team than Rovers but the above kept them in the game.

If this doesnt improve on Monday we wll get beat.

In terms of our style of play I thought Briscoe's try was telling - it involved very aggressive drives and offloads but was still a flowing move. For Tanseys' try, I think those who think that we have no structure in attack ought to watch that move again - it was also a move from on the half-way line (5 drives and a kick). We will spill the ball when trying to play a free-flowing style but I thought we got it right more than wrong this time and our defence fronted up well when we did lose possession.

For the Rovers try by Welham, those who wonder why Hall is not always first choice look at Hall's howler in defence that allowed them through the line. I believe he had a good game from that point and personally want to see him more (with Briscoe's injury that will probably happen) but you can see why Agar is reticent about picking him - in low-scoring games such lapses can be telling.

In terms of coaching tactics, I think we concentrated on our game rather than worrying about theirs, but all-in-all I reckon Morgan was out-thought. The Rovers game-plan seemed to revolve around a lot of late off-the-ball hits, sly punches, elbows and head-butts/facial rubs and Cockayne clearly thought he was outside a night-club.

Whatever happens we beat the team in front of us away from home in a hostile environment. I liked the interviews at the end - no-one was getting carried away, it was all about how we need to improve week-on-week.