The view that if a sporting team didn't make the mistakes they did in a game then the result would be different always puzzles me. Maybe the mistakes FC made were due to the pressure and structure of the opposition team. Teams make mistakes because the situation they are in are to far removed from what they see as normal to be able to consistently handle the situation. In other words they are not regularly conditioned to make dealing with these situations as simple as tasks like passing a ball from dummy half with accuracy, oh wait a minute we struggle with that.

If people still think the mistakes cost us the game then ask yourself if Wigan had made them mistakes would we have capitalized on the chances. Wigan are a team coached to deal with the pressure of a game situation. That means not making mistakes as well as taking chances that they force teams into making.

The thing that concerned me the most is that Wigan won that game at a canter, Maguire was actually regularly rotating his pivots at one point. Not the actions of a team under pressure, more like a team feeling that the win was inevitable and being able to rest big game players before a semi-final.

Whether we won anything or not, we had the best, most exciting, Hull team I've ever seen when McRae was here. If we could have kept Smith and Smith on the park a bit more (as well as one or two others), I firmly believe we could have won something.



I don't disagree with that, to be honest. I think you only need a DOR if your coach doesn't have the connections or skill set to manage the whole of the playing side of the club. That being said, with the right combination of DOR/Head Coach, there's no reason the set up couldn't work.

If we're honest, Wigan were always in control of the game - even at 22-16 we never looked like winning it. I liked clown's quote about how 'we had to earn everything we got'. Well, yes Richard that's generally what happens when you play a good team - they'll givew you sod all because they're inevitably well drilled and well coached. As for our mob, what can you say? Bags of effort but hardly a brain cell in the side and practically zero cutting edge.

I read Agar saying recently that our attack hasn't been a problem. Maybe if he looks at the league table and sees that we have the worst points-scored record of the top nine teams he may change that opinion. He is also on record as saying that he'll walk away if he feels he can't take the team any further. Well, judging on this season, we've gone backwards which means that the walking needs to start now!

I think a DOR would give us stability. If we find a decent aussie coach he'll likely be gone within 3 years whereas a DOR would hopefully be a longer term appointment

I think it does, doesn't it? He's a Union, Golf and beer man, and good for him. I also think he's a very good CEO, but I believe he has very little, if any, input to the playing side of things, which was why I was querying Jake's opinion that our on-field demise has been caused by Rule becoming CEO.

I never said he caused it, however it's no coincidence that he's a marketeer and not a RL man and his "reign" has seen our marketing/PR improve significantly and our on field activities go down the pan.

I fail to see how the CEO of the business doesn't have ultimate responsibility for the playing side of the club

I reckon Kath had more input on that side of things.Rule was more or less just a front for kath.

So lots of people claim yet no one has ever produced any evidence

What would be appropriate "evidence", in your opinion?

Dunno, I'm open to seeing anything that proves this urban myth

So you honestly think Rule was brought in not just for his financial acumen, /marketing prowess & organisational skills but also his extensive knowledge/understanding of RL that would change things on the pitch?
That despite these wide ranging RL credentials he has failed miserably and we've been playing poop for god knows how long and it's all down to him and Agar?

I guess some form of evidence would be the improvement in on field activities, so far we have seen 2 games since the departure of Kath and yet we've seen little change if any to what we've seen for the last 3 years or so. Can't fault the effort and commitment of the players but still not an 80min team, still have brain explosions, take wrong options, strange interchanges, very little 2nd Phase etc. If Kath really was the one pulling the strings on team affairs as much as the rumour goes then surely we would have seen a significant change in the team but sadly we haven't, still very much the same old same old.

You are always asking for other posters to produce evidence of points they make but you never produce any to support your own position Jake.

Agar must be a right fairy if he's the coach and is taking direction on the tactics and playing staff from the CEO. We need a coach with balls to say and do what he feels is in the best interest of the TEAM!

Get shut and get shut now!