Exactly. Might as well scrap the term head coach and just have a team picker

Fair enough but your previous post was still a crock of sheite

No it wasn't, it stated that I don't see the point in employing a coach to do a job I'd rather the HB did.
I earlier stated that if he was going to do more and look at the whole structure i'd want someone a lot better.

People on here pi$$ed themselves laughing at Wire for employing Agar and look what's happened! Now we're signing the lesser half of the dynamic duo and it's a good move???

Baffling, just like when people wanted Goulding, then Cookie.

You said it was pointless having a coach which is a gonads statement. You've now changed that to saying the wrong coach which is obvious. HB'S won't coach themselves as will no other sportsman, they need outside input. It's pretty basic in term of sporting management

No I didn't.


No I haven't.


Again, you just haven't understood what I said.

Go back to page 8 and read, this time read it in the context of the post I was replying to.

Why don't we see what role and responsibility Webster will take on before becoming dismissive if indeed he comes at all.

I can't believe some on here think just because we are on a decent run and have an experienced half in Pryce we don't need to try and continually improve and evolve and if it is perceived that his appointment will help that then they must be some reasoning to it.

Just because Pryce has experience and has won medals it doesn't make him able to become a successful coach.

Just a thought but why don't we give the guy a chance first before some shoot it down in flames.

Who said we don't need to continually improve?

No one has and I never said they had in my post did I? merely said we had to look at improving and evolving.

I can't believe you're being negative about it without having witnessed if it will work first.

And as for what will JW teach LP probably not a lot but has others have said he will be able to assist and develop other players within the squad it's just about looking at the bigger picture.

Just because Webster has not been a superstar player he was still a good hb in his day and just because he was not successful at Wakefield which is a poisoned chalice which ever way you look at it, it doesn't necessarily make him a bad coach.

Webster's been an assistant at Hull before. Done nothing then, done nothing since.

Seems a moot point now anyway, judging by Radford on blunderside he's as good as employed.

No as I stated I strongly believe it. This is based on watching Hull FC's play over the past few weeks. As I stated Pryce and Min's body language at times before the recent run of form suggested to me that they were not happy with the way we were playing. Then we get a report that stated that LR had said he was releasing the shackles (why the hell they were in shackles in the first place is another debate). I believe this would have been as a result of consultation with senior members of the squad.
Its a belief I have based on watching the game for almost 40 years. No insider knowledge. I may be wrong, but I have no confidence in Lee Radford being able to devise attacking plays, other than the durge that we were served up prior to this current run.

All opinions and I'm happy for others to prove my theory wrong.

Probably because he was made from the same mould as Paul Anderson, Chris Chester, Brian McDermott, Keiron Cunningham, Denis Betts and Shaun Wane.

That's not exactly true, in his first season as assistant at Hull we finished 6th from12th previous year and again the play offs the year after.

He also made an instant improvement in a short space of time at Wakey last year and at Rovers.

Things certainly haven't gone well as a head coach this year at Wakey, but he deserves another chance at coaching IMO.