Is it time to start looking for a new defensive coach.

Something went badly wrong on Monday, no doubt.

But what % do you think they do give typically or on average? And how do you think that compares with players at other clubs?

IF they gave 100% and I do not mean all the players just some, we would be better then we are if you look at teams like Wigan or Leeds their teams do give 100% look at Wigan they won both the Easter games and were up for it, a lot not all of our players were not,is it the coach to blame if so get rid

While I don't doubt that Wigan and Leeds have a very strong team culture, and players with a winning mentality, are you seriously suggesting that our relative lack of matchday effort is, over the course of months and years, the significant factor that distinguishes them from us from and the majority of other clubs?

Do those players from Leeds and Wigan try less hard when playing for England and being stuffed by Australia, or is that just a gap in quality?

Sorry to be a bit harsh in my response mate, but I don't think you can solve an issue without correctly identifying it - mind you it is a pre-requisite, not a guarantee. As a club I think we seemed to be doing a lot of sensible things to try to grow - I'm a bit worried that the trauma of monday has got people asking the wrong (IMO) questions.

WHEN you say when the players playing for England get stuffed yes it is a gap in quality, I do not say all players that have or do play for rovers are the same what I am saying and it seems to be that some, do not give what they are paid to give and that is 100% until they do we will not win anything, like we used to do back when they had to work for a living

If you mean we won't win a trophy, then we're going to need more than trying harder to break the hegemony the current 4 dominant teams that have won [ieverything[/i since 2006.
Without a massive injection of cash on top of what is already poured in that is difficult to imagine.
Back when they had other jobs 1. So did their opponents and 2. We used to pay big fees for players - Casey, Hogan and Fairburn and the like (I read this in a book, btw - I was only a kid at the time).

I wasn't there (in fairness, I rarely am now), but my assumption is that the big difference between the great teams of the 1920s and late70s-80s and the very poor ones of 1950s, was that the good teams just had more quality, rather than the struggling ones not trying so hard. In terms of quality, I'd say we're a middling SL team and we generally get middling results against opponents I assume are striving their utmost. NH is right about accepting being average in one sense, as it is a recipe for being much less than that. On the other hand you need to be realistic to progress. This was sold as a transitional year, and I anticipated there'd be a few downs - maybe not quite on that scale, and Salford was a particular sickener too. But we've won 5 games too, so could definately be better, but could also be worse.