As rallying calls go this is going to be pretty tepid. It's been a yucky start to the year for Rovers, with the injuries, uselessgormlessbiasedidiotdisciplinary-gate and what have you. Plus Hull look good, meaning that the usually hilarious swagger of some of their fans on here currently looks annoyingly justified.

But I think the tendency to put the worst possible spin on every aspect of... well, everything Rovers-related has gone a bit bonkers. I mean, I'm looking at the next few weeks with a bit of trepidation, but reading some stuff on here you'd think we were on the verge of relegation and collapse.

After a pretty much fairytale first five years in SL (driven by vanity according to Rob Crossland, but no less enjoyable for that), attempts to build better foundations during the next four don't really seem to have worked. Not all plans succeed. The turnover of players has been unhealthy and something went wrong with our local talent identification and/or development - for all that there might be fewer kids playing the game, Hull have produced a few who look SL standard. But you can learn from failed plans, and apparently we have a new one. Based on the assumption that Hudgell, Crossland, Smith, Peacock and Chester are merely fallible rather than grossly incompetent, here are some elements I think or hope the plan includes.

1. No more Wayne Ulugias. It didn't have to be Wayne, there have been a few, but as he was the final nail for Sandercock he'll do. People, myself included, have questioned why the squad is so skinny, and certainly you can over-do picky, but I think there is now a focus on getting the right type of people on board, and stopping the revolving door recruitment policy.

2. No more Tony Larvins. Hudgell and Crossland have more than done their bit already. Without them it likely would be relegation and collapse. I think this 5 year plan will aim to change that, so that there's a realistic chance that the next prospective owner might be somebody a bit more credible than Tony. A huge task, but also hugely important.

3. A few more Liam Salters. The importance of youth development to the success of the top teams is massively overstated IMO. To the point that some people seem to think that it is the sole factor that differentiates the best from the rest. That doesn't mean it isn't important though and it has been a problem for us. There's the potential that the City of Hull Academy could offer a better return on a smaller investment - if it is done right.

4. Win. Some. Games.

MR. You can call it the worst possible spin from us if that's how you see it. I view it as constructive and perceptive criticism in the absence of a formal face to face club to fans forum, regarding on field matters.

After all the possibility of relegation from SL has been reintroduced and the way things are, we are in danger of flirting more seriously with it this year. Early days, I know, but the performance and point against Cas provided a false dawn. When this was followed by a turgid and depressing return to a one-sided away day blowout due to a mistake and penalty fest against Wire, I knew immediately the old and familiar weaknesses are still there.

Hope springs eternal, I desperately want my beloved team to win and I will support them through thick and thin, but like many my patience is wearing very thin. The worst possible spin as you call it is an attempt by us to highlight issues and find answers and apportion responsibility where necessary.

I welcome your comments.

We weren't that far off against The Wire, the effort was there, we defended multiple sets very well but got hammered in the penalty count something like eight two in the first thirty minutes.

Our execution in offence and inability of the forwrd's was the major worry.

Recruitment has been poor, and I'm not sure about the game plans, Morgan used to have a different game plan for every team, if Chester has this, we clearly don't have the players to carry this out without Campese.

Blair has been very good, as has Sio. We just do not have a general. Horne is, for me not a captain, he's not vocal enough, there's no one calling the plays in attack or defence.

I entirely disagree about the issue of youth development. Leeds have hoovered up the best talent from both sides of the M62 corridor once they got over their hissy fit of summer rugby, they chew them up by the dozen and spit them out if they don't think they're up to scratch, in fact, they now have a fail safe in that they ship them out to Fev for a bit to see if they might still make the grade.

I would much rather us lose an Allgood and develop an attractive player pathway for kids, wherever they're from.

Slightly off track but as you mentioned it in your opening post I'll bring up the vanity statement Rob C mentioned.

He said him and Hudge were driven by vanity in the first 5 years, sorry but I don't understand. This is what I see
We were obviously up to cap, apparently we still are (ish),
We had a high number of overseas, we still have
We didn't pay transfers then, i think we have this year albeit small a one
We were defensively dodgy but good in attack, seems fimailar
I assume our targets are to finish up the league and back then we improved year on year and finished 4th.

Now I understand we need to improve off the field and if we were cutting costs to do so I could understand the drop in quality, similar with youth if we were blooding a lot of kids to cut the O/S contingent then again I could accept that but what I don't get is why IF we are planning on running full cap then why is having a good team classed as a vanity thing?

am i missing something???

I have read this and all I can say is we need to start winning and winning games fast because we will have no fans at craven park we do not want to go back to the bad days again before we win some thing

#prayforrovers

If you have this magical 5 year plan I fail to see why it can't be shared with the fans. Surely any goals and objectives rovers have will be broadly similar to every other club in the league so why the big secret? Obviously there may be some commercially sensitive stuff in there but that can be left out or glossed over but some headline objectives such as improvement in facilities, where they see you capable of consistently being league position wise, external investment requirements, squad make up etc. At least if you understood what they're trying to achieve and how then you'll put up with some short term pain on the journey. The current situation seems like borlox to me and is alienating fans more than bringing them closer to your club.

Maybe they're just worried it will be a damp squib like hudge's 5 year plan of survival, consolidation, challenging when you first entered SL

Amended for accuracy

I agree with Sandra regarding the wire game it wasn't that we were totally outplayed it was more our own undoing we were still in the game with about 20 mins to go we've had worse starts to the season I think it's magnified also by Hull looking very good in there opening games but going back a year we totally outplayed Hull with virtually the same team (I'm just using Hull as an example of a time when we were playing well )

You state we were still in the game but was that down to wire bombing chances as much as us defending well. The general consensus was that on another day wire could have racked up 60+

Yeah and on another day it could have been 20-18 Warrington bombed a lot of chances which last time I checked don't count for anything and we dropped a lot of ball in our own 20 I thought we defended well all be it our own fault as we put ourselves under pressure but the final score flattered wire imo

(^ on the game) … I thought Warrington were guilty of forcing things rather than bombing chances. Our line defence was actually working fairly well. Sliding across, seemingly allowing them over the line with bodies under the ball/arm when necessary etc. Given the huge amount of territorial advantage they had, I think they got impatient and frustrated by not having 5 or so scores on the board in the first half. This was good from us. The bad, was the pressure all stemmed from our own basic unforced errors, numerous penalties, and a total inability to make any meaningful yards forward.
You could argue the game turned on 2 garbage calls from the touch judges, but I never thought we really looked likely to get anything from the game. There was a sense of inevitability that as the game wore on, the score would reach the 30-40 region. Last year we had an exciting attack, we may still have that – but we’ve looked rather toothless so far.

Like most MRover thread’s I zoned out and lost the point in the detail … was it rallying call of scepticism vs the recent excessive pessimism?

That, I'm all for. Some stuff seems IMO, to be too determinedly negative. The reality is likely more nuanced than some are presenting it.

At least one-eye optimism gives us (probably false) hope. Negativity for its own sake makes no sense to me.

I admit that we're in the poop a bit, but I don't think picking it up and chucking at the board, managers, coaches or players to the degree that some are is justified. They're absolutely entitled if that is their view, but personally, I don't agree with some of the criticism.




Are those necessarily equivalent costs? On the other hand, do they have to be alternatives - can an attractive that is affordable and offers value to the club be built? I dunno. It's easy to select an antipodean whose contribution has been limited, but we've had plenty of value from Down Under too. And you still need somebody to fill that place in the squad who'd need paying a chunk of whatever Allgood is on.



I've often felt NH and RC understate or undervalue what they achieved back then. Perhaps it wasn't sustainable - referencing spending against the cap, has the potential to be a little misleading IMO, and I suspect they've been trying to do similar for less since the end of the Morgan era, and it's proved to be difficult. A concern relating to my second possible goal of the plan is that a sustainable model may not be achievable in an environment where some clubs are money-pit vanity projects and others have bigger fanbases. The alternative to trying to do it is giving up though, so I'm happy to 'give' them another 5 years. Good of me, I know.



I broadly agree and I guess my OP abhors the vacuum. I guess they're concerned it could become a stick to beat them with when we hit bumps. For that reason I wouldn't expect detail, but a general vision or philosophy with caveats about being flexible couldn't hurt IMO.

The 'survive, consolidate, challenge' plan was clear and ultimately had the glorious virtue of succeeding, or at very least exceeding most expectations. I wouldn't see that as a damp squib at all. 'Building for future' was coherent in conception, for all that it unravelled and with hindsight could be called a damp squib. The next plan might stall too, but I think it only reasonable to entertain the possibility it might work out. Darkest before the dawn and all that, and look at the change in mood for Hull fans since a few months ago. But yeah, 'we have a 5-year plan' begs more questions than it answers.

I do go on, don't I?

But yes, basically.