Back when Lee Radford was appointed in Sept 2013, Adam Pearson in the following articles stated that he wanted us to have an attacking style of play and an attacking strategy everyone can identify. My question is why are we seeing no evidence of this?

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24227420
www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Adam-Pea ... story.html

When comparing Super League records (not including playoffs), Lee has coached 32 competitive games and won 11 giving him a 34% winning ratio scoring on average 23 points per game. Compare that with Peter Gentle who coached 54 games and won 28 giving him a 52% winning ratio scoring on average of 25 points per game. So not only did our previous coach win 20% more games, he also had a team scoring more points on average per game. With that in mind, Adam Pearson deemed Peter to be unsuccessful and sacked him. So why has Lee escaped with a much worse record?
AP was quoted as saying "I want us to have an attacking plan that every player and every supporter knows, I want this club to be known for playing hard rugby and attacking rugby. Lee is charged with bringing in an attacking plan that mirrors the defensive plan he's put in place. He has the ability to do that." Now as we are scoring less points per game and are winning fewer games, I can't see how Lee has delivered in what you wanted? I know I and most other fans I speak to cannot identify any obvious attacking plan in games. It's evident that most of the players do not understand it or do not have the ability to deliver it. Our style of play has to be the most boring to watch in the entire competition. It's also the least effective when you look at our league placing. Our attacking play has actually regressed under Lee. Also you have to say if the players cannot deliver it then that's is down to poor recruitment and or poor coaching.

Back when Lee Radford was appointed in Sept 2013, Adam Pearson in the following articles stated that he wanted us to have an attacking style of play and an attacking strategy everyone can identify. My question is why are we seeing no evidence of this?

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24227420
www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Adam-Pea ... story.html

When comparing Super League records (not including playoffs), Lee has coached 32 competitive games and won 11 giving him a 34% winning ratio scoring on average 23 points per game. Compare that with Peter Gentle who coached 54 games and won 28 giving him a 52% winning ratio scoring on average of 25 points per game. So not only did our previous coach win 20% more games, he also had a team scoring more points on average per game. With that in mind, Adam Pearson deemed Peter to be unsuccessful and sacked him. So why has Lee escaped with a much worse record?
AP was quoted as saying "I want us to have an attacking plan that every player and every supporter knows, I want this club to be known for playing hard rugby and attacking rugby. Lee is charged with bringing in an attacking plan that mirrors the defensive plan he's put in place. He has the ability to do that." Now as we are scoring less points per game and are winning fewer games, I can't see how Lee has delivered in what you wanted? I know I and most other fans I speak to cannot identify any obvious attacking plan in games. It's evident that most of the players do not understand it or do not have the ability to deliver it. Our style of play has to be the most boring to watch in the entire competition. It's also the least effective when you look at our league placing. Our attacking play has actually regressed under Lee. Also you have to say if the players cannot deliver it then that's is down to poor recruitment and or poor coaching.