After the first time we'd signed him!!!

imo a strange decision but he must be rated by agar and it looks like he'll keep the captancy.

FFS. Try and post something a little more substantive. This constant reductionism of every non-objective point to this same line again and again doesn't lead anywhere. It leaves no room for discussion and I really can't see what the point is. At least try to come up with some justification for your own opinion rather than merely stating your opinion and then shielding it from any criticism by covering in it in the 'opinion' forcefield.

As I have posted on another thread, you can't see what is going on behind closed doors, and what effect Radford is having on the younger, less experienced players. He is a senior player that has won most things in the british game.

And? If he's not doing it on the pitch, he shouldn't in the team. By all means, employ him as a coach, or keep him on the books as cover, but he shouldn't be a first choice back-rower based on recent performances from both him and his rivals.

And how do you know he is? We don't know what he is being payed, and also wether or not he has a minor coaching role within the team. Agar see's the team everyday and has enough sense to make a decision on contracts.

Supporting Agar by lambasting him and refusing to get season pass because he felt Thorman could do a job for us.

I'm sure he's very grateful for your support via non attendance.

Never has such an average and limited player achieved so much in the game of rugby league.

To think of some of the great players that I have seen that have won little or nothing in their entire careers and then Radford can win literally everything that there is to win. It's incredible.

A contract to the end of season 2009 was too much for me ,so to see yet another extension to 2010 is just mind boggling.

He was more consistant than both Tickle and Manu last year and his stats back it up. I can't beleive you seriously think Tickle and Manu offer more to the team based on 'recent' performances!!!! Tickle will have to produce way more now that Hull don't need him purely for his goalkicking and Manu will have to have a lot more than the couple of decent games he had last year.

Radford will be in the 13 every week when fit, so live with it.

Know he is what? All I'm saying is that he shouldn't get a first choice spot in the back-row. That's all I've been saying all thread long. I don't know if he'll play at all. Judging by performances last season, we might be intending to play him at 7. He shouldn't, however, be in the back row ahead of Tickle, Manu, Crocker or Washbrook.

How do you know he is going to be a first choice back-rower??

I'd rather have someone vary between average and great than someone playing averagely every week.

The stats back up what the stats measure, and often what they measure are vague definitions of indefinable things. Nothing more.



I really hope I don't.

FFS. I don't. I haven't said he will be. All I'm saying is that he shouldn't be. Is that so hard to understand?

Not at all. But you must assume that he will be given a first team spot, otherwise why the complaints?

Do you seriously think that Tickle and Manu's performances vary between average and great????

Manu occasionally has a stormer, and I would have him in my team anyday of the week. Tickle, like you said, has to perform now that he isn't needed for just kicking. And I'm sure someone will disagree with me...

Are these the stats that show that Willie Manu has been in the top 10 tackle busters in Super League for the last 3 years running?



Manu is class and the introduction of Crocker should allow him to be used as strike player off the bench, which is what most would prefer to see I reckon.

The 'complaints' have been as a result of Big Dave T's insistence that 'Radders' should be in the first 13.



They're very rarely less than average.

I apologise then, I have only read a few pages on this thread, I'll take more notice next time. Just wish people would cut Agar and Radders a bit of slack.

well done captain radders

You only want stability if you are in a period of success.

Change is needed not stability in the club right now and i cant believe you dont see this.

Agreed, the problem was last season that the only time we looked like doing anything the ball had to be in Manu's hands. The opposition soon twigged and it appeared as thought Manu had gone missing as we desparately looked for a plan B which has yet to be thought of.

Exactly what I thought when I just read that post. We needed to stabilise after McRae's departure and the cup win, but we have instead gone downhill IMO.

Stability is the foundation for change. Total change inevitably leads to failure.

have you read much around changing organisations like Hull FC? Change Management textbooks etc?