Don't worry all, Radford was pleased with our perfomance at the weekend.

Yes we tapped into that energy but still didn't put right the things we'd talked about in the match preparation but a pleasing day day none the less.

Thats good coming from you.

That is the big worry for me that we still have the same fundemental issue in transferring what is worked on in training each week onto the pitch in a game, which has been going on since the days of Agar.

The club needed a clear out of the coaching set up not go with another untried inexperienced assistant as a Head Coach. Are we a SL club or an apprenticeship scheme for up and coming Coaches?

This is why I would take Noble in a heartbeat. I don't think he'll turn us into challengers but I think he could sort out the issues at the club.

Agreed. Radford was supposed to be an improvement on Gentle. I have yet to see this and doubt I will.

you can't be sensible AND want Noble in the same thread, it doesn't add up!

Don't quite understand your logic here.

The coach identifies specific areas which need tightening (as reported in HDM), the players train during the week to rectify these issues,
and then don't implement them during the game.

How does a clear out of the coaching staff resolve this?

a clear out of coaches and apologists would be great.

some people seem to accept mediocrity, and that worries me.

Ha ha. I honestly think he'd do a better job than Radford.

anyone could do a better job than Radford, he's not doing anything!

I think your right the problem is how to get the players to implement them during the game.

Plan A - Gentle was too soft so we get a coach that will be more aggressive and use fear to get the job done, this doesn't seem to be working too well. The issue is what is Plan B? can Radford change his approach with the same set of players?



I disagree and think Radford doing nothing would be an improvement

As I said we needed a clear out of the coaching set and not another untried & inexperienced assistant. Radford for me does not possess the skills yet to be a Head Coach or a SL club. Yes he may have indentified the issues which we have had as a club for years but little is changing if anything we are now starting to look worse. Anybody can identify issues but you have to be able to rectify them which is something he presently can not do and by his own admission has no idea of how to.

He was also a player under Agar when we had the same issues of 'Training the house down' but not putting it into practice in games, he was also the assistant to Gentle who was sacked.

Thats is why we needed a full clear out of the coaching staff, instead we have promoted failure and given another Head Coach Apprenticeship out.

But where does this fit in with Pearson's 'local boys for our local club' culture? The strategy of aping Wigan and Leeds and building a passionate and loyal local team around an empathetic Hull coach?

Are we to expect Pearson to perform a public u-turn just 6 months after his statement of intent?

The thing with Radford is that he might make a good coach one day but for me we have promoted him too soon. He needed to serve his time as an assistant like Wane and Anderson. Two years was not enough. Part of me would really like us to place Radford back as an assistant so he can learn the ropes a bit longer but I can't help but wonder if he is part of the problem as, like you say, he was a player under Agar when these same issues still plagued us. Can someone who suffered the problem really solve it and does having someone like that around perhaps hinder the head coach (i.e. Gentle)?

it takes strength of character and courage to admit making a mistake, Pearson's was colossal, and it may cost us a SL place. A bit of humility and humble pie will be a small price to pay.

Completely agree. But is Pearson able or willing to perform the volte-face this will require?

I've said it previously but I think we can still build a "Club Hull" without the coach necessarily being from Hull. It's not like Leeds and Wigan have always had a local boy in charge is it? A good coach will still be able to develop the young local players and if that coach can create a profession, competitive, environment at the club then the passion and loyalty would sort itself out IMO.

Whatever happens, Pearson has egg on his face. It was a massive (some would say reckless) gamble appointing Radford, and we're now seeing what many of us assumed would be the outcome at the time of his appointment.

In my opinion, the earlier Pearson admits his error and takes steps to rectify the situation, the less eggy his countenance will appear.

Exactly. I'm all for building the club around a core of home-grown players - it's the only way to achieve sustained success with the salary cap situation and whatnot - but the birthplace of the coach is a long way down the list of criteria upon which his selection should be based.

You have to ask yourself, would things be any different under Gentle?

If the answers yes in a positive way then you've got the wrong man for the job

Yes if it is for the good of the club, AP has shown previously he has the strength of conviction to do what he thinks is right as Gentle was here for the long haul apparently.

Radford needed to work as an assistant for much longer than he has before becoming a Head Coach at this level or go out an join a championship club to learn the skills needed. I thought Darryl Powell was shafted at Leeds in a way as he put some good things in place that Tony Smith benefitted from but he went away and honed his skills at a lower level. Warrington also righted the wrong of appointing Lowes as Head Coach before he was ready by bringing Smith.

I'm not saying Radford wouldnt make a good head coach at some point but he needs to gain the experience first as he is nowhere near ready yet.

As for a building a team around a empathtic coach thats not what Wigan or Leeds have done, they have simply employed quality coaching set ups and build their teams around a core of home grown players through their academies. They now have coaches from the local area but they have both come in as Head Coaches to clubs that have a strong foundation and have both gained experience to take on the roles.

Oh, I completely agree that it was a very strange strategy to publicly declare, particularly considering the very small ball-pool currently available. I believe Pearson's head was turned by Radford's avaracious whisperings into his ear so didn't see the long sharp knife his playing staff plunged into Gentle's back egged on by his local hero.

Problem for Radford is he's now reaping what he's sown. The disloyalty he encouraged towards his former boss he is starting to see turned against him, if rumours of his losing the dressing room are to be believed. I think the outrage against Gentle started when he - rightly - dropped Yeaman. The players backed the player, unchecked by Gentle's assistant who should have backed the coach, is my belief. So why is Radford surprised that his constant swapping and changing accompanied by a running commentary in the media has not inspired the players to continued commitment to him?

It's plain to me that it's Radford's man-management that's at the bottom of this slump. Just as many predicted would happen given the rapid promotion of a player and mate to boss. The 'local' red herring has only compounded the unfolding disaster - the local 'glue' has become our undoing.

Some of us knew he was the wrong man as soon as he got the job.

In all honesty I do think we would have been better if Gentle was still the Head Coach.