Quite. There'll be plenty of doom and gloom to go around after Wire finish with us.

Yep there will be the knives out come mon if we get beat,

If? Can't see us winning under any circumstances TBH. I'll be happy not to be embarrassed.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at times I really don't.

Exactly. If you can't allow yourself a little enjoyment of an improbable derby win that takes us to 4th, what's the point? Time enough in a season to be downhearted but tonight's not in that category.

If you read the top clubs' forums when they play crap and win their fans don't blink an eye. Some on here wring their hands so hard it must hurt when Hull get out of jail. 4th in a so far competitive league with hopefully improvements to come in the season. Not too bad.

Agreed. Plus, hasn't Radford won 4 of the last 5 derbies? People used to moan like feck about our lack of derby appetite in other coaches' tenures. Can be seen as a positive of sorts.

Indeed. We're miles from utopia but some are so entrenched in their positions it seems too hard to even enjoy a crazy win like today. It's almost sad.

No hand-wringing from me. I'm mellow tonight and encased in a warm glow. About to watch the match again, well, the last 20 minutes or so, anyway!



But I think the opening post is very valid, and the question needs to be asked:



And the question of whether or not this was the players or coach-driven is one which is worth exploring as the answer could dictate the nature of the rest of the season. If it was the players, this indicates the whole issue of the last few games boils down to confidence. Get it back and we're laughing.

But if it was a conscious strategy from the coach to be cautious then there are a whole load more questions raised. Still can't get the images of Lee walking with palm raised from the dressing room the other week and Ellis and Pritchard's body language as it was happening. I just hope there is no conflict with the players' ideas of how we should be playing and that of the coach, that's all.

Hope Kosh is right, because the way forward will be a lot simpler with everyone in cohesion and confidence can be regained rapidly with spells like that final 20 under their belts. But there was one hell of a big difference in ability and desire shown after 60 minutes, and it's reasonable to question why.

But tonight? Yes, I'm happy. Hands in the air, not wringing tonight.

It's sport though. Remember when kr came back at etihad and beat us after we were well up? We were poor creatively for 50 mins but during that time our big forwards continued to batter theirs. In the last quarter that was a big factor as the game opened up. The likes of Taylor Ellis and Frank became more effective as KR wilted. Couple that with Houghton deciding to start sniping off the back of it and all of a sudden we seemed to overcome the loss of one of our playmakers and start playing what was in front of us. We took so many wrong options in the first half it was untrue - no one told us to do that it was mainly a case of individuals not playing well and also less so some pretty average calls from the officials. Shall and Fonua showed some class in the last 20 and things turned. Momentum is massive in the modern game and our pack deserved their share of it in the last 20 as they earned it earlier in the game.

Game plans are theoretical - they need to be enacted otherwise they're worthless. We got our implementation badly wrong for a good while today but the graft the forwards put in wasn't wasted. Glad you're enjoying the evening. Same here

Not trying to offend, but this is rubbish. There was [iplenty[/i of desire on display for the full 80 minutes. What was lacking in the first 60 minutes was execution and direction.

I don't think Radders is the man to take us were we all want to be but I believe what he said today stating after the widnes defeat the confidence was shot which lead to a safety first one man rugby style against Wakefield and into the game today. He said the fact Carlos went off probably didn't help and you can totally see his point. What I struggle with was he said once we got our confidence in defence that lead to us been more adventurous in attack. I get the statement but we was 20-0 down. Hope we don't have to leak 20 every game to spark our attacking confidence. At the end of the day it was a amazing come back and we should all just enjoy and savior it. It's only a matter of time before were back down to earth with a bump.

Below is what ChrisH wrote on the Good Friday/match thread. This openly states that Radford wanted to play conservative rugby today.
That he hasn't mentioned it out loud doesn't mean that has not being the case in either of the three defeats.
What was apparent was a complete lack of mstvh preparation, basic skills, not addressing samevold issues and so on. This was replicated again today until the hour mark.
Any credit given to Radford to changing the game plan is dubious, however and for whatever reason it did change.
What matters now is that Radford grasps that his wsy is not working and he works with the players to play to our strenghts and not crawl under a rock and let the opposition exploit our weaknesses.

"Radford's attitude and comments worry me. He's talking about them being juiced up , scoring points and us having to not be the Harlem Globetrotters and concentrate on what we do without the ball etc. surely we should be looking to dominate a depleted KR side with only one win and looking to play good football and score points. If we go there to try to stop them we'll get on the back foot and lose badly. To me ,if his comments haven't been taken out of context , it's just the wrong message

quote="Kosh"It makes less sense that a coach would look at our first two win and decide to completely change the way we play.

I [i:1yj23edhsuspect[/i:1yj23edh that the players got carried away and took Cas too lightly. Losing that game they way they did dented their confidence, and that was further exacerbated by the Wigan defeat. Then the Widnes fiasco happened.

Everything that the senior players and Radford have said in public indicates that the team has not been following the game play set out by the coaching staff. Radford's description of [i:1yj23edhhow[/i

Exactly my thoughts. We were utter rubbish for an hour yesterday and were within a whisker of losing to one of the worst sides in SL which shouldn't be happening. Great to get the win but we need a major improvement and quickly

Why didn't he do his imploring at half time? Seems bizarre to leave it so late. In fact, why wasn;t that style of play drilled into them all week if that's how radford wanted it playing? Either that was his plan and the players ignored it or it wasn't his plan at all, Do you think wayne bennett does imploring?

Exactly, it's how we kick on from here, starting Monday, we don't even need to beat Warrington, but must improve our overall play.

It's not rubbish and worm is right.

Desire comes in many forms.

Desire to get up and play the ball quickly.
Desire to get back in the defensive line and then move up quickly to meet the attack.
Desire to get in the right place for a planned move.
Desire to make a dummy run.
Desire to backup and support a team mate.

Most of this desire wasn't evident in the first 60 mins.

Some very good points been made here but none that make 100% sense.

Why would Radford start us off with an ad-hoc style, which got results and had the fans jubilant, only to then drop it for boring one man rugby? I can understand the safety first approach against Wakey last week as we had lost the previous three games and needed the win. But the games before that and then continuing that approach yesterday? Makes no sense to me.

So if it's not the coach and it's the players not following instructions then why aren't they doing that? It was working so well for us that it seems so hard to believe they would prefer the more conservative approach and are only willing to be adventurous when there's nothing to lose. So is it a confidence thing? If so why would they suddenly regain that confidence at 20-0 down?

Whatever is going on I hope yesterday is used as a lesson by both sides that we look more potent and threatening when we take off the shackles. We won't win every match playing that style but we'll always be in with a chance playing that way.

Maybe he told them at half time and then stepped it up to implore once it was clear they hadn't listened?

And I believe I said above that this raises other questions.

I don't rate Radford as a coach. At all. I'm just not a fan of conspiracy theories.

Then you're unfortunately in the wrong place. At times I think this forum exists just so certain people can put forward their strange ideas as FACT.

I am sure like us Radford was banging his head thinking why are they playing like this it not what we talked about but finally he got the message across and they threw it about.

Why didn't he get the message across earlier I hear you post, well maybe it's got something to do with players being under pressure on the field and just not doing what they planned.

You see it all the time, it's called being human.

What conspiracy theories have been aired on this thread, as FACTS?

People are questioning the possible reasons for the clear difference in the quality of play in the last quarter, who instigated it and what the answer to the latter question infers. Entirely reasonably, given the fact that what we saw on the pitch yesterday is a reflection of the whole season in reverse. Our season has been the epitome of the sublime to the ridiculous. Yesterday's match was the ridiculous to the sublime.

Many fans will want to examine the reasons underlying that, and it's reasonable to use the platform of a rugby league discussion forum to do so without being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist'.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7818594 Interesting from Radford.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7818594 Interesting from Radford.

Explains why watts had his best 20 mins of the season and why hes been pretty average this season so far.

Indeed.

So much for the team being instructed to play conservatively.