Christ can you give a rest,let's see how we get on when the season starts and how the hell do you know Radford hasn't learnt from last seasons mistakes,people can learn and improve you know or does that pass you by.Yes,the friendlys could have been used to better affect but how has every other teams pre season gone? Maybe Radford isn't the man to take us forward and I called for his head last season but at the end,we was showing good form and realising what could happen,he has addressed the half back problem and we have options there for the 1st time in God knows how long.If we get a bad start then AP may act but a good start and who will be botherd

You called me not sufficiently intellectual enough, given the very basic concept that we are talking about you were trying to belittle me by suggesting I am not capable mentally of understanding/grasping basic concepts..from that you called me out as being a Rovers troll on the back of such.
I responded in kind and other posters seem not to have grasped your dig at me so I've set them straight as to who started the childish belittling/name calling..which was you.
You couldn't even support any arguement you had against what I said so resorted to your tactics (which is against the AUP) by suggesting posters are not intelletually advanced enough to understand stuff that a child could fathom..
so don't be making out you're the innocent party when you started calling people 'thick' in essence.

Seems that you call everyone a HKR troll who dares to repeat any criticism of Radford or the club.
My negative views of Radford remain the same but I said I would wait until we have seen the first six games of the new season before commenting further on him.
if others want to criticise Radford or some aspects of the club then that is what forums are all about.
you are just as boring as anyone on here with your constant replys to posts implying that they are a HKR troll.

Not at all - just those who come on and criticise but never give any credit. Even if you're not a troll you act like one. No difference really.

The key word is UNLESS. It implies an either/or situation. I'm over the moon that it's ed you off though.

Totally agree. It's why i never go.

Wigan lost to Leigh, Saints and Workington pre season. But the got past London Skolars

Well we'll see, I suppose. Petty sure you've been warned about over excited rants.

You're like the girl who cried wolf Bumpy.
Droning on about posters challenging your mental capacity (not me by the way) whilst you gratuitously slag off our head coach for having no [ibraincells[/i.
I'm sure you've mentioned his intellect on more than one occasion if I could be @rsed to trawl through for them so don't give us this little girl offended when you get some grief off others.

Leeds youngsters weren't pointless against Donny. Won 42-14. No mention of Michaels in the report or BTW come to that. Cookie played although I don't know whether the Donny team was "better or worse" than the one fielded against us , it looked similar with the addition of Cooke and our two. Looks ominous as far as Leeds is concerned.

I think your answer is the question to be honest. Rumours can or cannot come to fruition. I am sure there may be the odd fan on here who may have posted a rumour in the past that maybe didn't happen.
Opinions are similar, sometimes right, other times not. I mean those 500 new season ticket holders hull fc manage to sign up for 2015 (and despite desperate Rovers fans thinking otherwise) your club would, at least equal the number sold last season. Any update on this ?

So let me get this right, another poster calls me mentally defficiant (Staffs FC) I responded back in kind. Another poster asks why I am name calling (& I explained why) another one chimes in with more of the same as if I'm the one who started it..and you're calling me a girl..yup, that's just about the level of integrity on this forum...
I explained why I said what I did in response to Staffs FC getting gobby, I used the same wording and that as far as things go was were it was at until others joined in & started laying blame at my door for name calling when Staffs FC started it.
So if you want to point the whiny biatch finger at someone then point in the direction of the person whom started it..

As for Radford, he's not a forum poster (as far as I know) and what I say about him or anyone else away from the forum is none of your business and not against the forum rules..
and considering what Radford has done so far he hasn't got two braincells with regard to rugby coaching to scratch together..okay..

Jeez!!


I'll leave it for others to decide how embarrassing your girly ranting is becoming.
Go and have a lie down Bumpy.

Do you mean deficient or defecating?

Shhhhhhh!!!!!!!


I've sent Bumpy to beddybyes.

Back on topic, this has said about Micheals playing for Donny today

@PeteSmithYEP: @djb2708 Looked good early on. Caused Leeds problems + set up a try. Think he was rested at half-time though.

Interesting. A few questions to answer in selecting the back 5 next week. Theirs are probably (according to their board):

Murphy
Broughton
Wardle
Cudjoe
Mcgillvary

Reckon we'll go

Shaul
Talanoa
Yeaman
Sa
Lineham

Shame we couldn't get another game out of Micheals, would possible add some more pace to our backs, looks certainly look slightly stronger there, spits up to our forwards to beat there's and lay the platform for the halfs.

Agree with that. Wardle and Cudjoe both strong centres and our edge defence has been questionable to say the least.

Asked how Michaels got on on the Donny board:




Worthwhile run-out hopefully.

On topic, I'm pretty much with AP on this.

There will (hopefully) be a benefit to the team to play the games in the way we have and Radders will have the first 17 ready for next week, but I can't help feeling that fewer, more focussed games would be better, and that as fans, our attendance isn't needed at them. It's good to see rugby after so long, but if I wanted to see the U19s warm up games I'd move to Hull and go to them at Bishop Burton or wherever.

I don't want us to be underdone, but with the exception of the Rovers game, I can't see what benefit we will have got from, basically, opposed training sessions and I'm worried that we will be. Again.

Would also be interesting to see the overall preseason minutes played by each player in the three/four games. If, say, Ellis has played 80 minutes of the 240 available, yet, say, Turgut has played 120, is that a good use of the games to have Hull FC ready for SL?

And if so, is it worth my time, as a fan, to go and freeze my nuts off to watch? Already wondering if I'll be going to any next year.

nice one,ccs.

Way I see friendlies is we've had the most undisturbed pre season I can recall. Early at that. We've been training well apparently for months using the combinations we're looking at using and to be fair the squads not had a huge overhaul. So we play against lower league n run over them n go through them clinically as you'd hope too. Then against rovers which is as tough n super league like as you'd get for a friendly we carry on and are dominant for a long time so coach I assume is happy with what he's seen and decides he now wants to start his league campaign with a full strength team who are fit n also able to train together right upto the 1st game. If we'd lost sneyd n mini or Ellis the same way as rovers have lost Kelly n larroyer I'd be more upset than seeing the kids get beat at wakey.
What does anyone make of wigans pre season?

Just a few points on this. Firstly, the two concerns that Pearson has are that friendlies either disappoint fans or give them unrealistic expectations. Well, the club haven't exactly helped themselves on that, have they? The determination to crowbar in yet another derby is guaranteeing that at least one friendly will never be fully accepted as the training/preparation exercise that it is. If he genuinely wants friendlies to be seen for what they are, he should ditch it. And unrealistic expectations will always be risked when you field arguably your strongest lineup of preseason against the weakest opposition of the lot. It's practically guaranteed to be a blowout game where you look good and don't really get tested.

Secondly, I don't believe the claim that the Rovers game is the only one that's any good because of the intensity it provides. It's purely and simply money, IMO. It always gets the highest gate and is also the most expensive. The reason it will have been the most intense game is largely (maybe even only) because it was the only one of the 4 preseason games that actually featured close to 2 SL sides for any length of time.

Lastly, I'm not convinced that friendlies are a waste of time, although 4 may be slightly more than necessary. The teams you should be looking at as a yardstick (i.e. those that actually win things, not just the one you're playing first up who happens to fit your point) don't seem to think that way, either. I do lean towards them being a waste of time the way we have used them for the last few years, though. I really don't understand the 'all or nothing' approach we have with first teamers/youngsters. It's supposedly about seeing if the youngsters are ready for SL, but en masse, guess what - they're not. IMO it would be far more sensible and beneficial to be seeing the young players mixed in with the experienced ones, as that is most likely (at least hopefully) how it would happen if they got called up during the season.

The bottom line is that you can only judge how good preseason was once the season pans out. As much as we may question or compliment our approach at this point, it's only the competitive season that will tell us if Radford was right or wrong. The only thing we can then ask is that we learn from the experience. With this and the other Pearson story this morning he seems to be forming his opinion and 'digging his heels in' before actually waiting to see the results/evidence from which to form an opinion.