I agree about radford and am somewhat puzzled (although very happy with) by our seeming seismic shift in attacking ability. I was just wondering if you knew something had happened. I'm not convinced it's down to pryce taking on the role of attacking coach though

I'm not suggesting he has taken on a coaching role, more he has imputted some of his considerable experience along with Mini and Ellis. Those three are winners and are not happy simply to take a pay cheque at the end of the month. They are here to win and what ever systems we had in place prior to Easter was not going to get us any where near silverware. I suggest words have been spoken behind closed doors and we are starting to see the results in our performances. It is after all a team effort.

Are you trying to tell me we need a coach to tell players where to stand? Deary me, every team sets up the same, in fact trying to put them in a rigid structure was the reason our attack was turd first half of the season.
The way you're making it out is far too rigid, as though every play is pre-determined.

Organisation on the field is the HB's job.

More nonsense.

And a coach's job is to help ensure that the HB knows what's required of him 'on the field', re-enforce known plays/positioning, discuss options with the coach/s & what areas he/the team need to be pinpointing for any given opposition or individual player.

Some players whom have superb decision making abilities and can play what they see still need a plan, you still need coaches to guide even the most brilliant & gifted. Human beings are fallible, on any given day you might not be in the right place mentally if your preparation isn't right or something disturbs your way of thinking, this has happened to EVERY great athlete.

Having that team around you to get you onto the right track when things like that happen is massively important as is ensuring the plan that goes onto the pitch is met to achieve a goal, that doesn't mean you can't move away from that for given scenarios but if you don't fulfil the basics you end up not being able to do those off the cuff deviations so easily if at all.

JW might not improve us, we just don't know, but if he has a positive influence within the team as a whole whilst adding in his own player and coaching experience I think it's a risk worth taking to give him a go and see what happens, don't you?

My argument was never that they didn't need coaching (although the less intelligent among us thought it was), what you've stated there I'm sure our coach already does. I want my HB controlling and organising out there, not pre determined set moves dictated by a coach. The idea was put forward was that he'd help with end of sets, kicking, catch & pass etc. But Pryce has been at the very pinnacle of our sport, he knows what's needed. Isn't it what we signed him for?
Things have turned a corner, why change things now?

I reckon if I went back through older posts, the same people who want Webster would have wanted Goulding, Cookie etc. I just don't see the point in employing people for the sake of it, unless you're 100% sure they'll make a difference, I'm not sure he will.

Employing him for the sake of it implies we are doing him a favour, how can you know what he offers if you didn't interview him, speak to him to find out what he has to offer?
Whilst individually we might disagree with what the owner, the coach or indeed players do and we evaluate their performances from a fans perspective it's virtually impossible to truly grasp what an individual has to offer until you speak to them in depth, find out what they are about, what they think they can offer and how they fit in with the existing team.
Your evaluation of what he's done here, at Wakey etc is far too simplistic and your way of thinking just narrows down opportunities by its very nature, that the head coach is looking at different avenues to improve the end result and as an aside possibly taking some pressure/responsibility off his shoulders has to be a good thing.

I'm all for voicing a strong opinion, you know that, I'll back myself despite what people have to say but sometimes we have to wait to see what happens and then judge/re-assess things even if our intial thoughts are 'what a load of old twaddle'.

You might be completely right but I think it would be hard to prove if things go wrong given the previous 18 months or so and Radford's track record.

I know, as I said you have previous

That may well be true nobody is questioning that. However its not the HB's job as a player to trawl through video and analyse the oppostion and work out tactics and game plans to help gain advantages and spot weaknesses. That is I believe where JW will be utilised and will help coach the players to assist and improve the attacking plays we have struggled with for years.

Why do you want to shove that responsibility on to a player? Surely the best thing to do is to take these responsibilites off players and work within a known series of structures/game plans which the team as a whole have worked on and are used to. Once these things are in place then the HB's role is to dictate the plays as the games unfold.

Bringing in JW is no sleight on Leon Pryce or Mark Sneyd far from it he is simply someone who can hopefully carry on the improvement in our attacking plays and help to achieve consistency.

Why would anyone want to give Pryce any extra responsibility, he has been outstanding as a player this year, so lets him concentrate on that?

This clearly isn't a knee jerk reaction or we would have appointed a coach earlier in the season, when we were struggling, the club clearly think Webster will be an asset so are trying to bring him in.