Staffs FC wrote:Playing devil's advocate of course that could be turned around the other way. People who would have given Gentle more time (such as yourself) despite being nilled at Wembley and being outrageously and embarrassingly stuffed out of sight in the play offs seem to want to blame the players for that and absolve the coach of any blame. Kind of depends on your point of view really.
Some might, but I don't think the majority do, and I certainly don't. What I actually said was that I think a few months' results and 2 performances in particular overshadowed almost 2 years of steady (if a little slow) improvement. I didn't say those were nothing to do with Gentle, I just said that overall, the rest of his tenure should IMO have seen him given the opportunity to continue that improvement and make amends for those two games.
I was also making the point about the inconsistent treatment/assessment. That's not even close to saying it was the players' faults and not Gentle's. It was directly questioning why Radford isn't getting any of the blame. It's very rare that it is ever purely the players' fault or purely the coach. Gentle was rightly criticised (although I personally don't agree with the balance of how much), but blame is still being laid at Gentle's door 18 months later whilst Radford is being lauded for having better recruitment and being a better coach despite the fact that we're somehow worse.
So my point of view is that that makes no sense to any right-thinking person.
Staffs FC wrote:As I said at season start give Radford 10 games and see where we are. Once again we've lost multiple games narrowly - we're undoubtedly the experts at it - but in the main we don't play enough good attacking rugby. Two losses in the next two games should see him out. He would deserve to go in the same way Gentle did in my opinion.
Fair comment.