Mrs Barista wrote:I see you've already been corrected. I don't expect an acknowledgement, but it's good that others have pointed this out.

Perhaps we just accept that we have a different lens on the club and our outlook in supporting it?

I choose to invest a fair bit of time and effort in supporting and following the club. My choice. I choose to enjoy the journey, accept it will have ups and downs, accept there are things I can't change, accept that we have fewer resources than Warrington, Saints, Leeds, Wigan. I seek out the positives where I can and like to draw broader context where I believe it's relevant. Being a supporter of the club for me is not simply creating the goal of grand final or bust and being negative about anything and everything that doesn't align with that. It's about savouring moments on the way, such as Ratu's length of the field efforts, Sneyd's golden points, the double over Leeds. Otherwise, what's the point? It doesn't mean I don't hope for trophies, of course I do. It means being realistic, pragmatic and supportive of what the club is trying to achieve, including the coaching staff. All of the above is my choice about how I want to feel about supporting Hull FC. And it's been pretty consistent over the last 30 odd years in eras covering the lower tier, Tony Gordon, Richard Agar, David Lloyd and so on.

Your interpretation of the above is to criticise the outlook as acceptance of mediocrity and therefore a betrayal of the club's best interests. Fair enough - it's your choice to see it like that. There are plenty on here who probably spend the same time and effort, undoubtedly many far more so than I do, who choose to view my attitude and others' in this way. Your choice. Positivity and appreciation are seen as indicators of nausea-inducing weakness. Only those who call out their continued dissatisfaction geniunely want the best for the club, and improvement can only be made by listing areas of deficiency, whether or not their elimination can realistically be delivered.

Here's the rub. For all the energy you are choosing to invest in trying to argue with me, discredit me, belittle me for my attitude in enjoying supporting the club for what it is rather than singularly what trophies it wins, you can't change me. Expect the worst, hope for the best, take victories with happiness, and defeats with dignity and empathy, and turn up again next week regardless - that's the aim. This doesn't mean I don't disagree with some of the club's actions - I'm still not over getting rid of Liam Watts for example. But when I consider the negativity quotient on here disconnected with the club's position I will call it out and counter it. I think I am OK to do so, regardless of whether you do.

In respect of the insinuation that I have multiple accounts on here to in some way fabricate a body of supporting opinion, and that I am making up posts on Twitter, I think we both know that neither of these are true. I would recommend taking a breath. Perhaps we can reconcile our differences a little and be more mutually respectful. I'm pretty sure most on here are jaded with the constant sparring.

pmarrow wrote:For all the armchair coaches claim the team selection was wrong and we are too light in an ageing pack (which we can't do anything about til next season but let's moan anyway) we only just fell short. Failure to handle two kicks (which was backs and not forwards) a knock on our own line (which again was a back) was ultimately our downfall.

Two uncharacteristic misses at goal by Sneyd and poor in field kicking (from youve guessed it the backs) was the reason we fell short by a margin. On another day it would or could have being oh so different.

That's not being happy to have a small loss on record or just a general happy clapped. It's being realistic and calling it how it is. I will more then anyone slate the club and players when it is warranted, not just after every loss.

Mrs Barista wrote:I see you've already been corrected. I don't expect an acknowledgement, but it's good that others have pointed this out.

Perhaps we just accept that we have a different lens on the club and our outlook in supporting it?

I choose to invest a fair bit of time and effort in supporting and following the club. My choice. I choose to enjoy the journey, accept it will have ups and downs, accept there are things I can't change, accept that we have fewer resources than Warrington, Saints, Leeds, Wigan. I seek out the positives where I can and like to draw broader context where I believe it's relevant. Being a supporter of the club for me is not simply creating the goal of grand final or bust and being negative about anything and everything that doesn't align with that. It's about savouring moments on the way, such as Ratu's length of the field efforts, Sneyd's golden points, the double over Leeds. Otherwise, what's the point? It doesn't mean I don't hope for trophies, of course I do. It means being realistic, pragmatic and supportive of what the club is trying to achieve, including the coaching staff. All of the above is my choice about how I want to feel about supporting Hull FC. And it's been pretty consistent over the last 30 odd years in eras covering the lower tier, Tony Gordon, Richard Agar, David Lloyd and so on.

Your interpretation of the above is to criticise the outlook as acceptance of mediocrity and therefore a betrayal of the club's best interests. Fair enough - it's your choice to see it like that. There are plenty on here who probably spend the same time and effort, undoubtedly many far more so than I do, who choose to view my attitude and others' in this way. Your choice. Positivity and appreciation are seen as indicators of nausea-inducing weakness. Only those who call out their continued dissatisfaction geniunely want the best for the club, and improvement can only be made by listing areas of deficiency, whether or not their elimination can realistically be delivered.

Here's the rub. For all the energy you are choosing to invest in trying to argue with me, discredit me, belittle me for my attitude in enjoying supporting the club for what it is rather than singularly what trophies it wins, you can't change me. Expect the worst, hope for the best, take victories with happiness, and defeats with dignity and empathy, and turn up again next week regardless - that's the aim. This doesn't mean I don't disagree with some of the club's actions - I'm still not over getting rid of Liam Watts for example. But when I consider the negativity quotient on here disconnected with the club's position I will call it out and counter it. I think I am OK to do so, regardless of whether you do.

In respect of the insinuation that I have multiple accounts on here to in some way fabricate a body of supporting opinion, and that I am making up posts on Twitter, I think we both know that neither of these are true. I would recommend taking a breath. Perhaps we can reconcile our differences a little and be more mutually respectful. I'm pretty sure most on here are jaded with the constant sparring.

Jake the Peg wrote:That's a fair post but you're just as guilty of doing the same to anyone who doesn't agree with your positive view on most things FC

Jake the Peg wrote:That's a fair post but you're just as guilty of doing the same to anyone who doesn't agree with your positive view on most things FC

Mrs Barista wrote:That's sort of what I'm saying Jake. I'm explaining how I see things. Relentless negativity to me is harmful to the club's interests just as the other side see my positivity/pragmatism as holding the club back.

Mild Rover wrote:We all are. I’ve written some harsh things on here that weren’t fair or justified. Some of them may have been lost in my dull, usually overlong posts at least.

It’s good to try remember that there’s a difference between wanting to argue and wanting to fight. I don’t always. Generally, anybody I reply to I respect, even if it is a snotty reply, and they sometimes do my head in.

I missed the start and end of the game doing other stuff, but from what I saw, it seemed to be a good contest in difficult conditions.

Jake the Peg wrote:

sneyd's kicking wasn't great but he was put under a lot of pressure by warrington, something we failed to do with austin which is either a tactical error or players not following the coach's instructions. He was also invariably kicking from inside his own half because our backs were ineffective at gaining good ground out of our 20 and we didn't have enough size in the forwards to dominate the opposition. I started watching the game back today and the speed of their play the ball compared to ours was massively quicker as they were completely dominating the ruck.

We really should have won that game if we'd played anywhere near our potential but poor ball control and poor kicking put us under consistent pressure and didn't really give us a chance. The team who controlled the ball better yesterday were always likely to win and wire did that by some margin

Chris71 wrote:The other main point which for me made a difference between winning or losing was the difference in the defensive line speed. Warrington as soon as we ptb they were on top of us and in our face and we very rarely had anyone steaming into a ball at pace. Where as we let Warrington ptb and conceded at least 12-15M each and every time by just standing and waiting for them. That’s how they made so much ground each set as we were just surrending field position. That’s why Warrington were more effective with their kicking game as they were more often able to put in attacking kicks under no pressure to trouble us where as Sneyd/Kelly were more often having to kick from outside their 40 line.
It’s something we’ve been guilty of since last season and it needs addressing as it seems to empty our tank and may explain why we can’t do 80 mins consistently with the effort needed to make up the ground we concede.
Warrington had the right game plan and executed it and fir the full 80 mins and deserved the win.