We had almost 4 years of people defending agar, saying much the same thing. We then get in a coach who knows what he's doing and it suddenly improves

This.

I take on board the "building" remit, but any coach has to also maintain an eye on the here & now, otherwise fickle fans stop at home and gates will dwindle, making the long term business plan all the more difficult. The most worrying aspect of last night was our LH edge defence, although I do appreciate the sportsmanship of Welham when patting Tomkins on the back on his way to the try line.

I felt like leaving after 25 mins. I spent 90 quid last night, maybe Sandercock could cheer up a little, at least he got paid for watching that steaming pile of turd.

Your right about improving from the bottom, tackling around the legs is where id start.

Wasn't it funny how none of the commentators mentioned whether McDonnell COULD have tackled Mossop.

There lies the problem, they aren't 7 year old kids no, but a lot of them can't tackle.

I'm still hopeful that Sandercock will come good, its a new role for him ateotd, he's learning as he goes,

It's a bit early to start comparing him to Agar. I do get your point though.

The players do have to take responsibility for missing tackles they way they have done all season.
Is Sandercock getting the game plan wrong? Are players just not sticking to it? Or are we just not that good?
Do or can players take the dicision to ditch the game plan during the match if they feel it's not working? Or is that a complete no, no?

Or that Wigans dummy runners took people out.

Thought you boys did well in the 2nd half, we took our foot off the gas and you took full advantage, fair play. Im guessing it was an off day for Welham though, he was truly awful

We eventually started to get into the game when OHara,Clinton and Lovegrove came on the field.
Think we need to start with OHara and Clinton and have Paea and Taylor coming off the bench??

Comparisons with Agar is Hull FC fans attempting to shape reality to match their hopes. It's not meaningful or useful from our POV. I see no resemblence at all, beyond that which all coaches share when their team isn't performing well or consistently.

O/T Gentle has done well, no doubt, but he's had a competent 7 who is fit more often than not, which Agar never did. Hull's 'key indicators' were surprisingly good last year, they 'just' had no cutting edge. Also, early on in 2012 at least, they had relatively few injuries. They count it as a misfortune that the recent injuries stopped them competing with Hudds/Wigan, but they'd have been underdogs anyway - it could be argued that it was better to get battered by those teams than to have run them close with full-strength teams, after earlier dropping points due to injuries against weaker opposition.

I think we'd gone as far as we could with Morgan's tactical approach (and tbf, it was a decent way). It worked up to a point, but ultimately was limited in ambition and scope. Perhaps that was an acknowledgement of the limitations of our squad. It isn't pretty right now, but I like to think we're trying to move towards being like Wigan.
If they play well for 20 minutes, they can win a game, whereas if we play poorly for 20 minutes we've probably blown it.
A coach is, IMO, worth a only few % points. Albeit they can be crucial. Mick Potter took Saints to the GF (twice?), but hasn't so far even got Bradford into the play-offs. I'd hoped for a more immediate effect from Sandercock, like Nathan Brown at Hudds. It hasn't happened. But 11 points from 13 games, only 5 of them at home, is hardly a massive regression. It was 40-6 at the DW last year, iirc. It maybe feels worse because Hull look to be on the up, but that should only matter in terms of banter.