Moe syslak wrote:Didn't they knock you out on the way to wembley again. And they were a top side under sharp who was sacked way too early. Kear is the best coach you've had for ages, but if you had a list of players (careful not to say team) like warrington would you want him or a top class aussie coach.
I'd say it was Kear who was sacked too soon and Sharp who basically took Kears side to the play offs, of course it depends how you view it. However Sharp failed when he brought in his own players so make of that what you will. Hull fans seem split on this.
So to answer your question I'd take Kear any day. However because in general boards and chairman seem to leave Aussie coaches alone but seem to think they know better than British coaches your club would probably benefit from an Aussie.
That doesn't make them better coaches it is more a reflection on how deferential we are to Aussies both coaches and players.
There is no secret to Kears success at Wakey, he has simply had time to implement his style without much pressure or interference. Can you imagine a spend happy board sanctioning the signing of Richard Moore at the time Kear did. There egos and obsession with big names would have seen them laughing it out of site. Yet at Wakey it was allowed with reservation and Kear was proved right as he continually is with players. He simply would not get the chance or time at Warrington.
As Cullen said Wakey don't give a toss about reputations, Warrington do and until they stop it you are stuffed.
Matt King is a fine player but did you really need him or was it just the name. No point having a star winger if your pack is beaten and your halves only fire occasionally.
That is how I see it FWIW.
