Just all very amateurish, not surprised though.

Are you saying that Smailes would have used a week-old interview for yesterday's news? Hardly, any RL journalist knows a couple of days is a long time in the sport for things to change, never mind a week! That would be most unprofessional of Smailes and I think that's an unfair slur.

Anyway, it's a moot point as Shaul wasn't injured. He was playing and training with the same condition as he has had for months which hasn't stopped Radford picking him until now. Shaul insists he was dropped and was called in a couple of days before to be told that.

Why Radford's fluffing the issue by insisting it's injury-related is the question. Why hasn't he just confirmed Shaul was dropped?

Have you listened to the interview?

You really do amaze me. An unfair slur. What next?

And did Smailes write it? He said "paper only reporting what the coach said", and there is no mention of his name in the HDM article.

Yes - he said Shaul was dropped due to injury concerns. In addition there were performance issues against Huddersfield. Why bring the injury thing into it at all?

Because there are injury concerns which Shaul confirmed, even saying his training was restricted, but rehab was improving it.

Stop being dopey - Radford was telling Shaul to come and give his version and considering it all related to tweets last night i think it being done last week might be a tad impossible unless FC have a time machine - if they do can they go back and get Brian Smith please

But the interview was from the week before. So was he "mistaken" about when the interview related to or when he said shaul wasn't playing Friday due to injury concerns?

Sorry, you're the one being dopey. I was referring to the HDM article.

You and a few others on here really do amaze me. How can you can defend the indefensible all the time, and see no wrong, is just laughable. I'm all for people's own opinions, but it's bull , complete bull!