Quote: knockersbumpMKII wrote:And yet Radford's plan was to focus on defence and dampen the enthusiasm of the players to play attacking rugby. That utterly failed for 60 minutes until the players took responsibility away from the coach http://m.hulldailymail.co.uk/Strong-Hul ... story.html Admit it, Radford still cannot fathom what is best for this set of players to play to the best of their abilities. Defence is key in any game of rugby, we didn't defend that well we was 20 nil down, we was down to one halfback after 12 minutes, & he's not playing his best just yet, I will admit nothing till the seasons over I would be foolish to say he's good or bad that goes for the squad also, for them to prove me wrong, I'm happy with our position but we have a very lot to improve on.

Quote: knockersbumpMKII wrote:And yet Radford's plan was to focus on defence and dampen the enthusiasm of the players to play attacking rugby. That utterly failed for 60 minutes until the players took responsibility away from the coach http://m.hulldailymail.co.uk/Strong-Hul ... story.html Admit it, Radford still cannot fathom what is best for this set of players to play to the best of their abilities. Defence is key in any game of rugby, we didn't defend that well we was 20 nil down, we was down to one halfback after 12 minutes, & he's not playing his best just yet, I will admit nothing till the seasons over I would be foolish to say he's good or bad that goes for the squad also, for them to prove me wrong, I'm happy with our position but we have a very lot to improve on.

Radford passed the message to the players to start off loading. They did that and won the game. His plan A didn't work so he changed to plan B which was more expansive rugby. To play poor and still get the win is what the best teams in any sport do. Top four and overcoming a potential banana skin in my book is ok. Let's back the team, coach and owner instead of all of this negativity.

Not read all the thread, so apologies if this has been said.

You've played all of last season's bottom 4 in the first 7 games, only losing to the one that has improved significantly. Against last season's other mid-tablers, one win and one loss, and a narrow defeat against the beaten Grand Finalists. So about par. You can only beat what's in front of you and you've managed it more often than not. The next four fixtures is your chance to make an impact. Hudds are the anti-Widnes and Leeds have started slowly. If you could get both of them, you'll be well enough placed, midway through the first part of the season. If you win either of the next two as well, then top 4 starts to look very plausible.

Good post but be prepared for the wrath of Bumpy. Feelgood, espescially form the Darkside, will just not do

If, as most people have said, we draw on the confidence of the last 20 against the Dobs, go into the game like we can and quick play the balls, cut out the daft penalties, we can match Wire and win, simples. Tall order non the less.

knockersbumpMKII wrote:And yet Radford's plan was to focus on defence and dampen the enthusiasm of the players to play attacking rugby. That utterly failed for 60 minutes until the players took responsibility away from the coach http://m.hulldailymail.co.uk/Strong-Hul ... story.html Radford even stated we played "outstanding" for 60 minutes without the ball Admit it, Radford still cannot fathom what is best for this set of players to play to the best of their abilities and if he thinks we were outstanding up until the change he's totally clueless! He said focused IN defence, not focused ON defence: Lee Radford wrote:"We need to be good defensively. The amount of air they put on the ball last weekend, we need to be focused in defence," Radford told the Mail. "I'm not expecting us to be the Harlem Globetrotters in attack but what I do expect is us to show enthusiasm and determination throughout. "If we are solid without the ball it will give our key men in attack a platform from which to play. Nothing in there about dampening anyone's enthusiasm. In fact he says the opposite.

knockersbumpMKII wrote:And yet Radford's plan was to focus on defence and dampen the enthusiasm of the players to play attacking rugby. That utterly failed for 60 minutes until the players took responsibility away from the coach http://m.hulldailymail.co.uk/Strong-Hul ... story.html Radford even stated we played "outstanding" for 60 minutes without the ball Admit it, Radford still cannot fathom what is best for this set of players to play to the best of their abilities and if he thinks we were outstanding up until the change he's totally clueless! He said focused IN defence, not focused ON defence: Lee Radford wrote:"We need to be good defensively. The amount of air they put on the ball last weekend, we need to be focused in defence," Radford told the Mail. "I'm not expecting us to be the Harlem Globetrotters in attack but what I do expect is us to show enthusiasm and determination throughout. "If we are solid without the ball it will give our key men in attack a platform from which to play. Nothing in there about dampening anyone's enthusiasm. In fact he says the opposite.

Just watched it again, we was unliveable in the last 20 mins it was brilliant to see, don't think we could play like that all the time but at least it's in us when needed,I didn't agree with lugs straight after the game when he said both sets of teams played well! I guess emotions was running high for him.

So you admit the strategy was wrong from the outset, the strategy whatever it was left us 20 points behind without us scoring. That's a hell of a plan! Why did it take so long to change things if it was patently obvious that that wasn't working?
The players are clearly not happy with the focus being on defence and that shows. That we have gone downhill under Radford defensively alludes you, as the Salford, Catalans and the last 20 mins Friday shows, we are much happier with a more open style of play (that doesn't mean chuck It about every set). The Cas, Wigan and Wakey game we looked completely different different, that's down to the coach surely or are you nasing everything that's crap on the players and everything great on the coach?
I implore Radford to grasp what works for us best, what will it take for him to do so as he's had several examples to give him some clues.

Who said that?

This is quite possibly the biggest load of rubbish I've ever seen you post. Which is going some, frankly.