People keep pointing to Radford's youth/inexperience like it's a defence for the mess he's making of the job. Either he's up to the job or he's not. If he's too inexperienced, he should never have been appointed. This is professional RL at the very highest level possible in this country, not some Modern Apprenticeship scheme where you get to pick it up as you go along. We needed to replace Gentle with someone who could do a better job (now, not in several years' time), or what was the point in sacking him?

As regards Smith, plenty of successful teams age together and need a period of rebuilding. Saints have done it recently, Leeds may well do when Sinfield, Burrow and McGuire retire, the England RU team still haven't replaced the class of 2003, and look at Man Utd this season.

He appointed mcrae

I'll raise Jake's "He appointed McRae" with 'he seems to have displayed complete trust in Radford, from acting on his perceived whisperings regarding Gentle, to placing complete faith in him and other locals, to the exclusion of everyone else'. It's bizarre and smacks of Pearson being devoid of proper advisors which to me is the most worrying thing. I trust Pearson, but am seriously doubting he knows who to trust with regard to playing matters.

He'll do what needs to be done business-wise, but desperately needs an advisor that knows what he's doing and without any personal motivation. Swain? Kearney? Not as coaches, necessarily.

The conspiracy theorists are a law unto themselves on here....
Why not let the bollox persist, it'd be a shame for it to get in the way of the truth..

I agree, about AP being devoid of proper advisors, hence probably Radford's recommendation for DOR ,
was Motu Tony, as they were playing RU together.