Great post, Staffs.

All the players were round Town last night even got one of them on video singing karaoke lol

VHS or Betamax?

Got to be Betamax, I will see if I can post it on the normal video site later.

Firstly, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment about the fact that Thompson was signed by McRae/Gentle, so was under the regime where we allegedly paid way over the odds rather than getting good value. I should have included a smiley, I suppose.

Secondly, think it is almost certainly true that some players are overpaid, but I don't think it is the root cause of most of our problems to the extent that it's being portrayed. They will have been just as overpaid last year, but did alright. I have seen little/no acknowledgement of any specific problems this year other than 'too much of the wage bill unavailable to Lee through no fault of his own'. Other than that it's mostly generic stuff about 'poor game management' and 'not enough intensity' (which are both true). Nothing about the strange strategies of persisting with an out-of-form second rower in the centres no matter how badly he played whilst shipping other centres around the country and playing another centre in the second row, still several weeks after he came in and started gaining match fitness (and as soon as Whiting had his op, Sa came into the starting lineup and had a great game, probably the best centre performance of our season), or persisting with a hooker at halfback that has been proven not to work long-term and weakens the hooking position.

I’m not saying there isn’t any acknowledgment of fault in the current setup, or that there shouldn’t be any levelled at the previous, I just think that the balance has been incorrect and in some ways actually unfair/inconsistent. You yourself make the point about some not giving Radford credit when it is due (I’d like to think that doesn’t include me, I have said when I think he’s right as well as wrong), and I think that that is similar to the issue I have with Pearson bashing Gentle/McRae. He has praised Radford a lot for integrating young players into the team (100% rightly so), yet criticised Gentle for not doing it, when he plainly did (IIRC, academy player debuts: Gentle 8, Radford 4, the same average per season). Radford’s recruitment has also been lauded where Gentle’s is criticised, but IMO both have had some notable successes as well as duffers, the only key difference being the wage issue (and a point of interest IMO, is that whilst a focus on British has been mentioned and ‘Australian coaches’ being a problem, I think Gentle’s recruitment was about 55% British, Radford’s has been 45% so far). Pearson has made some claims I consider inaccurate, and whilst I wouldn’t go so far as to say I doubt his word it is fair to say that I am not entirely convinced by it, either, and it is this kind of thing to which that I attribute that.

I’d like to make one thing clear, just so that there’s no misunderstanding at all: I do not think that Pearson has lied. About anything. I do, however, think that he speaks passionately, and can get quite bullish and defensive, which has possibly led in some instances to overstating certain things. At times it has sounded to me like Pearson thinks ‘old coach = bad, new coach = good’. That may just be my interpretation (although I think some agree with me), but I disagree with it being that simple. With what might have gone on, though, I could fully understand why Pearson’s viewpoint might be coloured somewhat.

Tries of the season now online [url=http://www.hullfclive.tv/features/feature-try-of-the-season/here.[/url

Useful, at least, for comparing the pitch sizes, pre and post Allam redesign.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't what I've claimed has been said.



But I do have some agreement with this.



Is he required to?



Don't know if he's outright said, but his post matches have certainly hinted that that's how he feels.



Does it matter?

I guess that depends on whether you consider last season overall as doing alright. Personally, while the 6th place finish was a decent result I don't consider the performances at Wembley or at Huddersfield in the playoffs as doing alright. Your mileage may vary.

And the issue with overpayment is not that it's somehow preventing those players performing to an adequate standard, but more that it's hampering our ability to strengthen the squad and/or replace those players with better/more suitable candidates.

No, I don't think those 2 performances were alright. Far from it. A consecutive 6th whilst also reaching the cup final I consider better than alright, though, hence alright overall for the season as whole. I personally think that 2 shocking performances have overshadowed 2 years of progress (albeit not necessarily enough progress).



I appreciate that point, what I’m saying is that I don’t think this year has been as heavily about the inherited personnel problems as is (seemingly to me) being portrayed. It should not just be down to the quality of players that we still have next to no dummy runners (or options, whatever you care to call them), that our ptb speed almost across the team is poor, that our attacking structure is still so on and off, that our defensive line speed took until about 20 matches in to kick in (our defence in general was worse for a decent of chunk of the season IMO), and that we have been mostly unable to close matches out from winning positions. Yes, personnel changes will improve these to varying degrees, but IMO they should have been better even with those we have now. I would readily accept the state of the squad being a reason for not producing another 6th place, but as far down as 11th is down to those other factors as well IMO.

I don't believe anyone can seriously contend that last season was not a lot better than this season.

6th place is better than 11th whichever way you look at it.

Yes we underperformed at Wembley but at least we got there as opposed to throwing away a match-winning position at home in the first round we played.

The play-off defeat at Huddersfield last year was totally unacceptable but this year we were nowhere near making the play-offs.

There have been plenty of unacceptable performances this year too e.g. Widnes at home, Wakey at home.

I believe next year's squad is already looking stronger than this year's and that we have a right to expect better next year. I'm sure we'll do better but how much better? Hypothetically speaking if we don't make it to Wembley, finish 6th and bow out of the play-offs in the first round with some pride intact will you regard that as "alright" or better than 2013?

I totally agree with everything in this post. Some of the problems and weaknesses you refer to have been evident for years, pre-Gentle and pre-Pearson.

Radford now has a full pre-season with his own players to work on these issues so I expect much better next year.

The point i'd like to make is that as things were, 6th and humiliation was about as good as it would ever have got plodding on down the road we were.
I, like Pearson, am a lot happier about the future of the club now than at the end of last year.

I'm happier than I was at the end of last season but not as happy as I thought I would be now.

I am more hopeful than I was a few weeks ago. Some of the recent performances (excepting Bradford away) suggest we may be moving in the right direction. The proof will be how we start next year.

Being better than this season isn't much of an accolade. And the point being discussed isn't about how unquestionably bad this season has been, but rather some of the reasons behind that.

I'm not sure I agree, although I understand your PoV. For me, last season promised much but delivered little aside from the financial boost from appearing at Wembley. There may have been some progress but it was pretty minimal.


I think personnel problems have been the heart of our troubles for the thick end of a decade, and we may finally be making a real effort to get to grips with successive years of poor recruitment and retention. That's not to deny that other issues have contributed - Radford has clearly made mistakes and has an awful lot to prove next season.

If you look at how we've ended up in 11th - the games we've lost where we should have won - the difference in performance of the squad is not as great as it appears from the bare numbers. I'm not convinced that Gentle would have done a whole lot better TBH.

I'm sure there are many reasons behind it. The number of average players being paid too much and preventing us from strengthening is only one of them and IMO not the main one.

In a salary capped sport it's simply not possible to tie up average players on big money for long periods and hope to progress. It's a big deal in my opinion.

I pretty much agree. For comparison though, this year promised less and delivered even worse, though.



Again, I agree. I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the methods we've possibly used, though.



And once agree, I agree (although with the close losses vs. close wins, there has to be a little bit more credit attributed to Gentle for a bit more mental toughness last year, IMO). What I'm disagreeing with is how much Pearson has criticised the previous regime whilst defending the current way of things, and almost using the previous setup to pass the buck, when so far there hasn't been a whole lot of difference. In a way I understand it, as I'd always expect a good MD to stand up for his staff if he feels they deserve it, and I can understand him possibly harbouring some resentment if he does feel certain people have taken him for a ride. I'm just not ready to get fully on board with it on only one (non-neutral) party's say-so. If the new setup was better than the last, IMO we should have seen some issues fixed this year that haven't been, and not just have it suggested that it's because the squad's not good enough because of the last guy and it'll be sorted with better recruitment.

Dykes had a disappointing year in England featuring only 17 times for Hull missing the Challenge Cup final in a season wrecked by injury.Dykes was instrumental for the black and whites when he was on the pitch winning every man of the match award in the Challenge Cup run to the final

There is every possibility that 2008 Pryce and Sneyd will be just what we have been missing, that, and a replacement for Ogre and we have a much better chance next season.

I'm not sure what method you're using for weighting the various factors, but I'd put lack of squad quality quite high up the list of why any team struggles TBH. And the weaknesses in our squad were pretty clear last season, let alone this.

Absolutely. Dykes pretty much got us to Wembley on one leg - who knows what we could have achieved if we'd had the fully fit version.

What we're being told is that issues [ihave[/i been fixed but they're largely off-field issues that won't have an immediate impact on performances. Necessary groundwork for improvement, if you will. Guess we'll find out how true that is next season...

The point I was trying to make with that was about on-field issues, though. Things like our PTB speed, our passing accuracy and speed, our attacking structure/organisation, our lack of option/dummy runners. Defensive line speed was another, but that has improved a lot towards the back end of the season, so I will openly acknowledge that Radford does seem to be addressing that now, for which he deserves credit. All of these things will most likely improve with better players, but I personally think that we could and should have seen some improvement in at least some of these areas even with the existing players if the coach is supposed to be better and the players more responsive to him (which is what we have been led to believe).

I completely agree. When you are limited in quality, focussing on executing these basics well should be essential. Not much in evidence. The support play does my nut, especially with two props like Watts and Feka who regularly bend the line and look to promote the ball.

The thing is that these shortcomings have persisted through various changes in coaching personnel. Does anyone actually believe that ANY coach tells his players to not support the ball carrier, play the ball slowly, and not bother with defensive line speed? If you remember, even Gentle referred to us having players that 'couldn't be coached'.

Also, what we were told about the players being more responsive to the coach was right at the start when Radford was appointed. More recently the mood music has changed. In fact it's pretty clear from things that both Pearson and Radford have said that they've found the squad far less responsive to change than they thought.

It's never only the players or only the coach. Radford has shortcomings that are plain to see, and I for one never wanted him appointed in the first place. But I have no difficulty in believing that the majority of the issue is with the playing staff as I had concerns about them before Gentle got the push. What AP has come out with since only confirms suspicions that I already had.