Quote ChrisH="ChrisH"If we'd played the players we had at the beginning of the season/pre season in the positions that they expected to play and in the pecking order that their deals suggested it is possible that players like Miller and Arundel as well as Crooks may have developed the confidence in themselves and , importantly , each other which could have led to better performances. We're talking about a team game here where one player relies on his mate and vice versa. Difficult if the player next to you changes every week. The best players can generally make mistakes or have bad games but still maintain enough confidence to keep trying to make things happen and playing the way they think is right. They can't do that if they're in one week and out the next. Would we be in a worse position now if Miller and Rankin had been our starting halves , if Arundel and Crooks had been our starting centres and persevered with? It's highly unlikely and we'd at least know pretty much for certain now whether those players could hack it or not. What is absolutely certain is that any alternative coaching strategy to Radford's would have struggled to produce a worse season.'"
Bloody good point Chris......
Maybe playing Miller, Rankin, Arundel and Crooks (when fit) would have seen us in a better position than where we are now! Radford must have known the season was over a month ago, so he should have ditched Horne and played players with potential futures or contracts for next season, instead of a player retiring. 1 thing for sure though is that if these 4 had been playing together, and we were in the same position as find ourselves now, they'd be crucified.
[/url
