So we're bottom of our league and playing e.

Fev have just sacked Jon Sharp, despite seeming on paper (and Fevgrinder will correct me if i'm wrong) him getting them two very good years in the Championship; consecutive finishing in top four, got to Challenge cup quarter finals, and currently sat 3rd in table.

John Duffy has given his notice in at Swinton (probably going to Fev)

Matt Diskin has turned Dewsbury round - from floundering just above us and not able to beat anyone, now they're 8th in the table and have won more games than Rochdale, Oldham, Swinton and us.

Then you look at Wakei who were in that unforgettable (for the wrong reasons) Million pound game against us - at the time they were struggling but (and no disrespect to Wakei) they were pretty similar standard to us.
Now they're in the top four of Super league, and playing some very good rugby.

So I'm thinking - how come other teams who were struggling and playing pretty e like us - can improve so much and yet we just keep getting worse. I'm not asking why we are cr@p, we could write 50 pages on that. I'm just wondering what makes similar teams play so much better and actually win games - is it the player, the coach or both - and if the latter, why arent we getting any better?

Just to say Matt Diskin is Batley. Neil Kelly is Dewsbury - but yeah, he's turned around their season.

It's that long since I can't remember.

On a more serious note it can be all three of your suggestions. We have had problems with coaches (Macca and Lowes), we have had problems with players, we have had problems with coaches and players at the same time. But obviously the reason we are getting worse is our lack of funds. This is not a lack in terms of having to SELL our better players but going into Admin meaning our better players could virtually walk away.

Your last point is the most valid yet. If we had started this season with Rohan and his squad in place I firmly believe without doubt we would have been up there with Hull KR. I also feel we would have had a better pack than them and would have had every chance of finishing top of the tree.

I dont think any blame can lay with Toovey this season. His hands have been tied up until now with a mixture of very inexperienced players, very poor players and one very ageing player who's body was ready for the knackers yard.

Next season wherever it may be will show his style when hopefully he can assemble a squad he will be accountable for and see where we go from there

Had ChaLo been pragmatic about Rohan at the time, we might have gone better this year - they made a mistake not offering Chisholm a deal and in my view not giving Rohan some time to prove he was the real deal.

Would have still been difficult without the players we lost, but at least those that were left had been working with him upto liquidation.

I'm sure AC will know he's made a few mistakes and leaving us without a head coach for most of the season will be the one that tells when we're relegated.

This could never have happened though. That squad - including Rohan as coach - was built using money we never had and could never realistically afford!

Without a doubt haha, but did David Thorne not offer to tupe all contracts of that squad over when he met them all at cue gardens?

That's assuming Toovey will actually be our coach next season.

Not sure that's exactly true.

Obviously, I've no more [iactual[/i real idea of the of how the cost stacked up than you or anyone else on here, other than them being, as a whole, too much, of course. 'As a whole', is the point though. One thing everyone agreed on after the season before last is that the squad was way too large. Then, knock us all down with a feather, what did they do for last season(after telling us we were going to get a 'leaner' squad) but give us an even bigger one.

It's impossible to say for sure, but it's far from impossible that, if all the players who never pulled on a shirt or played just a couple of games had never been added to the payroll, we may well have been able to afford a 'realistic' squad, based on Rohan and the regular (say 24) team members from last season. Those ridiculously enormous squads were certainly one our biggest, self inflicted, blights of the last two years.

It depends really. As a player myself I'd like to say that players win games, purely because we can feel the game and how it is panning out. We know who the danger men are and can act accordingly. We are the ones setting up plays (albeit taught by the coach) but it's our execution that could be the difference between a win and loss. Our tackles (or in the Bulls case, lack of) which can determine a game.

However I am also under no illusion that the coach does play a huge huge part in preparing the players so they can go out and do that. Additionally, they also can see better when players fatigue or see that the opposition is shattered and they make the call and get an interchange on who could change the entire game. Furthermore they are the ones who pick the team, as we have seen in the past coaches have picked second rowers at halfback when the logical choice would have been someone else. It either pays off or it doesn't and that rests with the coach.

So to answer your question I would say it is a combination of things. However players should be accountable for their performance on the pitch. No matter what strategies the coach chooses, there is no excuse for basic errors (dropped balls, missed tackles, lack of concentration etc). However a coach should be held accountable for team selections, should admit when they have it wrong, and also should be held accountable for the personnel they recruit (Herbert and Seijka anyone?). And also their use of the bench.

People can generalise all they want, but if we're talking about just the Bulls, then overwhelmingly the elephant in the room was, is and remains the sheer weight of possession and position we give almost every team we play, through bad passes, dropped balls, avoidable penalties, shoite kicks and poor decisions.

A lot can be excused in such a ludicrous situation as the RFL put us in, and there's no doubt on their day we can play very well, but the kilometres of territory that we are conceding all the time, as well as being soooooooo frustrating to constantly watch, is THE factor that is killing us.

And I have no clue if the coach can do anything about that, or what is causing it.

I'd reckon if we kept possession just as much as your average side, then we'd be close to out of trouble now, if not exactly cracking any pots. But we seem determined to write the ultimate proof of the book "You Can't Win Without The Ball".