You're absolving Last from any blame then?

I don't know much about him but if he's the cheap option that would be "underinvestment", wouldn't it? Seems to be well liked but so was Agar.

I don't know much about him either, apart from that he's local (which is mightily important, of course).



Much like Agar, Last is a symptom of "underinvestment" and not a victim of it. Only difference is that we've retained Last, which concerns me greatly as, despite the demotion, he's still in an incredibly important role.

If you don't know much about him (and by extension how good he is at his job), surely the fact that he is the only member of the coaching staff to be retained by those who presumably do should be a very reassuring sign?



Personally I find it difficult to believe that [ieveryone[/i involved in the club was/is not any good. It doesn't have to be everybody underperforming for the club to do so, which is what plenty on here seem to think. The broom has well and truly been swept, so I'm now willing to give the survivors the benefit of the doubt and a chance under the new regime.

Wasn't he in charge of the Reserves last year? Thought they finished about 3rd after Warrington and Wigan, but could well be wrong.

Demotion? Somebody better let Andy know it was a demotion because he hosted a family party a fortnight ago to celebrate his promotion!!!!!

Very highly regarded at the KC and rightly so.

And he has been for several years. What are his main attributes?

That's the common mistake though, his primary remit isn't to produce a fairly successful reserves side, it's to produce players for the first team. As CS said, there's grounds to have faith simply because he's one of the few coaches to be retained, and if the likes of Crookes and Pearce thrive next season then I'll take it all back.

Yeah they ought to let him know, 'cos the way you tell it it makes him look really thick.



More likely, he was celebrating the relief of maintaining his employment amidst a massive cull.

Andy Last does a great job . Highly regarded by McRae .

He is also Black and White to the core .

A few points on this:

1. His remit won’t be to finish bottom either.

2. The reserves finished 3rd. Not too shabby for a team and structure with, according to Pearson, a lack of investment.

3. How could the team have finished 3rd if he wasn’t producing at least some players capable of debuting in SL?

Make your mind up. 2 posts ago you were saying you were “greatly concerned”.



The fact that successive regimes have highlighted Last’s potential and he’s survived a huge cull suggest his retention, particularly in the context of also now having Hay and Radford on board to support Gentle, is not as “greatly concerning” as you would like us to think. My personal view is that Agar’s refusal to give any players a debut last season was completely unacceptable and that Pearson is now talking about addressing underinvestment. These 2 factors being addressed hopefully will be enough to address, at least in part, your major concerns about Andy Last.

Make my mind up? I simply took on board what another poster had said, sorry if you have a problem with that.



It's really irrelevant where our reserves finished last year, if Last's reserve team lads make a break-through next season you'll be right about him, if they don't then I'll be right.

Is it? What if they'd finished bottom?



Agar chose to give none of them a chance in 2011. Therefore the only thing we can really judge Last on is his team performing well in that competition, finishing behind only Warrington and Wigan. I don't see the grounds to condemn Last as a major concern as you do, but obviously you're entitled to your opinion. Radford and Hay too will be involved in the youth set-up, as will McRae, so it might be hard to isolate the individual contribution and impact of Last in the way you describe.

Maybe we only finished 3rd because every other team were playing some of their U20's in the first team?

Very likely. I''m just not sharing the major concern over Last that our friend is.

Good point. Still not Last's fault, though.

Sorry if I missed the parade for our 3rd place finish in the reserves league but I couldn't care less, and I don't really believe you do either. The idea that because our reserves finished 3rd there 'must be some players capable of playing in SL' is a complete non sequitur. In the last few years, the only players we've produced for ourselves are Briscoe (who would have come through if you or I were coaching him) and Houghton, and that means Last failed at his job.

To be fair Featherstone handed Briscoe on a plate to you.

Did they? When was he signed with rovers? Presume that also includes his brothers?

I'm not suggesting for a moment that there should have been a parade for third place and I've said elsewhere that our record on bringing youth through is a disgrace under Agar. I've started a thread on it. Where we differ is you having "great concerns" about the retention of Andy Last who you say is a failure.



It could be that we have a set of players in the U20s that he's let down and allowed their potential to go unfulfilled. It's possible. It could also be that, as has been pointed out many times on here, the U20s doesn't prepare you for SL in itself, hence the extensive use of dual registrations. We also hear that, as well as the fact that Agar didn't give a single player a debut last year, allegedly he was either rude to them or ignored them. If a head coach is not fully engaged in the reserve team, I would say it makes the job of reserve coach harder. As for the non sequitur bit, I'd say it's the only general measure of the overall standard of our U20s. Even taking into account that other teams are weaker because they are actively promoting their youth to the first team, I think it is some evidence that Last is not the complete failure you believe he is and therefore I won't the same sleepless nights over retaining this major concern that you will. Time will tell, I suppose, but with so much else changing too, isolating the impact of Last will be quite hard.

Burnett, Wheeldon, Hodgson, and slightly further back Hall should all be added to the list too IMO. They may not be top 4 players, but they are SL standard as they have shown with us or away from us.



Where I disagree most strongly with what you seem to be saying is the claim that Last's job is to make SL players, almost as if they should practically be the finished article on arrival in the first team. That's not realistic, I'd say his job is more to produce players with the potential to play SL and a sound basis of how to do so. It's then up to the first team coaching staff to see that potential fulfilled. Now I'm not saying that all of the young players that Last has had have been up to scratch, but then no academy does that either. I do happen to think that there have been enough players with wasted/not fully-realised potential to point the finger more at the way they've been introduced/treated at first team level than in the 20s.

Would agree with that, the main difference with the likes of Saints, Wigan, Leeds and laterly with Warrington & even Huddersfield is they have given their young players a chance at SL level, the simple fact is we haven't under the old regime.



Thats for me is all a youth development Coach can do ie bring the youth players on to a standard good enough, which i believe is being done, however a Youth Coach can not be blamed for lack of or blocking first team opportunities.

I reckon that coaching an under 20s side is the hardest task at a Super League club. How many hours a week do we think that Lasty gets with the players and how often will he have them all together? He will probably have a couple of evening sessions a week with the part-time lads who play week in week out for him then will probably have one run through session the day before matchday when he will have access to the full time lads who are available to him that week and any Academy lads who have been promoted to the 20s that week. Not the ideal environment to improve the players at his disposal but the situation will never change at 20s level.

The fault for players not coming through lies in the Scholarship and Academy set-up and coaching at the club. Now that Andy is in charge of that he will have a direct influence on the development of the youngsters at Hull. If none come through in the next 3 or 4 years then i am sure he will take any criticism that comes his way.

How do we know the club haven't produced a number of SL standard players if Agar has refused to play them? For all we know last could have done his job brilliantly.

As I've already said, if one or more of Crookes, Pearce et al. break through next season then I'll have been wrong about Last. The funny thing is, if that did happen then it would make the decision to demote him look the wrong one as well.



I think that's the crux of my concerns, if the new regime are convinced he was doing a great job then why move him? If they think he was underperforming then why retain him at all?