In some ways it has echoes of Brian McD, expecting the players to take more responsibility for themselves.

I agree that you want as many leaders as possible. However, where I think not having a captain can become a problem is when you are up against it or in tight games and need one voice to call the shots rather than 4 or 5 having a debate and contradicting each other.

I go back to the comment about us having multiple leaders when Sinny was captain. JP came into the club as the international captain, and when the team were under the sticks and needed a lift in intensity, it was usually JP doing the talking. Add into that group Keith, Mags, Rob, Disko, Buderus, Ellis...there was a leadership group and I doubt they were competing to speak. They spend every day together. You'd expect that they have it worked out the right time to speak. Maybe that's what Smith is aiming for. Under Agar it was often the opposite with it looking like there wasn't anyone stepping up to lead the team.

Shabs saying that our expectations have changed since last year. Why is that? Its because Rohan has come in and done things his way. That for me is good enough to accept his ways, even if they are unusual. He seems like the sort of coach to do his talking behind the scenes and to his players. Not in the media to placate people. He's earned the right to tear up the book and mix it up.

The game has stagnated for too long, we should welcome innovators.

I don’t think a calm head captain is always what you need. If you manage a large group of people you know that some need a big presence who talks and really leads them via actions. Others need a calm, measured approach and some need an arm round the shoulder. Sinfield was a fantastic captain and leader but he was reliant upon the rest of his leaders, senior players to do things as well. JP being the obvious one, he would literally run into a brick wall to get to the other side, that was his character and style.

I think the reason he has done his is to say to the players (a number who are young) that is a collective group. We all lead, we all need to look inwards and improve ourselves. Yes certain players will step up more than others and that is natural. People do not follow captains, they follow leaders. Leaders aren’t appointed they just are.

your captain is always a leader. always has, always will be.
no matter the arguments for, I still think its stupid.
imo of course

If we're winning games, I really couldn't care less about who's captain.
Of course if we're struggling, I'm sure it will be heavily scrutinised....

I think I get the thinking here. Maybe better to have the centres and wings, and the centres and second rows working better together, full back chiming in and the middles working as a unit rather than under one man who might end up filling in anywhere or injured/banned himself.
Will it work? I don't f-ing know

I think this is kind of a way to "create" more leaders if you catch my drift.

Weve seen it during some pumping's that there is no one behind the posts standing in front of players and reading the riot act / being the focal point / geeing them up. Infact it seemed that Hardaker took on a bit of this last year and was great to see.

Leeming doesn't seem to me to be that kind of player, he's confident in his own ability and prefers to lead from the front / example and tbf there's members of our squad that have been around the block who should be able to chip in when needed.

I do think we should have a Captain, but as others have said - In Rohan we trust.