Like what i've seen from the pre season clips from the coach tbh.. he's delivering several home truths to the players and getting them much much fitter. This can only benefit the players. It may break some (which case get rid longer term) but it could be the making of many.. one of the reasons NRL teams are so good is the fitness and intensity levels they can maintain for match after match... we need some of that.

I dont think one preseason will cure all ill's, in fact I don't really think any Leeds fan believes that seriously anyway.

Its a first step on the road back to the top, one we should've taken years ago but were too busy being complacent.

If Arthur can come in and add some aggression in D, set the players up to be competitive in EVERY game and get the hunger back in the squad then Im all for it.
For far too long this team has been happy just to coast through a season, turn up at the end and have done with it, its a mentality that needs obliterating, that can only come with accountability and I think BA and IB will not stand for it anymore, nor should they and nor should we.

Not sure I agree with the idea the club have been complacent, or team have been coasting year to year. The club have gone through multiple coach changes, squad changes, made big name marquee signings, signed MOS contenders, and got the check book out big style, for MOS winners international players. It’s just not worked out the way we wanted. It’s a similar position Man united have been in.
I don’t think for one minute the players haven’t been trying (some exceptions Tetavano, Sezar etc)

The players will want to succeed and win things unfortunately some players were simply not good enough (a few still aren’t) and coaches not good enough. Hopefully we have better this season and mostly the right personnel, but if we fall short again I don’t think it’s that the club is complacent or players not trying.

For what it’s worth. I think we make the top 4!

Oledzki extends contract https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/ ... 2w2nd08wko

Oledzki extends contract https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/ ... 2w2nd08wko

Well, I finally got around to watching the 4 part series and all in all it was a decent watch. I wouldn't have dreamt of paying £30 to watch it but for a freebie it killed a few hours.
Wasn't quite the rugby league raw treatment and did feel a bit sanitised in large parts but there were a few insights within the series that really hit home.

Standout one for me is episode 3 Heartache - This was a very emotional raw look into that horrible two weeks when Rohan left and we lost Rob.

Also, you can really tell where Brad takes over - The warning about bad language is there for a reason.

You can really tell the difference in styles between Rohan and Arthur.

Rohan seemed very calm, liked to put arms round players, was constantly trying to get players to "buy in" to the system, seemed to focus on positives but seemed there was always case of jam tomorrow or "we'll get 'em next time"
There just didn't seem (at least to me) there was any culpability for not achieving the goals being set by the coaching staff, the same mistakes and errors were being served up week after week but there just didn't seem to be any penalties / jeopardy for not doing what they had been instructed to do.

Brad on the other hand and his "Firm but fair" outlook instantly set boundaries and goals for players and called them out when they are not doing it. The little thing for me was after a game and they all came in and grabbed a beer, he let it go the first week but told them straight away they wouldn't get a beer if we'd lost in future and they had to earn it.
He is very, very sweary and I guess some people like that gruff nature, a guy wholl kick you up the arris if you stray from the path but will look after you if your prepared to get better.

It's a difference between coaching the U9's and Open Age. It's not necessarily about the sweary language, but it is about making people responsible for what they do. That would help us across the piece at the moment outside of RL too. The only person responsible for you is you.

Smith's approach would probably have worked fine with a team that knew what it was doing as well. I doubt Sinfield and co would have needed to be sworn at to know what needed fixing, or to take personal responsibility for it. When you have a team with a mindset that seemingly being paid to play is enough and no leaders in the group to pull the team out of it, you need something more.

Exactly. This is why I'm not convinced by the hyperbole of having landed Arthur as coach. It’s all just words until the players make it otherwise. And there's an awful lot of ours who've played under 3, 4 or 5 coaches without looking remotely like serial winners.
I'll be delighted when the boys prove me wrong.

I agree with Once were Loiners and Clearwing. Coaching philosophies are just that - ultimately it is the responsibilty of the players to perform on the field.

Re: Smith, I agree his approach was good for players with the right attitude, i.e. good professionals at various career stages who are willing to learn and work on doing things differently (if needed). Players like O'Connor and Handley really came along under Smith, and senior players like Martin were consistently good for us.

On the flip side, Smith wasn't good at dealing with more difficult personalities in the senior group (Austin etc), as well as lazier types who would go through the motions instead of work on their game (perhaps Lisone, Sangare etc). It sounds like Smith wasn't direct enough in dealing with disciplinary and contractual issues, which at best meant 'no change' or at worst fanned the flames leaving to acrimonious fall outs.

I'd imagine Arthur's approach will be better for dealing with the likes of personalities like Newman and Bentley, the lazier types, and perhaps also players willing to work that are down on confidence (e.g. Miller, Nicholson-Watton). At the same time, I do worry a bit about what happens when the team run into a brick wall - they can't actually give any more (re: Brian Mac days of running the senior players into the ground), or they just come up against better opposition (will Arthur have a plan B?). I have a sense that Smith might be better in such situations when the overall quality of the playing roster is higher, but he's less good at the foundational aspects of what a RL team needs.

It's going to be fascinating to see how the season goes.