Ok, only you and King Whino can play the childish game then.

Leeds did not have the mental edge to win the title with Powell as coach as evidenced by the results against the Bulls in 2003. Powell is the perfect example of the difference a coach can make.

I'll flip this around. Leeds would have won their first title in 2003 if Smith was coach instead of Powell.

Pretty soon the posters who discredit Smith will run out of excuses. His record speaks for itself and cannot be argued with.

He was also well liked by his players, despite what some on here would have you believe. Contrast what they said publicly about him when he left with what they have been saying about Bluey.

There is no "evidence". Are you seriously suggesting that the year extra the players had at super league, and the experience of been in a Challenge cup final and losing GF eliminator, did not better preparte them for the following season?



He'd have done the exact same achievement as Powell in 2003. I still maintain had the Walker and Bailey incident not come up, Powell would have succeeded that year. That team got stronger and stronger through the year, and as the players grew with one another gaining more experience.



This is your problem, and yours only. There is a difference between not recognising what Smith did for this club and the achievements he made, and saying that we would have won in 2004 anyway.

Smith developed the team superbly. He played a superb blend of rugby, and he made Leeds into a dominant force for a lasting period. That still does not take away that in 2004 Leeds had a team of players that were far better than the competition with or without Smith. Smith's legacy for me is the style of rugby and the development of players giving Leeds a dominant period to look back on, rather than credited with winning our first championship in 32 years.

They were better "preparted" in 2004 because they had a better coach "preparting" them.

Your opinion. You're entitled to it. However, since 2003 Smith has won two SL titles, two challenge cups and to league leaders shield. Those are facts,. Powell has yet to prove your opinion of what he can do is valid. When he had the opportunity, he didn't do it.

That team could not get over the hump of the Bulls that year with our without Bailey and Walker. I still maintain Smith would have gotten them over that hump,

Eh?

Ok, and?

Actually, it's both.

Actually, if we want to compare properly. Powell took over a complete shambles of a side in 2002, with specific instructions to get rid of the deadwood, and develop the brilliant youngsters coming through. IMO he was aided here by a pretty bad injury crisis in 2002 and the pressure off him, which gave him the opportunity to blood those great youngsters.

In 2003 he had to run with those players, and he had got rid of deadwood and dressing room trouble. Those players grew together superbly and got stronger and stronger and stronger as the year went on. Putting away any agendas and bias, had it been any other ref than Russell Smith at the Millenium stadium that year, Leeds would have walked away with a CC win. As I said even after that the team kept getting stronger, then had two majory players in that season pulled away from them at the business end of the season.

Funny enough what happened with Walker and Bailey, the squad actually came out and said made them stronger and wiser. So in the long term it aided the development of young players at the club.

Now compare and contrast. Smith went to Warrington when it was a shambles, he had to get rid of deadwood, but with the added aid of massive investment from a rich chairman. On top of this he also had to develop young players. Smith's first year in the league was worse than Powells first. Smith's second year was a mirror image of Powells second year. Smith's 3rd year, well that's a mirror image of his first at ours, which would have been Powells 3rd.

There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that Smith would have improved on Powells 2003 year.

The only evidence that IMO isn't even subjective, and one I think we agree on, is that Smiths quality of rugby that he got his team to play was of a quality that any coach would have struggled to match, and Powell probably certainly would not have got close to.

You started it

You see, I'm not sure the 2003 side did get stronger as the season went on. In fact, I thought ultimately they just ran out of steam at the business end.

Anyway, I have a couple of observations on Powell:

1) The club owes him a great debt for developing the golden generation. I think he did it well, and built some very good foundations.

2) I still believe we ruined a perfectly good coach in the making by chucking him in at the deep end too soon. He wasn't ready to be a Super League head coach, and it ultimately dented his reputation. Which I don't think has ever recovered. Which is a shame.

Just as there's no evidence Powell would have coached the team to the title in 2004.

Here's what there is evidence of.

As a SL coach Smith has coached teams to trophies. Lots of them. Powell hasn't.

The rest is just opinions.

Whaaaat?
I'm not denying that Smith may be the better coach of the two, but Powell inherited an absolute shower of a team in 2001 and in 2 and a half seasons put together a team that was very unlucky not to win the challenge cup and one that was very unlucky not to at least reach the grand final. Add to that team Marcus Bai (for Cummins!!!!) and then Ali Lauitiiti as a mid season booster, plus the maturation of McGuire, Burrow, Chev, Calderwood, Diskin, JJB, Bailey, Mathers and Sir Kev, and you're categorically stating we would not have won that title under Powell. The players grew as a result of those failures, it's obviously impossible to tell whether we would have won anything or crashed and burned, but I think people on this board are extremely harsh on Powell, who himself was a young coach growing into the role.

A spot on assessment.

Don't understand why certain posters, are so it's either "black" or "white". Grey is also a colour, and with many shades.

It just seems that in order to get a point across about how good Smith is, it has to be at the expense of the man who contributed so much to that team. And because 2004 was better than 2003, the 2003 turnaround is completely lost in the memory.

Come on man, look at the massive improvement made under smith in every facet of play. It took that level of improvement to elicit a close hard thought win in the grand final. It's not like they won with something to spare and you can say, oh with powell in charge it'd have just been closer.

In my opinion no way would powell have won the grand final. He'd have got them there but it took a tremendous improvement in mental toughness and concentration to win the grand final and powell couldn't produce it.

They'd have lost the 2004 grand final to bradford with powell in charge IMO.

I'm not sure he's saying that Powell wouldn't have won in 2004, just that Smith would have in 2003. Its all speculation anyway, and no-one can really win this discussion

I absolutely agree that Powell was very under-rated and did a good job after getting thrown in after the "Lance Fiasco".
I also thought we played some great RL under Powell and he built the foundations of a team ready to succeed but on the other side of that opinion TS brought us an extra dimension and put the icing on the cake that Powell built.
I'd be happy for Powell to return and his work at Fev shows imo he's a decent coach who can build teams with a good mix of youth and experience capable of playing good RL.
I also think TS is the best coach in the SL but his time at Leeds had run it's course but 2 titles a hub-cap and a WCC thrown in with a couple more finals cemented his legendry status at our club.
I also think after recent success we are now at the other end of the coaching spectrum with a Head man out of his depth and still unsure how best to utilise his squad and i've no doubts if we had TS OR Powell we'd of won the CC this year and 4th would of been ours maybe 3rd.

Lance fiasco?

Dean lance took an ageing over the hill team and took them to a CC final as well as a cub record winning run.

Things petered out (as they did in 1999 at the end) and by 2001 the team really was over the hill and decimated by injury, so lance get's the boot.

Had they kept lance, he'd have no option but to have blooded our exceptional youngsters and history would probably have a completly different view of events.