I think we’ve got some quality that we didn’t have last year.

I think the pack is unbalanced. Particularly in the back row, but also light in the front row.

The whole passive defence I just can’t decide if it’s a tactic or a mentality thing. We’ve been able to get up and in faces so to speak, but we don’t/can’t do it consistently. Mentality wise, we can pull ourselves out of a hole, but often crumble when we’ve got players missing. We make too many errors, and I’m not convinced all of those come from pushing the ball.

I like smith, but as a coach a lot of it falls at your door whether it’s a tactic or not. I don’t think he’s getting the best out of the squad. Dare I say there might be some Powell comparisons here…he’s put the broom through the squad and we might need the next coach to push us over the hump as Tony smith did.

I actually agree Sethster and I’m a defence first kinda guy; I’m just not sure that RS has this evil master plan to make us defend badly. We are just not playing well enough either side of the ball.

If we do one thing, we need to tighten up the first 20. We’re constantly making stupid mistakes and then overloading ourselves in D, which compounds everything. Worryingly, the reserves were just the same yesterday.

Yes I’ve noticed that too I agree; although even when Frawley has had time I’ve not been blown away - although his attacking kicks are pretty good (Newman try for example).

We are losing the pressure game most weeks. I don’t love our line speed at times but it isn’t always bad - I was watching closely against Wire. It was rubbish at times against Cas.

There is an argument to conserve energy at times, in various facets of the game because a knackered player is an ineffective one. It’s a very hard game, especially for the big men. But you have to play tight and precise if you’re going to play that game and we are failing; and there are consequences of taking shortcuts.

Most of the sky comms team say we play passive defence. Wilkin is always commenting on it. Where’s that attitude in defence come from? Ultimately the coach carries the can. At the moment RS is not getting a tune from the players and hasn’t done for the last season and a bit.

Prior to the Warrington game, the defence was good in terms of not conceding line breaks and not conceding many trys. It's the imapact it's having on our attack that's the issue for me. You won't win many games, especially against the best teams when you're playing most of the game in your own 40m zone.

The errors are a major cause for concern, but I'd question why there doesn't seem to any improvement in this area over the last 12 months. To attack the way Smith wants to attack, the basic pass and catch skills, in particular have to be of a very high standard, and frankly, they don't seem to have improved.
I actually like Smith and don't think he should go, he'll be here as long as we're still in and around the playoffs, but there some major issues with his tactical approach that haven't improved or need addressing.

I think the idea of passive defence has some sound logic to it, going back to my national conference playing days, the defence is only as fast/strong as the weakest unfittest player. A good set line but giving up some territory whilst preserving energy is better than rushing up with gaps in the line leading to penalties missed tackles line breaks. Trouble is we still do all the latter anyway, so it achieves nothing, we give away too much territory snd end up doing twice ad much tacking anyway.

Also how many drop outs do we concede its been like 5-6 a game for last 2 games.

It’s a fine line isn’t it? I know I keep on banging on about him but if you watch McDonnell’s tackle technique he is always working hard to put the player in possession on his back, which is effortful but slows the PTB legitimately. This seems a good investment of energy.

Holroyd on the other hand runs around getting involved in too many tackles sometimes I think. He’s an aggressive defender but he almost always gets sucked in to heavy sets on D because the side generally is making errors and he’s one of the defensive rocks who bears the consequence. Then he has too little bite on offense (or we keep playing our big men too flat to the line so they’re constantly being creamed by three middles before they can get momentum).

Two high quality middle players would make a really big difference but we have to utilise them better too.

You’ve just described poor coaching and game plan strategy there Jim.

I'm not sure it's preserving energy though, if every player has to run an extra 5 metres at each play, or approx 30 metres a set as they're starting further back that's an extra Km for each player in 30 sets. That doesn't seem top be energy saving. They also have to retreat quicker due to the added punch that teams make and are often on the back foot for the next play the ball.

I can understand that in the national conference but this is elite level football.

I'm kind of in agreement with you but possibly your more on the RS in camp and I sit on the RS out camp. I agree that 2-3 or three astute signings could see us competing, albeit I am of the view that only with the right coaching.

In terms of field position, you blame it more on errors whilst I'm of the view that the errors are partly caused by the passive defence, however, agree that it is a combination of both. Us constantly having to begin sets off our own line is killing us.

I understand the rationale on our defence but letting teams trot 100m easily down our field each set is setting us up for a downfall. We have some great attacking players but we are asking them to set up tries from 70m away rather than 20-30m away.

I think missing Fusitua has been tough as his yardage at the start of a set would certainly of helped but based on his injury record, we should have looked elsewhere.

I read some stats on Twitter that were up until the Wanky game. We have the 3rd highest error count, the 3rd lowest post contact metres per game and the 2nd lowest number of play the balls in the oppositions 20m zone. The last two stats are likely because of the passive defence / number of errors.

Yes everything is interrelated isn't it? I disagree that a significant number of our errors are down to "passive defence" though - some for sure. Unfortunately errors has been killing us for a long time, and I honestly don't know the main reason for this, coaching or players or probably both. I just don't tend to see the top sides dropping the ball like we do.

Passive defence doesn't make us kick the ball out on the full or drop the ball in contact when we're in possession does it?

I'm not even sure we do have a universally "passive" defence, I think at times we try to get in a groove and conserve some energy but I don't think RS coaches us to lose 80m every set either. In fact we don't lose 80m every set; but we do often make a mistake within a set which means we're defending back to back, which almost inevitably leads to us camping in our own 30m.

Completely crazy rumour from several sources ,that whoever is head coach next season Danny McGuire will be assistant coach.

I would contest that the passive defence doesn't lead to errors, I think it does.

When you start the majority of sets close to your own line again a fitter opposition and pressure is on the kicker with no quick PTBs, it means that it's more likely to be a poor kick or an error from trying to push a play that isn't there.

The only time we looked good in the Warrington game is when we rushed up in defence and put pressure on their line.

The whole passive defence thing is so illogical, because the top teams have the best athletes, who will last the course fitness wise, so it's a major disadvantage. For everyones complaints on Frawley or even Croft and ackers, how will we ever see the best of these players if they're constantly on the back foot. I believe we're lowest in the league for PTBs in the oppositions 20m. Crazy!

Yes but if you actually look at the errors we made which led directly to Warrington tries last game, you'll see it wasn't about us kicking on the whole. Same against Saints previously. Or, when Miller has kicked out on the full or failed to make 10m on a drop out, that isn't passive defence.

If we can't hold the ball and put in a decent attacking kick when we are in good ball (those rare moments), it's putting us on the back foot and putting pressure on a side which still struggles physically at times. Again, if you actually look at the game against Warrington I'm not sure I saw much evidence of Leeds "passive defence". We were getting rolled at times but it wasn't down to us trying to be passive.

Yes, we are conceding too much ground at times. We are being too passive, but is it a deliberate tactic? I would be doubtful. Maybe they are not being coached to be more consistently aggressive in defence though?

Low completion has become the main problem IMO. Hopefully an extra week of training without a game will help iron out some of this.

I hope we can sign an experienced UK forward mid-season, but I suspect that patience in the current squad is the only answer short-term.