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.

For me the 'passive' defence is made of two factors - line speed and numbers in the tackle. The team have almost no line speed in D for the majority of games. We also appear to only want to have two in the tackle for most tackles. That to me is clearly a tactical move, which can be really easily address. No defence is truly passive in RL, as the collision is still there, but I think Smith has a philosophical view point on the way the game should be played, which doesn't really fit with how to create a winning side in this era of RL.

Aside from the coaching, we also need to address the pack. Belive Mike McMeekan is OOC for next year- should we be throwing the cheque book at him? Currently much better than any of our FR options in my view.

Our front row is pretty good on paper but… Mik hasn’t looked quite right since Salford and his shoulder re-injury, although he did have a good go at Warrington. Tom needed a good pre-season and just can’t seem to stay fit. Sangare has been good this year but he’s ideally a rotation prop. Lisone is all action but plays too loose at times and can be a liability in D.

Hudson could be a SL player but who knows when or if. Ruan looks more like a big back row than a prop to me. TNW looks like a 13… we need a pack leader type prop I think.

Did anyone see any footage of Smith's team that won the NSW cup? Do we play the same way?

The whole culture seems to be off. Players simply going through the motions. I highly doubt the likes of saints Wigan etc would be OK with players still being offside on tackle 3 or 4. When conceding it's like the team think nevermind maybe next time. Oledski and holroyd are England international players but seem like different players in Leeds colours. That's simply down to the coach/Gary hethrington. Need players to have a bit of whack in both defence and attack aswel. Not catch the ball still, allow the defence to come up then try a miracle play. Get extra men in the tackle slow them down. These are really basic things but we don't seem to understand that

Jack - I haven't seen much of Norths, but I don't remember anything being said about them playing in some unique way under Smith? The defensive strategy we have now seems to have been developed in his first season, and it worked very well. I think its been worked out and is now a weakness rather than a strength. As we saw last season, if you give up field position even poor sides will feel enthused, and better teams will just take advantage of it. I disagree entirely that its not a tactic, as no other side seems to try to do what we do, and I have no doubt all our players could play a much more aggressive (dare I say normal?) style of defence if asked.