There is no doubt that a better coach would improve us significantly (he could hardly make us worse...), but there needs to be a turnover of players as well.

Coaches can make a massive difference to a side, but to quote Mr Obama "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig..."

Agreed fully

that's a random quote, he clearly picked up some tips from bush!

He was talking about Sarah Palin, and frankly without wishing this get political, I agree with him.

yes he probably was!

Not at all. I think it shows that where Cullen and Lowes failed (and some of the player's you mentioned where there under Lowes) Smith has shown, just as he did with us in 2004, that a quality coach can regenerate a team that has been there or thereabouts.

With a fully fit squad and Smith at the Helm Leeds would be title contenders this year.

not sure about contenders g but i think they would be up there.

BTW senior coaches the u15's and they love him, he is very good. lowes came down to take a session and he was garbage. even the kids could work that one out

Which of the players I mentioned were under Lowes on his own?

I think you might find you are wrong by the way, and my point still stands.

About the players or the point generally?

The players.

Then I was using that to back up my point. Had Tony Smith gone in with the players Cullen and Lowes had only, and done what he has, then I would hold my hands up. But he hasn't, you see because even he isn't that good.

I see. You're right about the players but not the point.

Myler has been peripheral, Monaghan wasn't there last year and Atkins has been injured much of this year. How many of those players you mentioned played a part in the 2009 final win?

Teams always turn over players. Cullen and lowes were given Moran's chequebook. Smith turned them around they way he did with us. The evidence is there.

Since 2004 Smith has coached in 6 SL seasons excluding this one. There have been 12 major finals played and he has guided his teams to 6 of them.

You are missing the point Gareth. What they brought to the team is what has improved Warrington immensely. Had they not been brought in they wouldn't have improved by such degree. You can't put everything on Smith. Just like the player changes, he's played a big part, but a part is what it is.

How was Myler peripheral? Until he got injured last year he was one of the leading players in Super League. He got injured, was out of the picture. A new season starts and he is once again turning into a leading light. Certainly led our halfbacks a merry dance last week.

How is Atkins injured not backing up my point? The fact is that Warrington started improving last season, then have gone on another notch this year. Atkins and Myler along with promoting home grown talent started the improvment, and adding quality like Monaghan and Hodgson this year has seen them go on another gear.

The Cullen and Lowes squad would have been a mid end play off side without the change in playing personell. A Bit like Leeds now.

Yes there's been some turnover in players, but that also includes Wire losing some decent players (J.Monaghan and Atkins for Hicks and Gleeson isn't *that* much of an improvement on the field, for example). Fair enough, Smith identified Gleeson as trouble to the squad and quickly shipped him out. That's part of a coach's responsibility.

Most of the players were there under Lowes, but did he get anything out of Briers or Bridge? Have Carvell and Wood and Westwood immproved out of sight since he left? Michael Monaghan at scrumhalf was shaping up to be one of the worst SL imports ever. Matt King was shaping up to be hands-down the worst.

There is no evidence that having a couple more good players available would make the slightest difference to a team coached by Jimmy Lowes, because the many good players he actually had didn't look so good while he was there.

I'm not a blinkered Tony Smith fanboy, but anyone can see how superior he is to Lowes and Cullen, even if that's only because the latter two are so very, very poor.

I don't think anyone is arguing over who is better in Smith or Lowes and Cullen. I think that's a pretty obvious result.

I think you answer your own contradiction in your first paragraph. Comparing Monaghan and Atkins to Gleeson and Hicks is just scraping the barrell.

Briers has always been the same player, regardless of who is the coach. Always been number one in that squad. It's how the players around him play that changes the results.

I'm going to give you the King and to an extent the Bridge position. King is definately a different player under Smith, but then again let's be realistic why should anything else have been expected. The guy was world class before going to Wire, so why shouldn't he have continued. Perhaps though, the well known "Settling in period" could also have had an effect here?

I said an extent to Bridge, because in the most part before Smith there he was injured, and it was actually Lowes that saw and suggested Bridge as a centre rather than a stand off. Smith put when fit Bridge into centre and got a much better player for it.

You're missing the point. They weren't tjhere in 2009 when they won the CC Final.

Erm, no. J Monaghan played no part in either the 2009 or 2010 finals. Neither did Myler. Atkins played in one of them.

He wasn't even selected for the 2010 final. He went from England's scrum half to a player who was striuggling to get in Warrington's 17.

What about the 2009 squad, inhereted by lowes, from Cullen and inhereted by Smith from Lowes? What about the 2010 squad?

Smith has turned around Warrington. Of course those palyers are playing a part but who is coaching them to levels they haven't acheived before?