Is it just me or does Bluey seem to take the view that the Leeds squad are his mates and that rather than laying down the law in the changing sheds he just puts an arm round them and say 'never mind'

For me a line needs to be drawn and although coaches and their staff need to get on with their squad they don't have to be pally pally all the time. We need a professional from the coaching staff.

With this I think our performances will improve and that our discipline will become much better. Last year we got by on Tony Smith's teaching but now it looks like it's wearing a bit thin.

The most annoying thing about it all is that we all know that the squad have it in them to produce a complete professional performance and that we don't have to be a band of merry men to bring the super league trophy back to HQ.

Got to say I agree with all you've said. However much I like Bluey and rate him as a good coach he appears to lack in the areas you've stated.

Discipline has been poor for the last 18 mths and is something that needs sorting no doubt about but to suggest we won what we did last year was down to smiths coaching is strange and inaccurate imo.

i raised this over a year ago, I stand by my view then, he is clueless and the players are starting to realise it.

Have to say I totally agree. I think it's time Bluey stepped up and started acting like a coach not their best friend. I, for one, am sick of them putting out a pathetic performance when I know they can do a damn sight better.

Over familiarty breeds contempt...and seeds were sown pre 18 months ago yes they were ..probable before, its in the last 12 months things have festered and them seeds have turned and now present themself as the stupid penalties,arrogance and almost self rightousness some of the first team display, can it be resolved yes it can, and from another thread suggests certain players need too pulled into line and very quickly or a trophy lees season beckons

Good point Adi, and for me the key reason why players should not coach at the club they played at.

It seems that generally there are two kinds of coach: "Matey" and "Calculated".

The Matey coach will be able to get players to raise their performance for individual games, and generally players would do anything for them at the start of their tenure. Shortcomings of this type of coach are typically a lack of structure in the team, players not knowing or sticking to a gameplan, a lack of ability to adapt "on the hoof" to evolving situations. Examples would be John Kear, Ian Millward, and Brian McClennan.

The "Calculated" coach is strong on discipline and structure, and is often seen as aloof by both players and fans. A lot of players won't want to play for this type of coach although those that do will benefit greatly from their methods. Shortcomings of this type of coach are that they will rarely have a strong bond with their players and can sometimes see themselves as bigger than the club. Typical examples of this king of coach would be Ellery Hanley, Daniel Anderson, Brian and Tony Smith.

For me, having seen both types of coach at Leeds over recent years, I much prefer the output of the "Calculated" coach as it's generally more consistent and succesful in the longer term.

yet according to one respected poster in 2007 and 2008 our pens conceded were roughly the same

If we produce just one complete, professional performance this year around about the 2nd week of October, that'll do nicely thank you very much Mr Mclennan.

And he's probably right. As I remember it our discipline was very poor in 2007. A far cry from the team of 2004.

You have to hand it to Gareth.

He's often been less than subtle in setting up his unwitting followers to look fools (the thread about Mike Ratu being a case in point) yet still they fall over themselves to post nonsense, oblivious to it all.

He makes what should be a difficult job look very, very easy.

Whats wrong with what i posted???

Sorry!