a point a few of us picked up on over a beer at the celtic game this year!

I've thought about this over the last 24 hours and I've come up with the reason Bluey is getting more support than Smith over a similar run.

It's all down to the shape of his head. Bluey's head is almost rugby ball shaped, thus leading to people believing that he has a "rugby brain". Smith has a head shaped like a tennis ball, so he's considered to have a "tennis brain".

Obviously a "rugby brain" is significantly more use to a rugby coach than a "tennis brain", and so people trust Bluey more than Smith.

It's easy when you think about it..............

I think that it 'helps' Bluey in some way when the fans are now stating to accept that we are going to lose more games than we used to. We're talking of going into the Catalans game (a team that finished bottom three years ago) next week as underdogs and justifiably so.

At the end of last season Tony Smith said that the team that wins the 2008 championship could well lose ten games in the season - I think most of us are probably starting to realise that now.

This would explain stevos lack of rugby knowledge

Indeed. I have often thought that the shape of Stevo's head is slightly reminiscent of an , so the theory stands so far.

Surely the leeway is because we are now used to this position. We experienced it last year, we knee jerked, and Smith delivered in the end. Perhaps out of this experience we just expect the same again.

Also though which cant be swept under the carpet. The very team that Smith won the GF with has only been available to Bluey, on one occassion this year. The rest of the time players have been missing left, right, and , through injuries. This is not something that Smith had to endure throughout his time here.

he shouldn't. Why should Smith have?

Cos he didn't have a "rugby brain", I've told you............

Because Smith was judged on more than just Rugby League and because Smith made mistakes which he refused to publically accept.

His failure in 2005 was down to ineptitue, in fact his tenure in charge of the Rhinos was an up and down affair, culminating in the final up in the GF last season.

As far as Bluey in concerned this proof will be in the big games starting with the Dragons in France followed by the Saints.

Why more leeway for Bluey? It is all about history and context really.

Under Smith we had seen the GF winning team of 2004 falter in 2005 and undergo a marked decline in 2006. In 2007 the bad moments (like losing to HKR away - after which I confess to calling for Smith's sacking) felt like it was going to be 2006 all over again, and that 2004 was not being capitalised on.

However, 'Bluey' has started the season very well, and despite the recent run of bad form, we're still very much in uncharted waters with him as coach. As he lacks a history with Leeds (or any other SL club), I think it is more a case of wait and see before I become more critical. I think much depends on how this form drop is handled - if we continue to decline until the end of the season and coaching decisions play a role in this it will be open season on McClennan on this board.

I think the fact he lacks any League experience may be the biggest concern I have, coaching the New Zealand side to success very much depends on whether the players like you or not - the fact that Bluey is very much a people skilled coach would dictate that they enjoyed playing for him.

The interesting thing with any people orientated leaders is whether they can have those difficult conversations - in my experience they very rearely have this sklll.

:392z6u85Why should he? What confidence would it instill in his players if he were the type of leader who meekly apologised to the masses every time he made a decision which they perceived as a mistake.

Last year games in the 'slump' were lost against sides we expected to beat or lost when they looked to be won.

This year we are winning games from being behind or coming back to nearly win.

If the kick had gone over on Friday it would have been as rose tinted as the Murray era comeback @ Sheffield.

Whilst losing there is a sense of adversity & entertainment this year & yes it go like 2005 with just one trophy @ the beginning or like 2007 with a champions crown @ the end.

At least it's not like 2006

It shows humility, something even the best have shown over the years.

He failed to build on a team on the threshold of something very special, he beat a well undercooked, understrength Bulldogs who once realised they had to show a little rattled Leeds senseless.

I'm neither way on the Bluey debate Gareth, he hasn't convinced me either way - he does however strike me as a sunshine and lollipop merchant.

what's an ''an booty''?

I like that comment.

:24y75kbxI like that comment.





You didn't need the word "an" in your question twice, by the way. Since we're being picky.

You just get worse matey !

Swop Donald to the other side ? Why ? What difference would that make ? Only make the problem move to the other wing FFS

Play JJB in the Centre ? Now that must be the most stupid thing even you have posted

How on earth you dare give an opinion about Coaching, well good job you have never Coached anyone

Indeed but you are aiming your latest fishing rod in the wrong direction Gareth, Smith delivered and failed in equal measure, thats life, thats sport.

Interestingly enough the fact that Smith is (in your words) the most successful coach ever in the history of Leeds tells you everything you need to know about the club rather than Smith himself.

How did Smith do at Huddersfield with just his tactical ability to fall back on?

Your first statement contradicts your second. I agree with the second. The fact that Smith delivered two championships in four seasons at Leeds means that he delivered far, far more than he failed.

very well actually. It was how far he had them playing above their abilities that prompted Hetherington to go for him.

What I don't quite understand is people's inconsistency in their approach to the competitive nature of SL.

IMO in 2005 the competition just wasn't as strong as it is now.

The salary cap, some good business dealings, some new coaches, some young blood, some forward thinking in terms of franchises and such like and all of a sudden, we have the Dragons in third spot pushing Leeds and Saints. You have Castleford who are capable of beating anyone on their day, Wakefield the same. Hull KR who have been a banana skin for a lot of teams. A resurgent Quins side and Huddersfield , Wigan and Warrington fluctuating from the sublime to the ridiculous, so you never know which team you're facing. Add an "odd"Bradford side into the mix with Hull and you have a league where no one team can take ANY result for granted.

Isn't this what we wanted? An exciting, unpredictable league with a higher standard of overall play.

Given that that's what we wanted, it seems odd that we're then surprised that we are not seeing one side dominate.

Is it possible that it's not Leeds underperforming, or even other teams punching above their weight to beat leeds. But just that other teams are a lot better than they were 3 years ago?

yes