I'd agree with most of that. Whilst we were inconsistent in 2007, beating Saints twice in the league is a feat McClennan has yet to eclipse. Smith is probably due more credit for 2007, but our failure to win anything in 2005 apart from the WCC still leaves a slightly bitter taste in my mouth, and the decline of 2006 probably shouldn't have been as severe either.

Bluey took over a team that had won 2 titles in 4 years!

What did Smith take over?

I dont want to put Smith down.

But Smith took over a side that would have won it anyway like I said above. He got lucky there is no proof that would be the case, because a change occured, but still likely.

Smith deserves all his credit for 2007, which was a great achievement by him. But more importantly, there was some damn good rugby played throughout his reign.

2004 was the clubs biggest achievement which he got the benefit of, because he was the man in charge. I am not going to argue with that.

For me, Smiths sides played better rugby than Bluey's, but Bluey's job is much harder than Smiths was.

The loss to wigan in the 2003 play offs was a complete shambles, I liked Powell but never had confidence in him being able to make the final step and win something. Why after 32 years and some promising teams was 2004 going to be our year despite the coach?

In 1999 after we won the CC we were massive favourites with the bookies to win SL, something that Murray failed "with the favourites".

I'll make this my last post on the subject because I don't want to devalue what Smith achieved.

You are right about the 2003 play off. However, you have completely missed the major reason for that shambles. A complete injustice happend that season regarding two players that completely hit the team hard. That is what effected us.

Some of the rugby played that season was very good. Had it not been for another injustice by a complete and utter pr1ck of a man called Russell Smith, we would also have already won a challenge cup.

Like I said, Smith got lucky with that side he inherited for 2004, and well done to him.

I slightly disagree.

We were within 2 points of getting the challenge cup that year, and we all know how close/unlucky we were that day. We also lost out in the eliminator by a solitary point. I know that getting your team to mkae those little 1% extras that win big games is part of the coaches job, but to say that he would never have won is ludicrous.

having said that. Smith massively improved us

I was speaking to someone involved in the coaching set up at the RFL this past weekend.

This person had close contact with someone who "fell out" with Smith and wasn't particularly a huge fan of his.

However, he did say that at the coaching clinics he has attended Smith has a fantastic presence and genuine technical genius. He was less than glowing about Mclennan though he did describe him as a thoroughly good bloke.

For me, Smith got the monkey off our backs.

Powell should get NO credit for 2004. None whatsoever. Hetherington should for having built the side but not Powell.

If you want an illustration of how Smith changed the team look at the results against the Bulls from 2003 to 2004 then look at 2004's league table.

Smith was (is) a great coach. Clearly not comfortable in media dealings, courting favour with the public and obviously difficult for some to work with but as a supporter who appreciates a little more than a coach who will shout and wave his fists I think we're a little poorer without him.

Bradford won the lot in 2003. How many times did we beat thenm that year (or at all under Powell)?

How many times did we beat them in 2004?

IMO we would certainly not have won the title under Powell. I can say that because its' speculation but its' no more specualtion than saying we would have so how do you conclude which element of speculation is ludicrous?

I didn't say he would never have won. That would be a statement which I could never have backed up and would indeed be ludicrous. I said I was never convinced we would have won, which is my opinion based on what I saw at the time. The CC Final we were very close to getting a result in, but in the end we lost to a mentally tougher side. Would we have won if a couple of decisions hadn't gone against uus? Impossible to say, it doesn't work like that. When I watch the game again, I'm minded to think that some of the more contentious ones were neither as clear-cut nor as crucial as they seemed at the time. It was a great match, but both sides had opportunities to win, only one did what had to be done. Harsh on Leeds perhaps, but that's life.

In the eliminator we served only to show how far behind Bradford we had fallen by the end of that season. For me it was a good Leeds side, but one (like many before it) that lacked the edge when it really counted. Maybe they would have won in 2004 with Powell as coach, but it's my opinion (it can never be more than that) that they wouldn't.

He stalks me doesn't he?

I agree with what you're saying there Gareth...but not sure the comparison of results against Bradford in 2004 to 2003 is a fair one.

Don't forget that Bradford were weaker in 2004, they lost some key players after the year where they won the lot...

For me a very gifted technical coach who had a profund effect on the basic technique of many players. His attention to detail is legendary and his all round knowledge of the game unsurpassed.

However is attention to detail was a dual-edged sword - it crossed the line when dealing with players and that prevented him from achieving what his undoubted technical/tactical skill deserved.

You could accept that some players weren't happy and that it wasn't Smith it was the players but when the same things happen with another group of players (England) you cannot ignore that an element of the problems must lay squarely at Smith's door. His control freak mentality did him few favours with players who believed they were able to run their lives without having to report their every move to Smith.

To be successful you need an element of luck and Smith - like Noble when he replaced Elliott at Bradford - inherited a squad with huge potential - was the success because of or inspite of Smith we will never know - could Leeds have dominated in 2004 under Powell as they did under Smith?

I will remember Smith for the high and lows of the 2004 GF win which was his finest hour IMO it was some feat to turn the tables considering the manner of the defeat in the PO eliminator 2 weeks before. The loss to Saints in the 2007 PO eliminator was the best game I saw Leeds play under Smith - the finest game I have seen during the SL era. It was that game that won the 2007 final - Leeds beat up Saints so bad that day they had only 40 minutes in them when it came to the final. The lows the CC semi defeat by Huddersfield the single most gutless performance I can remember in a big game - what happened that day only Smith and the players know. The CC final v Hull where he completely screwed up and let his petty squabbles get in the way of the team with the obvious consequences.

Is he a better coach than McClennan? different put the qualities of the two together and you would have one hell of a coach - a bit like Wayne Bennett

Not sure about that.

2003 squad:

1 Robbie Paul Scrum Half
2 Tevita Vaikona Wing
3 Leon Pryce Stand Off
4 Shontayne Hape Centre
5 Lesley Vainikolo Wing
6 Michael Withers Full Back
7 Paul Deacon Scrum Half
8 Joe Vagana Prop
9 James Lowes Hooker
10 Paul Anderson Prop
11 Daniel Gartner Second Row
12 Jamie Peacock Prop
13 Mike Forshaw Loose Forw
14 Lee Gilmour Second Row
15 Karl Pratt Stand Off
16 Alex Wilkinson Centre
17 Stuart Reardon Full Back
18 Lee Radford Second Row
19 Jamie Langley Loose Forw
20 Scott Naylor Centre
22 Karl Pryce Centre
23 Vinny Myler Prop
24 Aaron Smith Hooker
26 Chris Bridge Stand Off
27 Rob Parker Second Row
29 Stuart Fielden Prop
30 Richard Moore Prop

2004 squad

1 Robbie Paul Scrum Half
2 Tevita Vaikona Wing
3 Leon Pryce Stand Off
4 Shontayne Hape Centre
5 Lesley Vainikolo Wing
6 Michael Withers Full Back
7 Paul Deacon Scrum Half
8 Joe Vagana Prop
10 Paul Anderson Prop
11 Lee Radford Second Row
12 Jamie Peacock Prop
13 Logan Swann Loose Forw
14 Toa Kohe-Love Centre
15 Karl Pratt Stand Off
16 Paul Johnson Centre
17 Stuart Reardon Full Back
18 Iestyn Harris Stand Off
19 Jamie Langley Loose Forw
22 Karl Pryce Centre
23 Vinny Myler Prop
24 Aaron Smith Hooker
25 Brett Ferres Second Row
26 Chris Bridge Stand Off
27 Rob Parker Second Row
28 Nicky Saxton Full Back
29 Stuart Fielden Prop
30 Richard Moore Prop
31 Richard Colley Stand Off
32 Andy Smith Wing

Only major differences are Mike Forshaw, Gilmour and Lowes missing in 2004 (I don't think Vaikona played much either), with Iestyn Harris, Logan Swann and Toa Kohe Love added. This is from SL stats - Bulls fans feel free to correct me!

Not much difference on paper between those teams. Lowes and Harris pretty much cancel each other out.

Lowes was a major, major loss for them though...one which the addition of Harris certainly did not cancel out IMO...plus Harris didnt arrive till mid season anyway

You missed out the underrated Daniel Gartner too...who got through a ton of hard work

Both good points. Leeds also added Bai and Lauitiiti from 2003, giving us a bit more strike power out wide.

Bulls fans will tell you that there downward trend started the minute they lost Forshaw and Lowes, especially Lowes.

There is a huge difference in their importance and influence to the side.

Top bloke James Lowes i remember running into him and Barrie in the Leeds markets Yeeeeeeeeears ago.

This is true. Lowes was hugely important to that Bulls side, both in terms of what he directly did in a match and in terms of the effect he had on the players around him.

Now he's retired I am able to give him due credit for what he did in the game. I was less keen at the time......

remember him and Vowels going at it in front of the Northstand. No windmilling, just good old fashioned boxing. Brilliant

[size=150Would you like it in big print as well, with all the long words taken out?[/size

this has been a great thread.agreements,disagreements and all done without bitchiness and oneupmanship

I considered (and still do) Smith to be the finest coach in Super League.

Most of my thoughts on Smith have already been covered by others but anyway…

Technical, strict, meticulous with a ‘no player is bigger than the club’ attitude. The success he brought in his short tenure is unsurpassed and therefore deserves nothing but admiration.

2004 is my favourite all time season, not just for Championship or the 70 - 0 but for the overall performances we put in. It is arguably said that several players have yet to reproduce the form that reached in that year – was this down to Smith or did he just inherit a squad that simply ‘gelled’, who knows but it made for my most memorable season to date.

Some people are seriously underestimating the difference between a side of good players capable of good performances every now and then with one that actually wins something. I've seen countless Leeds teams under the first category since 1981, and only since 2004 one of the latter.

It also seems like a double-standard is in place here - wanting to credit Powell for Smith's team, and yet less so with respect to Bluey's team. Not a single player in last year's GF hadn't been at Leeds under Smith. If you want to give Powell credit for 2004, then you ought to give all the credit for last year to Smith. Both patent nonsense. Bluey deserves full credit for last year. And Smith deserves all the credit for 2004 and 2007. DP 'deserves' none at all for any of our GF wins.

TBH I simply cannot fathom how much credibility DP seems to have. In 2003 for example we may have 'lost by one point' to Wigan - but that was a week after being stuffed by the Bulls in the play-offs. Not sure that beating Wigan would have meant anything other than disappointment a week later. And 2003 was a major improvement on the fairly dire performances and nonsensical post-match dribblings of DP for the two years before that.

Funnily enough GH decided enough was enough for DP at the end of 2003. And the uber-coach that is DP hasn't been a SL coach since then. Coincedence - or maybe whatever some may think, he simply wasn't that good?

No, that would only be true if you wanted to give ALL the credit for 2004 to Powell. You've missed an important distinction between "some" and "all" there, which has lead to some rather flawed logic. I will continue to recognise both the work of Powell into shaping the 2004 side, and also of Smith in shaping the 2008 side, while still giving the lion's share of the coaching credits to the man at the helm at the time. I don't buy that anyone could have won the title with the side Bluey inherited, but similarly you can't totally ignore the work which had been done before either man started.

Completely agree with all that EL D!
Just something else to consider re-2008 it's always harder to retain a title than win 1 something else that is over-looked regards bluey imo.