Smith's approach would probably have worked fine with a team that knew what it was doing as well. I doubt Sinfield and co would have needed to be sworn at to know what needed fixing, or to take personal responsibility for it. When you have a team with a mindset that seemingly being paid to play is enough and no leaders in the group to pull the team out of it, you need something more.

Exactly. This is why I'm not convinced by the hyperbole of having landed Arthur as coach. It’s all just words until the players make it otherwise. And there's an awful lot of ours who've played under 3, 4 or 5 coaches without looking remotely like serial winners. I'll be delighted when the boys prove me wrong.

I agree with Once were Loiners and Clearwing. Coaching philosophies are just that - ultimately it is the responsibilty of the players to perform on the field. Re: Smith, I agree his approach was good for players with the right attitude, i.e. good professionals at various career stages who are willing to learn and work on doing things differently (if needed). Players like O'Connor and Handley really came along under Smith, and senior players like Martin were consistently good for us. On the flip side, Smith wasn't good at dealing with more difficult personalities in the senior group (Austin etc), as well as lazier types who would go through the motions instead of work on their game (perhaps Lisone, Sangare etc). It sounds like Smith wasn't direct enough in dealing with disciplinary and contractual issues, which at best meant 'no change' or at worst fanned the flames leaving to acrimonious fall outs. I'd imagine Arthur's approach will be better for dealing with the likes of personalities like Newman and Bentley, the lazier types, and perhaps also players willing to work that are down on confidence (e.g. Miller, Nicholson-Watton). At the same time, I do worry a bit about what happens when the team run into a brick wall - they can't actually give any more (re: Brian Mac days of running the senior players into the ground), or they just come up against better opposition (will Arthur have a plan B?). I have a sense that Smith might be better in such situations when the overall quality of the playing roster is higher, but he's less good at the foundational aspects of what a RL team needs. It's going to be fascinating to see how the season goes.