Dave Furner might be caretaker coach at Souths if Demetriou goes...

Years. But I did say majority and not full. Playing well to good for 60 mins will see more wins than losses

Sorry, I didnt mean it to sound like I was demanding an answer from you , it was more of a genuine opine about how lax (IMHO) we've become accustomed to.

I agree 60 mins would usually lead to a lot more wins but I cant say we are even anywhere near that level which is appalling.

I think Smith is aware that his job is vulnerable. I was intrigued by his comment that ‘the club’ have decided to let the youth come through, rather than spending (I paraphrase). This can only be directed at Gary. If so then I think Gary has to give him ( a bit ) more time. The crisis may come if a few senior players organise a delegation to speak to Gary.
We can all be guilty of over-reading between the lines but I have noticed that no player ever refers to the manager. Often when a team is under-performing you would see players publicly backing the manager - but we aren’t seeing of that.

No need to apologise, I didn't take it that way . I just try be clear when there are two very opposing camps .

Agreed,also. The lack of consistency is worrying across the board. Tackling / defence / passing / leadership / smarts/kicking/ etc means we put in random performances that frustrate fans.

I'm on the fence. There is no point sacking RS unless we have a top quality guy to come in straight away. Someone with a plan, set goals and so on.
Given how many coaches we have run through in 5 years and obvious on field issues I can't see a top guy wanting the job until we are more stable.

However, RS doesn't fill me with confidence with the post match comments, failure to implement any structure or get the team to stop the stupid repetitive behaviour evident in every game.

Something just isn't clicking / working and RS needs to figure it out. If he can't then we are up the creek

Spot on

I thought Smith's press conference was better today, mainly because he was being asked some of the questions they seem to have been avoiding. I'm not sure why none of them push back on his comments when he suggests a poor performance was good/acceptable though.

The issues with a new coach are very valid. It would be far better if Smith can turn things around. But some of these opportunities to reboot things need to be taken. Huddersfield was a chance after a 2-week turnaround, Hull was a chance because they're a really poor team, London is chance because they are a Championship team in SL. After this we play some decent teams in consecutive weeks. Another sloppy win against London followed by two defeats - potentially big ones - would really leave us in the mire almost halfway through the season.

I imagine it's more likely they will beat London, possibly less convincingly than might be expected, and then come up with a pair of creditable performances after that. Assuming the team has a few players back from injury anyway.

It's not a unique phenomenon but Smith's teams really do perform much better when they are underdogs.

He got soft-soaped on that presser for the large majority of it.

He really needs putting under some better scrutiny because some of those answers were giving off major "Jesse Marsch Vibes"
This is RL and I suppose you dont want to be blacklisted from stuff I suppose but I found myself shaking my head at some of the "answers" he put forth to questions.

The nature of being underdogs is that you generally need to be not winning and playing poorly to get the moniker.

Some of the best GF winning Leeds teams have been underdogs - in 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012 etc - what's your point Flexwheeler? You do realise that good teams are not always expected to win, right?

The revisionism on this forum in the last few weeks really has been epic. We've been hearing that Furner would have been a better coach than Smith if only JJB hadn't complained and got GH and Sinfield to cut short his tenure, and now being an underdog is a sign of a team playing poorly. Jesus wept.

what's epic is people watching this garbage for 18 months and thinking smith is the answer

They were underdogs in one-off grand finals but on a week in week out basis they were favourites for a large portion of games. Guess who will be underdogs a lot this season? London and Hull, because they’re crap.

Your comparison is irrelevant, invalid, and frankly damn unhelpful as people continue to make comparison with yesteryear.

If you total up how many times Leeds went into a weekly round fixture during years they won the grand final as favourites and take an average, then take the same from Smith’s 18 months, guess what?

They’ll be underdogs higher percentage of the time under smith because they play poorly and lose, often. That was my point, you get the moniker of being underdogs by being crap, to put it bluntly.

Nice back-pedalling, but it doesn't disguise the fact that your definition of underdogs was deliberately narrowed to suit your anti-Smith agenda.

I'm not sure your hypothetical scenario is going to be as revealing as you think (I suspect neither of us has the time to quantify, but please do indulge yourself). In 2022 when Smith took over, Leeds were rightly underdogs in a lot of games, but we ended winning a lot more than was expected. In 2023 we actually started as favourites in a lot of games in the first part of the season because we had made the GF - many of which we lost, but not all. Your original comment about underdogs wasn't really as clever as you thought it was, and it's not really helpful to understanding what's going on at the club.

I will continue to bring up the past where it is relevant. Especially when it helps educate impatient doom-merchants that are turning people away from reading and contributing to this forum.