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.
