Do good players make good coaches?

[Markfs]

Both Barassi and matthews had the half back flank thug mentality even if they didn't occupy the position. Blight doesn't fit the mold (probably any mold). There are always exceptions to any rule, but as I said, the rules have changed. top players have always been a requirement, and always will be. Even hafey couldn't get a mediocre Collingwood side over the line in '77.

you're right....bucks cant coach so that probably proves the rule that good players dont make good coaches...

 

[Knightmare]

I don't believe good players make good coaches generally as a rule.

Some good players have become good coaches (Leigh Matthews as one example), but there isn't a relationship between playing ability and coaching ability and if hiring I'd personally lean towards someone who was a lesser player.

I would describe great players as overrated commodities post-career. The most obvious examples of this was Voss/Buckley/Hird when they all retired. You had clubs clambering over these guys and having them all from the get go as the frontrunners for senior coaching positions which is ridiculous really given they just retired and had not even served as assistants at that time when they were getting the offers. And with Brisbane/Collingwood/Essendon in each case you had each of those clubs essentially move on their coaches in Matthews, Malthouse and Knights (Sheedy previously). As such all clubs downgraded by moving on more experienced guys for guys without the experience or coaching know-how. Sure they've got the technical knowledge of the game but not the coaching knowledge - how guys tick, how to build those relationships with the players and create that buy-in and create a winning system.

If I'm looking for a head coach I'm looking for a long time head coach (who wouldn't want a Mark Thompson, Mick Malthouse, Alastair Clarkson or Ross Lyon?) or a long time senior assistant coach (Ken Hinkley, John Longmire as two examples).

Today the industry is just too competitive to take a shot on a newly retired player and just rush them in. You'll have some coaches who were terrific or even dominant footballers back in their day, but when looking for a senior coach my interest is not in their playing career, I could care less, instead what interests me is what they've since playing and purely based on their ability to coach.

 

[Captivating]

good players that made lousy coaches

Bernie Quinlan
Royce Hart
Guy McKenna
Matty Primus
Tim Watson
Darrel Baldock
Kevin Barlett
Tony Shaw
Peter Knights
Bob Skilton
Graham Farmer
Matthew Knights

All had a coaching win percentage below 40%

 

[PTpie]

I think there are so many different aspects to coaching modern footy that calling the Senior (Head?) coach The Coach is a little presumptuous. I know that ultimately someone has to lead but the guy at the front isn't the best at everything. They are the best at organising, directing, motivating and "seeing" what has happened, what is happening and then deciding what needs to happen for success - whatever that may be at the time.

So with that in mind, on topic, I think some do, some don't. Wayne Carey for example probably couldn't coach U/6's (and every dad would be worried about his wife). But then you have Cameron Ling, who in my opinion wasn't an exceptionally talented player but maximised his talent and played his role better than it had been done previously. I'd have no dramas accepting him as a coach. Same goes with Tom Harley and Matthew Scarlett. Those guys were all very good players but not athletically gifted or sublimely talented. They just did their bit to the best of their ability and had the presence of mind to organise their teammates, kick them in the arse when needed and they saw what was happening and were proactive in making decisions to alter the outcome.

Essentially they were great leaders. That is what a good coach needs to be. They need to have the vision of what they want to achieve and be able to drag everyone else into that dream. Make them all pull in the same direction, sing the same song. They have to convince 50 - 60 other individuals that the path they have laid out is going to work not just for themselves, but everyone that is brave enough to start the journey with them. Tough gig really.

Many will try and only a few will make it. For me I feel that being a good player, or even a player, of a sport means very little when considering coaching. The skill set and mindset required for each is completely different. I wouldn't be surprised to see people with proven coaching in different sports (Rick Charlesworth or John Buchanon maybe) come into calculations for consultation or advisory roles in the AFL (to coach the coaches). When that happens professional coaches are only a short while away.

 

[Bard]

How good a player was is irrelevant. Absolutely zero correlation with how they'll perform as coach.

 

[stui magpie]

good players that made lousy coaches

Bernie Quinlan
Royce Hart
Guy McKenna
Matty Primus
Tim Watson
Darrel Baldock
Kevin Barlett
Tony Shaw
Peter Knights
Bob Skilton
Graham Farmer
Matthew Knights

All had a coaching win percentage below 40%

Tony Jewell was an average player who coached Richmond to a premiership. They sacked him to give the coaching job to a club playing legend in Frances Burke. That worked well.

Murray Weidemann is a Collingwood legend as a player. As a coach he took us to our first wooden spoon.

Ian Stewart - triple Brownlow medallist as a player, spud as a coach.

Playing and coaching is a totally different skill set, what makes a great player doesn't make a great coach. That's not to say that a great player can't be a great coach, they obviously can and have, but selecting a coach based on their playing career and not on their coaching skills is dumb and rarely works

 

[TradeDraft]

I don't believe good players make good coaches generally as a rule.

Some good players have become good coaches (Leigh Matthews as one example), but there isn't a relationship between playing ability and coaching ability and if hiring I'd personally lean towards someone who was a lesser player.

I would describe great players as overrated commodities post-career. The most obvious examples of this was Voss/Buckley/Hird when they all retired. You had clubs clambering over these guys and having them all from the get go as the frontrunners for senior coaching positions which is ridiculous really given they just retired and had not even served as assistants at that time when they were getting the offers. And with Brisbane/Collingwood/Essendon in each case you had each of those clubs essentially move on their coaches in Matthews, Malthouse and Knights (Sheedy previously). As such all clubs downgraded by moving on more experienced guys for guys without the experience or coaching know-how. Sure they've got the technical knowledge of the game but not the coaching knowledge - how guys tick, how to build those relationships with the players and create that buy-in and create a winning system.

If I'm looking for a head coach I'm looking for a long time head coach (who wouldn't want a Mark Thompson, Mick Malthouse, Alastair Clarkson or Ross Lyon?) or a long time senior assistant coach (Ken Hinkley, John Longmire as two examples).

Today the industry is just too competitive to take a shot on a newly retired player and just rush them in. You'll have some coaches who were terrific or even dominant footballers back in their day, but when looking for a senior coach my interest is not in their playing career, I could care less, instead what interests me is what they've since playing and purely based on their ability to coach.

So - A Gun Player would make a Hack of a Coach.

Go for Players who have Battled to make it in the AFL?

 

[TradeDraft]

Murray Weidemann is a Collingwood legend as a player. As a coach he took us to our first wooden spoon.

He Barley Coached. Tuddy did the Training Session while he was at the Track

 

[Knightmare]

So - A Gun Player would make a Hack of a Coach.

Go for Players who have Battled to make it in the AFL?

I'd say don't consider their playing career as a relevant factor in the decision.

Instead judge the prospective coach on what they've demonstrated as a head coach or assistant coach with a heavy weighting based on duration of experience (meaning how long they've coached).

In other words don't waste time on guys who have just come out of the game.

 

[TradeDraft]

I'd say don't consider their playing career as a relevant factor in the decision.

Instead judge the prospective coach on what they've demonstrated as a head coach or assistant coach with a heavy weighting based on duration of experience (meaning how long they've coached).

In other words don't waste time on guys who have just come out of the game.

Agree - Don’t take the Player Careers as a Indication how good they are going to be as a Coach.

Though the Great Players still get Coaching Jobs because of how they played

 

[Anzacday]

Wait for it...

 

[noideaatall]

There appears to be a relative concensus here, a conclusion that even to an footy ignoramous like me seems to be a no-brainer and well supported historically. This begs the question why don't footy boards know this. Is there more to the choice of a senior coach that seems apparent? Is it sentimentality, are footy boards hamstrung by their own hubris, is it more to do with personal relationships/power/politics or does marketing take precendence?

 

[gutsroy]

It would be very hard to analyze, because the coach is only one part of the equation, the impact of player recruiting, development shouldn't be ignored.

The best coach in the world won't end up with much of a win-loss record if he doesn't have the players to work with.

That said, my irrational leaning would be toward a battler HBF / back pocket or tagger type, the 'rationale' being they had to work harder and smarter just to get a game.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Not always obviously. I think SMART players would make good tacticians. But as we're now finding out, you can be a brilliant coach, but it means jack if you can't get your team to execute.

I think Bucks would have been far more suited to North Melbourne's list. Or Richmond's for that matter.

 

[Maggie5]

Coming from a women's sporting angle, my best coaches have been ones that have:

a) played the game and were very good
b) good communicators, explaining the why and how
c) didn't have favourites
d) thought outside the box
e) were not afraid of trying something new
f) were not afraid of playing players out of position
g) didn't have need to be liked but was respected.

 

[Robroy22]

"Do good players make good coaches?".....they do when they have great players....just like any other coach!

 

[noideaatall]

Not always obviously. I think SMART players would make good tacticians. But as we're now finding out, you can be a brilliant coach, but it means jack if you can't get your team to execute.

I think Bucks would have been far more suited to North Melbourne's list. Or Richmond's for that matter.

Seriously that seems a tautology. Is it not the job of a coach to get a group to execute their plan of how to get the most out of said group? No good blaming your tools.

 

[pinky951]

Question for those of you who've played footy - if you've had a great coach, what made him great? Ability to communicate, a superior understanding of the game combined with an analytical mind that can strip it down into manageable chunks, people-management skills, a creative mind? All of the above and more? I've never played any sport, so I've no idea.

It is hard to say. I remember the coaches who set an example, were fair and were ruthless, that is not taking into account whether that coach led to the team to more wins than losses though. I never played in a successful team.

I think outside of the AFL the ability to bring good players to the club with them seems to be the most important thing, probably in the AFL nowadays too.

 

[THATSGOLD]

A coach needs a combination of things. Most importantly the players need to respond to that coach and play for him. Can Buckley motivate the Collingwood players, that is the burning question.

 

[noideaatall]

A coach needs a combination of things. Most importantly the players need to respond to that coach and play for him. Can Buckley motivate the Collingwood players, that is the burning question.

I thought the burning question was "do good players make good coaches" In any case I don't know if a good coach at AFL level needs to motivate. Inspire self belief individually and amongst the group maybe. I do think players need to believe in their coach, the game plan and instructions. Maybe that is one argument for good player making good coache - that their past record might immediately create respect from the playing group.

 

[Laurie Holden]

Maybe we should be getting this guy as our next coach?

A coach needs a combination of things. Most importantly the players need to respond to that coach and play for him. Can Buckley motivate the Collingwood players, that is the burning question.

Exactly why we should chase this guy

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Seriously that seems a tautology. Is it not the job of a coach to get a group to execute their plan of how to get the most out of said group? No good blaming your tools.

I think you can to an extent. There's no blanket rule of course. But I'm fairly sure history is literred with great coaches that weren't good at every club they coahced.

Pagan?
Blight?
Ayres?

 

[THATSGOLD]

Exactly why we should chase this guy

If he knew about AFL perhaps.

 

[Laurie Holden]

If he knew about AFL perhaps.

Sorry I thought you were after someone to motivate the players.

 

[THATSGOLD]

Sorry I thought you were after someone to motivate the players.

Combination. Keep up.