Do good players make good coaches?

[noideaatall]

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?

So, to be sure, you are saying great coaches can be limited by the players they are working with?

If so, totally agree. My observation is far to much value is placed purely on the level of succes a coach has rather than on a ratio of their success with some sort of factor that recognises the ability of the team they inherited. Of coure it is far easier and less subjective to evaluate a coach purely on ladder position rather than include an evaluation of the team in general. I think coaches should be evaluated on what the quality of the list they leave behind is, not simply the success during their period of coaching.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

So, to be sure, you are saying great coaches can be limited by the players they are working with?

If so, totally agree. My observation is far to much value is placed purely on the level of succes a coach has rather than on a ratio of their success with some sort of factor that recognises the ability of the team they inherited. Of coure it is far easier and less subjective to evaluate a coach purely on ladder position rather than include an evaluation of the team in general. I think coaches should be evaluated on what the quality of the list they leave behind is, not simply the success during their period of coaching.

Yep, I mean, let's be honest, is Chris Scott REALLY that great a coach? Or did he just inherit a brilliant team?

Is Buckley REALLY that terrible? Or did he inherit a side that needed Dad to hold their hand every step of the way?

I"m not arguing one or the other, it's just something to think about.

 

[noideaatall]

Yep, I mean, let's be honest, is Chris Scott REALLY that great a coach? Or did he just inherit a brilliant team?

Is Buckley REALLY that terrible? Or did he inherit a side that needed Dad to hold their hand every step of the way?

I"m not arguing one or the other, it's just something to think about.

I'm with you. I actually thought TShaw inherited shite and didn't leave it behind. Thats another story I guess.

The underlying issue on this board for years is the notion Buck inherited the greatest collingwood team since the 50's vs a team on the decline. No amount of thinking seem to resolve that difference.

That aside, do good players make good coaches? Seems we agree a good team makes all the difference. How do we evaluate a coach with a bad team? I'm not convinced footy boards have worked that one out. Bit like politics.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I'm with you. I actually thought TShaw inherited shite and didn't leave it behind. Thats another story I guess.

The underlying issue on this board for years is the notion Buck inherited the greatest collingwood team since the 50's vs a team on the decline. No amount of thinking seem to resolve that difference.

That aside, do good players make good coaches? Seems we agree a good team makes all the difference. How do we evaluate a coach with a bad team? I'm not convinced footy boards have worked that one out. Bit like politics.

Yeah, that's the thing, I never believed Bucks inherited a great side. At all. But credit where credit is due, Malthouse if you took each player in isolation put together a pretty average side in all reality, but he put a plan in place that enhanced it's strengths and wallpapered over their weaknesses. All while coddling the players and making sure they did exactly as he said.

Bucks steps in, tries to implement a more modern style that the players are effectively incapable of playing and realises he's in deep s**t. Combine that with a fair chunk of players who flat out don't like him and you get our current situation.

It's a catch 22. It seems we're going to need to give Bucks time, but then this is year 4. I don't want another Malthouse situation where we have no success for a decade while Hawthorn wins another 4.

 

[noideaatall]

Yeah, that's the thing, I never believed Bucks inherited a great side. At all. But credit where credit is due, Malthouse if you took each player in isolation put together a pretty average side in all reality, but he put a plan in place that enhanced it's strengths and wallpapered over their weaknesses. All while coddling the players and making sure they did exactly as he said.

Bucks steps in, tries to implement a more modern style that the players are effectively incapable of playing and realises he's in deep s**t. Combine that with a fair chunk of players who flat out don't like him and you get our current situation.

It's a catch 22. It seems we're going to need to give Bucks time, but then this is year 4. I don't want another Malthouse situation where we have no success for a decade while Hawthorn wins another 4.

I like this analysis.

How about this version starting from the bolded:
Bucks steps in, tries to implement a more modern style, that is self/intrinsically (motivated), uncompromising and aimed at being consistently regenerating. Many of the playing group are unable to cope with the demands of this new system, the freedom but in turn the reponsibility it puts upon them, the focus on outcomes and professionalism, the absence of accommodation for their individual differences. They struggle with faith where the onus is believing in themelves and the team, not some plan delivered by a 'messiah.' As these players are discarded, others lose faith threatened by the lack of favouritism, untouchability. Even fate seems against them, as injuries roll in.

Is that where we now stand? With a great coach that has had the courage to rebuild from the ground up, with no compromise. That given time will develiver us a professional modern football self generating club that will not be limited by 'the premiership clock' but will always be in the race: not locked into the up for a few year, down for a heap cycle . Is it about patience?

Or do we have just another good player who lacks the personal skills to bring out the best in his team and so convinced in his own view of reality he will lead us to destruction?

I dunno. Flip from post to post, week to week. I've seen the pies chase a flag next year for decades now and not only fail but rarely set the grounds for future success. Would another three years, say, out of finals be all that bad if we were building the foundation for long term success?

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I like this analysis.

How about this version starting from the bolded:
Bucks steps in, tries to implement a more modern style, that is self/intrinsically (motivated), uncompromising and aimed at being consistently regenerating. Many of the playing group are unable to cope with the demands of this new system, the freedom but in turn the reponsibility it puts upon them, the focus on outcomes and professionalism, the absence of accommodation for their individual differences. They struggle with faith where the onus is believing in themelves and the team, not some plan delivered by a 'messiah.' As these players are discarded, others lose faith threatened by the lack of favouritism, untouchability. Even fate seems against them, as injuries roll in.

Is that where we now stand? With a great coach that has had the courage to rebuild from the ground up, with no compromise. That given time will develiver us a professional modern football self generating club that will not be limited by 'the premiership clock' but will always be in the race: not locked into the up for a few year, down for a heap cycle . Is it about patience?

Or do we have just another good player who lacks the personal skills to bring out the best in his team and so convinced in his own view of reality he will lead us to destruction?

I dunno. Flip from post to post, week to week. I've seen the pies chase a flag next year for decades now and not only fail but rarely set the grounds for future success. Would another three years, say, out of finals be all that bad if we were building the foundation for long term success?

Good post. Yeah, it's a hard one. We as a supporter base and trying to work out ourselves how we feel are caught in a rock and a hard place. I'd wager all of us adore Nathan Buckley the player and WANT to love Nathan Buckley the coach, but no doubt the current situation makes that tough. It seems clear Nathan needs time. But do we want to wait another 6 years for a flag? Hell, do we wantto wait 3 or 4 years for even another CRACK at a flag?

I know I don't. Not again. But at the same time, I can't shake this niggling feeling that when Bucks gets this list where he wants it and playing how he wants it, we could become more of a Hawthorn/Geelong type side, rather than a flash in the pan type of side.

I completely agree and have posted myself many times that Buckley clearly inherited a bunch of players who outside Pendlebury have simply no concept of self motivation and thinking on their feet. This is what's killing us at the moment I feel and until that ethos infiltrates it's way into the players' minds, we might meander a little bit around the middle of the ladder.