What makes a "good" coach?

[These 4 Walls]

Reading countless posts about whether Buckley, Goodwin, Hardwick (not recently thankfully) or Bolton are good coaches and there doesn't really seem to be any consensus about what makes someone a good coach.

There are often many types of coach but what traits are needed to be good or even great?

Why is Al Clarkson a better coach than Al Richardson? What are the characteristics of his coaching that make him better? Whether on BF or SEN or Fox or by the watercooler etc, it always seems to come down to "He's an idiot, I would do a better job!" or the like.

When discussing players, we tend to have a pretty good consensus about the requirements for a good FF or CHB, though with coaches they tend to either be amazing or horrible.

So, all of that said and done if you were building a new coach from scratch for a team that was on the cusp of the 8 and wanted to win the flag in the next 2 years, which 3 traits does a coach need?

Note: By game day tactics I mean the ability to see and change something within a game as opposed to an organized plan.

 

[Snookers]

Winning and not losing.

 

[Scorpus]

A good coach is one that wins a lot of games

I'd also say a bad coach is one that loses a lot of games

 

[Xtreme]

Able to adapt and change things on the fly (Clarkson)

A crap coach just leaves things as they are and curses (Chris Scott/John Longmire)

 

[SilentHunter_]

Winning and not losing.

Nicely put. Ugly, exciting, boring, pretty - at the end of the day as long as the coach is getting wins that's all that matters. However how you get wins and be consistently great is a different discussion all together.

 

[smasha]

All of the above.

 

[Chism]

Assistants play a major role in every aspect who are often the unsung heroes.

But regarding the individual aspect of coaching it is definitely game day tactics and the ability to apply a successful plan B into effect when things are going against you which Clarkson is the best at.

 

[These 4 Walls]

As 3 of the 4 responses are already on "winning = good, losing = bad" how would we ever know if a coach of a bad team was actually good?

I would assume winning is the outcome of good coaching & not the trait of a good coach.

Ie: was Damien Hardwick a bad coach in 2010 when we won 6 games and lost 16?
: was Clarkson crap in 2005 because they went 5-17?
: Buckley in 2012 went 16-6

Or is as simple as that we don't care what makes someone good or bad at the role, they either win more games than last year and keep their job or lose more games and come under fire?

 

[Farm Boy]

A good coach is someone who recognizes his players strengths/weaknesses and plans accordingly.
A bad coach is someone who throws James Harmes in the ruck when the game is in the balance.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

As 3 of the 4 responses are already on "winning = good, losing = bad" how would we ever know if a coach of a bad team was actually good?

I would assume winning is the outcome of good coaching & not the trait of a good coach.

Ie: was Damien Hardwick a bad coach in 2010 when we won 6 games and lost 16?
: was Clarkson crap in 2005 because they went 5-17?
: Buckley in 2012 went 16-6

Or is as simple as that we don't care what makes someone good or bad at the role, they either win more games than last year and keep their job or lose more games and come under fire?

Well you have to consider the lists and how they develop vs the stratergy and understanding of players and modern game.

Brendan McCartney was seen a bad coach, development coach at best. Some basics like winning the contestant possession were great for the rebuild but from selections and match day stratergy had no ******* idea to get us any further.

Clarko and Hardwick both showed thier club that they could do what was needed. However, Buckley never had.

 

[psychobrown]

Good players

 

[These 4 Walls]

Well you have to consider the lists and how they develop vs the stratergy and understanding of players and modern game.

Brendan McCartney was seen a bad coach, development coach at best. Some basics like winning the contestant possession were great for the rebuild but from selections and match day stratergy had no ******* idea to get us any further.

Clarko and Hardwick both showed thier club that they could do what was needed. However, Buckley never had.

Absolutely, there is not one coach that would be perfect in every scenario (though I struggle to think of when teams wouldn't prefer Clarkson)

Team selection is another option I maybe should have included as actually picking the best line up is not as obvious as it sounds.

The question I maybe should have asked is "What is important to be a good coach" as I am interested in knowing how people go about assessing the performances of a coach without just looking at W/L

 

[Power Raid]

A good coach who can come up with a plan B and the players believe in the coach and deliver.

The 1%, tackles, the running in waves and backing each other up are all good signs that the players believe in themselves and their coach.

 

[Toump Ass]

Not Mark Neeld.

Otherwise, I'd say someone who gets the best out of the list and is innovative (you're not going to win a premiership trying to copy someone else's game-plan). Being a decent media performer would help.

You have to win games too.

 

[The King!]

Can control/influence expectation and exceed them

Makes multiple/new moves in games

Develops players- eg clarko has been there and grew his list, others took over a list someone else developed

Perform in the media/sell a message/draw in fans

Players dont leave him

Players seek out the club to play for him

 

[Boxhead_31]

Having a teaching background and being able to make the connection to the players seems to be the way the role is going

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

A strong list. There is no way a triple premiership coach who coached his team to a 42-7-2 record over his final two seasons suddenly lost his ability to coach in the space of 1-2 years.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Having a president that loves you and renews your contract.

 

[Toump Ass]

A bad coach is someone who throws James Harmes in the ruck when the game is in the balance.

What a classic gag!

I bet Goody was in the coaches box looking at everyone like: "HAHAH LOOK AT ME EVERYONE I'M ROBERT WALLS!!!"

Ahhhhh lol.

Harmes will be dropped this week. He had his chances.

 

[Farm Boy]

What a classic gag!

I bet Goody was in the coaches box looking at everyone like: "HAHAH LOOK AT ME EVERYONE I'M ROBERT WALLS!!!"

Ahhhhh lol.

Harmes will be dropped this week. He had his chances.

He didn't have much of a chance against Big Boy McKovey. Who in their right mind plays James Harmes in the ruck against McKovey?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The best coaches are those who have the best man management skills. That means they can connect with all types of personalities and thus get them to buy into a team ethos and a brand of football that wins matches. You can have the best tactics in the world but if you can't manage your players, you will never be a good coach.

Of course success will also require having the right cattle to be able to execute your plan. A good coach though will also devise a game style that best exploits the capabilities of his list.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

He didn't have much of a chance against Big Boy McKovey. Who in their right mind plays James Harmes in the ruck against McKovey?

Who is McKovey?

Do you mean McEvoy?

 

[Farm Boy]

Who is McKovey?

Do you mean McEvoy?

Thanks for the correction. I never even realized it was McEvoy.

 

[demondavey]

A good coach is someone who recognizes his players strengths/weaknesses and plans accordingly.
A bad coach is someone who throws James Harmes in the ruck when the game is in the balance.

God you’re predictable. You just roll from one thread to the next paying out on Melbourne. What makes a bad coach is picking fat boy McCartin at no.1.

 

[Farm Boy]

God you’re predictable. You just roll from one thread to the next paying out on Melbourne. What makes a bad coach is picking fat boy McCartin at no.1.

No. That makes a bad recruitment decision. Its not the coaches job to select players at the draft. But in Harmes vs McEvoy's case. It is always the coaches job to oversee moves on gameday. At the end of the day the coach has to be accountable for that. Goodwin is copping criticism because he opted to play James Harmes against Big Boy McEvoy at a pivotal time in the game, and he did this whilst Gawn sat on the bench for 10 minutes. Btw, I am not paying out on Melbourne - I am paying out on Goodwin (and rightfully so). Goodwin is not Melbourne, he is just an individual who coaches them, who IMO is doing a terrible job.