But how else does one define a coach then? Lyon isn't a terrible coach by any means, but to claim that he is better then coaches such as Clarkson and Bomber is really really pushing it. Coaches are defined by their success, much like teams they coach in the first place. Otherwise, how else does one grade said coaches? Even if we look at it another way - Lyon left a horrible horrible legacy at the Saints; Bomber left a lasting foundation at Geelong that exists to this day. Clarkson will be the same, when he leaves the Hawks, that team will benefit from what he contributed and influenced for years afterwards. Roos is the same; helped forge what Sydney is, and he will do the same with Melbourne. Those are good coaches, so how can one argue that Lyon is better then them when all evidence suggests otherwise?
I agree to an extent:
Clarkson is clearly no. 1. Premierships from a rebuild and a mini rebuild, and has the wood over us at the moment.
Thompson left a legacy at Geelong, but is lowering his colours this year.
Lyon is a damn good coach, probably on a par with Roos, Longmire and Hinkley. Problem with Saints, is they got a very bad coach whose first act was to tear down the structures that Lyon built. Can't blame Lyon for all that. He has turned Freo around to being a consistent, achieving club.
The Scotts are about the same. Teams are very different, but both on autopilot. I'd give a lot of credit to Thompson for the third Geelong flag. Though he managed his stars well.
So we can grade coaches on how much difference they make?