One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: bg25 on October 29, 2004, 05:41:58 PM
-
Interesting to note that most of our previous coaching panel had come from clubs with little or no success.
In stark contrast most of our current panel have been premiership players. ;D
-
Not only did the previous coaching regime have little or no success they had wooden spoon experience on top of that - Spud (now at 3 different clubs :o), Hutchison and Brittain. Only Crocker came from a successful background.
IMHO I think it's more a case of coming in and knowing what needs to be done (getting the right cattle), forming a well-thought out strategy and then getting on with implementing it successfully than purely coming from a successful background. Most post 1980 coaches we've had, Hart, Watson, Judge, Buckenara, Shaw... all were premiership players but failed miserably at coaching. Our previous coaching panel had both NFI and failure as a background :scream. So far the current crop haven't put a foot wrong :thumbsup.
Coming from a successful background of course gives you an advantage as you've experienced what's required to be successful before. No guarantee though.
-
In stark contrast most of our current panel have been premiership players. ;D
Not only that you listen to them speak and you can tell they know what they are doing and what needs to be done and how they are going to do it.
Eveytime I've heard Tezza speak - it comes across as fresh, honest and most of all it gets you excited.
But above all else the best bit.................the absolute bestest bit by a mile....................................
is.........................................................................
there is not a bloody cliche in sight. :bow :bow :cheers :thumbsup
As I keep saying ..............
Hell-lay-loo-ya :bow :bow
-
Agree that a successful background doesn’t guarantee a successful career as a coach. if these people don’t have the necessary awareness to know what the role of a Coach really is about and are stubborn enough to go into the role thinking they know everything there is to know about coaching a team, before they even take on the job, then they are more than likely destined to fail.
The most successful and best coaches are the ones who can teach their players something they don’t already know and can get something more out of them than they thought they were capable of. And even though Sheedy and Matthews came from successful backgrounds, they haven’t managed to stay in the game so long by being insular and thinking they had to have all the answers themselves.
They have succeeded because they are prepared to see what doesn’t work and make changes where necessary. Doesn’t need a successful background to do that, just an open mind.
You have to worry about how some coaches go about it at times though. They seem more concerned about the result and don’t seem bothered how those results are achieved, as long as they win. Too bad if their coaching style, and approach to the game, has the potential to harm the development of their players, not to mention the game itself. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that the better playing style and better prepared their players are the better the results will be. :-\
But, hopefully times are changing for the better and I think Clubs are a lot more aware of the impact a ‘good’ coach can have on their players and club. And so are better prepared for what to look for in a coach than ever before.
-
They have succeeded because they are prepared to see what doesn’t work and make changes where necessary. Doesn’t need a successful background to do that, just an open mind.
Open mind ?
What's that ? :rollin
-
It's usually the "workhorses" from successful clubs that turn into the successful coaches. The naturally talented players don't succeed as coaches because as players they really didn't have to think that much and didn't have to work as hard.......it just came naturally to them. Others less gifted had to work harder and think of ways to compensate their lack of pure talent. Plough is a good example of such a workhorse who did well in a successful team. Hopefully it can turn into the results we all desire.
-
Agree totally with that assessment HH you just have to look at some of our past players who have made good coaches and those of ours who havent, the 2 Kevins come to mind :P
-
Being talented or talentless as a player wouldn’t necessarily be the deciding factor in what makes a good coach.
Two great players in Leigh Matthews and Malcolm Blight, didn’t seem too impeded by their playing ability once they became coaches.
And you can also say the same about less talented players who have gone on to become successful coaches.
If it's just not in them to be a coach then their playing background couldn’t make the huge difference in them being a good coach or not.
It may provide an added spur, and even the impetus for them to become a coach, but as to how successful they become would depend more on their approach to coaching, rather than on their background as players.