Is there a blue print for success?

Across the sporting landscape, the teams with the best players will tend to win. There are of course a vast number of anomalies but over time, the law of averages tends to prevail. Better players usually translates into better results. Simple.

But how can club owners, or national unions, create an environment that improves the odds of success, reduces the frequency of upsets, or for a “minnow” increases their chances of an upset?

Before looking in any detail at the coaching/management structures it is important to highlight a couple things:

Firstly, money. As sport around the world becomes increasingly money driven, if that is possible, it is important to recognise its influence. In the EPL Manchester City are currently leading the way, having effectively played a form of unlimited budget fantasy football over the past couple of years to create a side packed with world class super stars. In Baseball the New York Yankees are perennial contenders for the World Series, they also have the highest payroll. The influence of money, however is less profound in national teams and also where a salary cap exists.

Secondly, player quality will always outweigh the influence of a coaching and management set up. You can have the finest coaches in the world working with the best facilities, but if the players lack the talent they won’t be able to compete.

Looking around the world at some of the most successful teams in recent years, one thing struck me, in the majority of cases stability in coaching/management structure was a common theme, on the flip side many of the teams that have underperformed have often had frequent changes in coaches, or boardroom chaos.

Some case studies from the last c. 10 years:

Manchester United: Sir Alex Ferguson has been in charge for what feels like forever. The result? Consistently one of, if not the best side in English and European football. They are the classic example of a virtuous cycle; they have been successful, their fan base has grown, revenues have grown, they can therefore attract and afford better players, their success has continued.

Obvious you might think? In that case why have heavy spending Chelsea not been as successful? Easy, the almost annual managerial change that has been a feature of Roman Abramovich’s tenure. At Manchester United, Ferguson is the boss, you play by his rules or you are out (Ronaldo, Beckham etc).

At Chelsea the manager doesn’t have the luxury to build a side as he wants it, a side who develop his identity, one “disappointing” season and they are out on their ear and someone else gets the keys to the Ferrari i.e. the players tend to last longer than the manager. Would Chelsea have been better off to have stuck with Mourinho? Or Ancelotti? Or anyone else for that matter? I suspect yes.

New Zealand Rugby Union: Winners of the 2011 Rugby World Cup, and deservedly so. Did they have the best players – yes, but as we saw in every tournament between 1991 and 2007 they have failed to live up to their potential. What was the difference this time? In no small part it was the due to stability in the coaching structure. Over the course of his tenure, the players learned to trust what Graham Henry was doing.

His time in charge included defeat at the quarterfinal stage of the 2007 tournament, but he learned from that, as did the players. This time when they were faced with adversity, namely key injuries and goal kicking yips in the final two games, they did not panic, their faith in the system, in what had been coached, in each other meant they were able to prevail. Would this have been possible had Graham Henry been fired after 2007? Perhaps, but it seems less likely.

New England Patriots: This is an interesting example, as they have endured significant changes to backroom staff as well as coaches over the last 10 years, but with the same head coach they have been more successful than perhaps they deserved to be. For my money Bill Belichick is the finest coach in any sport (obviously this can’t be proven and there are bags of other worthy candidates).

The NFL in the salary cap and free agency era experiences unparalleled levels of player turnover, this makes the job even harder. Players going to the Patriots know what they are in for, this is Belichick’s team, you do things his way or you are out (sound familiar?). Sure it has helped that he has had the services of one of the best Quarterbacks of all time throughout that time, but that doesn’t in itself guarantee success (Dan Marino anyone?). Belichick’s mantra of “do your job” just about sums it up. He has developed a winning formula and if you fulfil your role in it, the team will be successful.

England Rugby Union: Since winning the World Cup in 2003, there has been chaos at the top of the game. 3 coaches have come and gone. There have been continual changes in the personnel at the top of the RFU. What feels like hundreds of different “suits” with equally mystifying job titles have taken large salaries for doing nobody is sure what. The result? A culture of blame, a lack of responsibility and no job security.

When the national team coach doesn’t feel like he has the support of those above him and is always looking over his shoulder, how is he supposed to impart an air of confidence in his players? How are the players supposed to have faith in the system? They can’t. This all leads to an environment where “arse-covering” is the main objective. Very little player development occurs. The whole notion of a team (not just team on the field, but the whole squad, coaching staff, administrators etc) collapses, and it culminates in the kind of disappointment that England fans endured in New Zealand a couple of months ago.

International football (soccer) is one sport where the theory of stability driving success isn’t necessarily applicable. Under these circumstances the talent, and the desire to play for their national side seem to be more important. Germany, for example, have changed coaches fairly frequently in recent years, and yet they are always in the mix at major tournaments. Spain is notoriously volatile in footballing terms, and yet they are World and European champions by virtue of a golden generation of playing talent.

England suffer from the fact that their top players do not have that burning desire to play for their national side. Sure they want to play in the major tournaments, but how about the friendlies? How about the training sessions where the coaching staff can try and mould the side and develop patterns of play etc? No thanks. Unfortunately for the fans this is entirely rational thinking. Get injured in a meaningless friendly and you can miss out on numerous appearance fees, performance bonuses and the like when you go back to your club, to say nothing of falling out of favour with the manager and jeopardising your future.

So, what can we learn from this?

Nothing replaces the need for talent, talent that wants to be there and wants to perform, however owners and directors have the ability to create an environment that breeds success. Hire the right coaching staff. Give them time, and resources. Do not make changes at the first sign of adversity. Not easy by any stretch, especially given the impatience of the modern fan and the pressures of the bottom line, but it is do-able. One note of caution, some change is required to avoid going stale (e.g. Sir Alex Ferguson changing assistant coaches on a regular basis).

Who needs to take note of this?

The English RFU
The ARU
Chelsea FC
50% of NFL owners (especially Dan Snyder) to name but a few…..