They say there are only two kinds of coaches: those who have been sacked, and those who are about to be sacked. That leaves out the ones who are about to secretly renege on their contract to go coach a better team, but it still sums the situation up fairly well.
Of late, two Australian national teams’ coaches have lost their jobs. In both cases the coach in question was a foreigner, and in both cases he was replaced by a home-grown and somewhat cuddly true blue, dinkum Aussie.
Mickey Arthur was a man with good credentials, who in his time in charge of the Australian team racked up some pretty good results – a 4-0 defeat of India, for example. He also racked up some dreadful results – a 4-0 defeat by India, for example.
His tenure was a wild pendulum that swung crazily from “We’re on our way, boys!” to “How on earth did that happen?”
He insisted that his players do their homework – in his case many people considered his request a little too literal, although in general it seems that Australia’s cricketers haven’t done enough homework for a few years now.
He was replaced by Darren Lehmann, a man who is said to have “a good cricket brain,” as opposed to previous coaches who perhaps have had good football brains, or good tennis brains, and whose greatest qualification, according to News Ltd reports, would seem to be that he enjoys drinking and smoking.
This may be code for ‘the players like him’, something that didn’t seem to be the case with Arthur.
Robbie Deans also had good credentials, having coached an all-conquering Crusaders side and come from the other side of the Tasman ditch to sort out the Australians with a good, hard New Zealandising, only to be frustrated by a Wallabies group that always looked promising, but could never quite gel the way his Super Rugby teams had.
Deans also had his mighty victories – a Tri-Nations win, underdog triumphs over the All Blacks – and embarrassing losses – Scotland and Samoa – but overall his time in charge was marked by averageness, the Wallabies winning most games they’d be expected to without much flair, and losing with a gallant effort and myriad mistakes those in which they were outmatched on paper.
So often Deans’ Wallabies looked on the brink of a breakthrough, of finally transforming into the slick, powerful team we were dreaming of. It was a continuous false dawn, never better exemplified than in his final Test, when after a stirring victory over a strong Lions side, Australia gave up the decider with barely a whimper.
Deans was criticised throughout his reign for poor selections, and was replaced by Ewen McKenzie, a Wallaby World Cup hero and reminder of more world-beating days in the gold jumper, and a coach who was being pushed hard by supporters way back before Deans even entered the picture.
What interests me whenever a coach finds him or herself in crisis is this: what exactly did they do wrong? And what could they have done right? The reason it interests me is that I don’t think any of we spectators, looking from the outside, can really know.
One thing I strongly feel, for example, is that Deans shouldn’t have picked James O’Connor at flyhalf, because it’s not his best position, and there are better number 10s. But who knows? Maybe he picks Quade Cooper and the Lions run over the top of him and win the first two Tests by fifty.
More importantly, we don’t know just what a coach is doing wrong, because we don’t actually know what a coach is doing. All we see is what the team does out on the field: what has been going on behind the scenes is barely glimpsed, and only through the filter of rumour and speculation do we learn anything about how a team is prepared, trained, motivated.
The thing is, despite constant claims to the contrary, a coach’s job, in any sport, is not to win games. It can’t be. Ross Lyon could tell you how the difference between winning a premiership or not can hang on a single bounce of the ball, far beyond the control of the man in the box. Kevin Sheedy could tell you that with a team of tender rookies without the bodies, the composure, or the skills of more hardened warriors, winning can sometimes be completely off the table as an option.
A coach’s job is, and can only be, to maximise the abilities of the players at his disposal. A coach may, of course, have some influence over which players are on his team, but only to a degree: a club coach can’t sign players who aren’t available, and a national coach can’t pick players who play for other nations.
And how does a coach maximise those abilities? We don’t know. Rod McQueen managed to do it, Robbie Deans didn’t… or did he?
Maybe Deans’ teams really did play as well as they could. Or maybe they didn’t. And if they didn’t, how can we know why?
Was Deans making all the wrong moves on the training paddock? When Australian players fumbled the ball, was it because Deans hadn’t drilled them properly in ball control, or hadn’t managed to engage their full concentration; or was it just because they were error-prone no matter what happened at training?
When they kicked possession away at inopportune times, was it because Deans had instructed them poorly, or was it because, after Deans had instructed them perfectly, they went ahead and ignored his instructions?
Did Australian batsmen throw their wickets away because Mickey Arthur coached badly, or because they were incapable of following his coaching when out in the middle? Were the bowlers wayward because the plan was wrong, or because they didn’t stick to it.
In the AFL, Mark Neeld was a high-profile victim of the coaching carousel this year. His demise wasn’t unusual in this cutthroat game, but it was preceded by an unusually long and torrid battery of media speculation. The Melbourne Demons, under Neeld, were just awful, and everyone agreed that his appointment had been a mistake.
But why is that? Were the Demons worse than they would’ve been under someone else? Were the missed targets, dropped marks and lazy second efforts Neeld’s fault for not instilling the right values in his players, or did he do everything humanly possible, only to be let down by a playing group that was simply not up to the rigours of the AFL? And did the remorseless media attacks themselves contribute to the players’ plummeting confidence?
These are imponderables – we don’t know, and can’t know, because we don’t know what Neeld did, or what he didn’t do. The only measurement we have for coaching performance is winning, and that’s an outcome tragically out of the direct control of any coach.
A bad coach can surely make good players underperform; but a good coach can’t, no matter how brilliant, turn poor players into a great team. He might make them the best they can be, but no coach in the world could bring the current Melbourne list a premiership.
Could any coach in the world have won the Bledisloe Cup in the last few years? Maybe. Could any coach in the world have prevented the rout in India earlier this year? Maybe.
Coaching really is the strangest part of sport: everybody has an opinion on it, but nobody really knows how much difference it makes. Most of us don’t even know what it involves, and so every time we yell “sack the coach”, it’s really nothing more than a guess that our solution is any solution at all.
In the end, the players play the game: the coaches just try to make sure they’re ready to do so. When the players play badly, it could be that the coach failed, or it could be that the coach succeeded, and there was no chance of them playing any better anyway.
Or it could be that the coach did his level best, made no real mistakes, and the players still didn’t fulfil their potential, because somehow the message didn’t get through.
And that may be the secret alchemy of coaching: the ability to get players to listen. Once they stop listening – and it doesn’t matter why they do – the coach has no hope of making anything better.
It could be that, more than bad coaching or poor judgment, the key behind the demise of most coaches is nothing more than that: the fatal breakdown of the magical communication line between coach and players. And so there go Deans and Arthur and Neeld, like thousands before and thousands after them.
Have some sympathy: it’s a hell of a job.
Toa
Guest
95% of the time sympathy for coaches cascades through close family members & friends outside of that support only comes when you win. It’s a ruthless trade being a coach however like so many other front line positions it’s about the bottom line. Regardless of who your employers are there’re going to shadowy trot out the line “it doesn’t matter if you fail to make the finals just don’t lose a game”. There are multiple facets to being a professional coach everything from being the interface for both front offices & sponsors to football tactician & team physiatrist. Not all coaches are blessed with balance however IMO it’s the evenness that creates stability in turn boost consistence confidence which leads to success. So if all coaches were subjected to the perfect balance someone/team still has to lose and arguably no one’s perfect. (I say arguably because many think they are) Let’s face it if coaching & playing sports at the highest level was easy we’d all be doing it & reaping the financial rewards that said being critical is part of the human gene. IMO a starting point for a coach’s on field success is manipulating the players & coaching staff minds on buying into your football/athletic/strategic programme. Again for that to happen everything else has to fall into place resourcefully, culturally & athletically which the coach & players need to be genuine on how they execute & deliver. There’s one common trait with institutionalise coaches, players install their utmost trust in them which replicates the form of being direct and honest. Players lose trust when their coaches become condescending. For whatever trust a coach builds, they don’t lose, they just get fired.
Garth
Guest
Blaming & sacking the coach is always easier (& cheaper) than blaming & sacking the players.
Garth
Guest
You only have to recall the looks of disbelief on the faces of Deans & his fellow coaches, every time the Wallabies kicked away possession. Even the players couldn't tell us why they kept doing that.
Bulldog
Guest
Fair enough. I guess I was trying to point out that just referring to young kids these days in this country is a very broad generalisation. My point was that in OZ we only have so many people to spread over a lot of different sports so it leads to a limited pool of talent to pick from and as such this can lead to administrator treating this talent too leniantly so as to not push them to the next sport. Like I said I agree Gen Y can be annoying though as an general rule.
Bulldog
Guest
Just my opinion - no way to prove it. This is an opinion site I think
Ask
Guest
Right on the money KPM. How many talented track and field athletes, cricketers and basketballers have gone to play AFL instead and who could blame them? You can have the (very small) chance to play a sport at the highest level around the world but you will have to suck it up and probably even have to pay so you can play for you to hopefully get that big break. Or you can sign up to a sport where you only play in Australia but your level of fame (local/national) and pay are significantly higher straight away. It's similiar in the US where they bemoan the decline in the once great US Olympic Weightlifting team usually citing other teams use of PED's as the culprit where it actually has more to do with the sports with the money i.e NFL signing up all the talented athletes.
Ajax
Guest
Well as I recall.. NSW should have won the first game in 2009.. but for a Hayne foot on the line they would have.. (controversial call) , second game NSW were all over the Maroons.. then went to sleep for ten mins before half time and the QLD went over for 3 tries... series over... Bellamy didnt do much wrong in my eyes at Origin level.. they should have stuck with him.
Kane
Roar Guru
Robbie won 90 of his 120 (75%) games coaching the crusaders, and he pretty much had the All Black team in a provincial competition. What makes you think he would of done better than Henry Smith and Hansen with the All Blacks when they won 88 of their 103 (85.4%) tests in charge?
Hector Amura
Guest
I believe it's so unfair that we have to blame robbie deans for all the wallabies troubles. Apart from Genia as the on field general, everybody was playing so individualistic on the paddock. Maybe the old proverb of "too many cooks spoiling the soup " comes into play. About time we remove some stars from out team and put in some down to earth players that really appreciate the wallabies jumper. Why don't we start with the three amigos Beale, JOC & QC perhaps -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Glenn Innis
Guest
Adam I would argue that the reason Bellamy couldn't win an origin series was that the players he has built his success at Melbourne around were playing for Queensland.
Glenn Innis
Guest
Show me the stats
Gavin Melville
Roar Pro
"when a team sacks a coach midseason suddenly they string an unexpected win or two together under the new boss before returning to mediocrity – it’s as if with the old boss gone all their excuses for failure are gone and they decide – briefly, to have a real dig." That's a myth, according to the stats. You tend to notice that if it happens, but don't notice if it doesn't. There's media attention if the new coach changes the team's fortunes, less if it's business as usual. That said, I think players tend to try hard to impress the new guy: those uncapped players see it as their chance the veterans think they'll have to redo all the hard work to reach the top recovering athletes see that they'll best be getting their recovery plans in place It must be invigorating, even if it isn't instant.
AdamS
Roar Guru
A comparison to Origin is both wrong, and right. Origin is more about selection than coaching, you simply don't have enough time to coach anything. In that sense, it is the best example of representative football, three weeks and three games (maybe) to get the job done. Other than the heightened competition, the big difference between code and representative coaching is as a rep coach, half your skill or more is in choosing players from different teams who are not only the best, but who will also compliment each other naturally. You don't have time for endless drills, experimental plays or to make players unlearn traits and take on new ones. And unlike a code season, you really can't afford to drop a match just because you wanted to try something. This I think was Deans major failure, trying to run the Wallabies like a seasonal team and not picking players who would gel, and become more than the sum of their parts.
Glenn Innis
Guest
I don't think that anyone would deny that Craig Bellamy is an outstanding coach,indeed if imitation is the greatest form of flattery then he has achieved it, every team in the NRL tries to play like Melbourne.Yet he couldn't deliver NSW a series win over QLD is that because he failed to take the "next step" as a coach, or simply he didn't have the cattle? Deans at the Crusaders had a similar record to Bellamy, yet he couldn't take the wobblies to no1, once again could he not take the "next step" or did he simply lack the talent? Also of interest is the trend I have noted in the NRL that when a team sacks a coach midseason suddenly they string an unexpected win or two together under the new boss before returning to mediocrity - it's as if with the old boss gone all their excuses for failure are gone and they decide - briefly, to have a real dig.
Ajax
Guest
Well, there is definately more scrutiny of coaches than players. In the AFL, there are only 16 head coaches.. while there are 16 x 35 players or 560 guys running around each week having a kick either in the first team or the affiliated leagues. Same for Rugby.. Australia only has 6 top line coaching positions... Deans holding the most high profile one. It was inevitable that he would be scrutinised more heavily at test level than he was at S14 level. At S14 level, Dean's practise of playing guys out of position could be seen as "genius" given his player pool was so strong and the individuals were so talented... in Australia.. this practise turned out to be a disaster, on this side of the Tasman.. a full back doesnt have the same skills as a flyhalf.. a loosehead cant play tighthead and so on.. Deans wrote his own epitah when he picked JOC for all three games after his awful first test as pivot.... Coaching is a tough gig, but these guys get paid pretty well, no one puts a gun to their head to force them to do it.. so they have to take the good with the bad... Alex Ferguson had some dark days early.. he managed to come through it all.
Reginald Munday
Guest
He was paid a million bucks a year. Give it a rest.
colvin
Guest
One of the biggest truisms about rugby is that unfortunately only one side can win. But even worse, with coaches and players going world wide the way they are and with similar training techniques and modern technology there are no secrets anymore. So big matches are going to be very even unless a referee overly influences a match. This is because one fit superman is going to be cancelled out by another fit superman. But one teams' goal kicker may be better than another team's. In any event that generally means someone will coach a losing side, often because of a referees interpretation. I believe I can say quite categorically that if the 3rd test was refereed by, say, Pollock, the score would have been completely different. And as a aside if the WBs were captained by someone other than Horwill the WBs could well have gone in at half time in the lead, given the numbers of points left out on the pitch. Both these factors had a major impact on the result. Equally, if the 1st and/or the 2nd test was refereed by the fellow who refereed the 3rd test the results of both would most probably have been different. Perhaps even a different winner. Penalty kicks at goal are definitely a bugbear of modern rugby as are the different interpretations of different referees. The number of penalty kicks the Lions got and the easy points gained in the 3d test definitely had a negative impact on the collective will of the WBs when the going got hard later in the match. Therefore the biggest problem rugby needs to address is how to take the referee out of the game. How to get rugby so that the best side wins, irrespective of who the referee is. If that could be achieved it may make judgment of a coach's performance more balanced..
SandBox
Guest
exactly
Worlds Biggest
Guest
Nice piece Ben, I often wonder what the intrinsic issue is with the lack of success with our Wallaby, cricket and Olympic teams. Obviously the opposition have got better while we haven't. Is it due to gen-y growing up as kids watching the Aussies dominate rugby 1999-2002, cricketers 1995-2005 and great Olympics 2000 and 2004. Do they expect this same type of auccess will come to them also ? Everything goes in cycles but interesting the above sports are all in a lull.
Die hard
Roar Rookie
Too true but as far as these things go I was expecting 50:50 or less so was surprised. Never respond myself.