SA Footy

I've had a long standing conversation with colleagues about whether you are a great coach and the players lift around you, or the cattle maketh the coach.

As a very miniscule example I look at Marty Mattner. He is/was an exemplar coach but now he doesn't have the cattle (or does he?). Are the results because of his coaching, or because he doesn't have the cattle. Conversely, did the cattle make the coach? I'm interested in both sides of the conversation, knowing that there seems to be no right and wrong, moreso your opinion.

I look at the AFL and EVERY coach wants better players. That makes me think that unless they have "the" best, they will not be able to demonstrate their capability.

gadj1976 wrote:I've had a long standing conversation with colleagues about whether you are a great coach and the players lift around you, or the cattle maketh the coach.

As a very miniscule example I look at Marty Mattner. He is/was an exemplar coach but now he doesn't have the cattle (or does he?). Are the results because of his coaching, or because he doesn't have the cattle. Conversely, did the cattle make the coach? I'm interested in both sides of the conversation, knowing that there seems to be no right and wrong, moreso your opinion.

I look at the AFL and EVERY coach wants better players. That makes me think that unless they have "the" best, they will not be able to demonstrate their capability.

I look at it the other way, plenty of coaches destroy their players and clubs. They have the cattle but dont get the best out of their team. Hinkley, Ratten, Lyon and Teague come to mind.

daysofourlives wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:I've had a long standing conversation with colleagues about whether you are a great coach and the players lift around you, or the cattle maketh the coach.

As a very miniscule example I look at Marty Mattner. He is/was an exemplar coach but now he doesn't have the cattle (or does he?). Are the results because of his coaching, or because he doesn't have the cattle. Conversely, did the cattle make the coach? I'm interested in both sides of the conversation, knowing that there seems to be no right and wrong, moreso your opinion.

I look at the AFL and EVERY coach wants better players. That makes me think that unless they have "the" best, they will not be able to demonstrate their capability.

I look at it the other way, plenty of coaches destroy their players and clubs. They have the cattle but dont get the best out of their team. Hinkley, Ratten, Lyon and Teague come to mind.

There is an element of that Daisy. Those that try and turn over a list rather than utilise what's gifted to them (Malthouse). I'm interested to find out what other coaches at SAAFL level think too.

daysofourlives wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:I've had a long standing conversation with colleagues about whether you are a great coach and the players lift around you, or the cattle maketh the coach.

As a very miniscule example I look at Marty Mattner. He is/was an exemplar coach but now he doesn't have the cattle (or does he?). Are the results because of his coaching, or because he doesn't have the cattle. Conversely, did the cattle make the coach? I'm interested in both sides of the conversation, knowing that there seems to be no right and wrong, moreso your opinion.

I look at the AFL and EVERY coach wants better players. That makes me think that unless they have "the" best, they will not be able to demonstrate their capability.

I look at it the other way, plenty of coaches destroy their players and clubs. They have the cattle but dont get the best out of their team. Hinkley, Ratten, Lyon and Teague come to mind.

You don't think Lyon got the best of his players? got a lot of duds into grand finals

Armchair expert wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:I've had a long standing conversation with colleagues about whether you are a great coach and the players lift around you, or the cattle maketh the coach.

As a very miniscule example I look at Marty Mattner. He is/was an exemplar coach but now he doesn't have the cattle (or does he?). Are the results because of his coaching, or because he doesn't have the cattle. Conversely, did the cattle make the coach? I'm interested in both sides of the conversation, knowing that there seems to be no right and wrong, moreso your opinion.

I look at the AFL and EVERY coach wants better players. That makes me think that unless they have "the" best, they will not be able to demonstrate their capability.

I look at it the other way, plenty of coaches destroy their players and clubs. They have the cattle but dont get the best out of their team. Hinkley, Ratten, Lyon and Teague come to mind.

You don't think Lyon got the best of his players? got a lot of duds into grand finals

Tough one, there was the Dawson factor lol but ultimately he couldnt get it done when it counted, that St Kilda team shouldve won a flag or two, now wether that was Lyon, the players or the club culture is anyones guess.
Could they or Fremantle have won it with a different game plan, who knows, imo yes i think they couldve.

Armchair expert wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:I've had a long standing conversation with colleagues about whether you are a great coach and the players lift around you, or the cattle maketh the coach.

As a very miniscule example I look at Marty Mattner. He is/was an exemplar coach but now he doesn't have the cattle (or does he?). Are the results because of his coaching, or because he doesn't have the cattle. Conversely, did the cattle make the coach? I'm interested in both sides of the conversation, knowing that there seems to be no right and wrong, moreso your opinion.

I look at the AFL and EVERY coach wants better players. That makes me think that unless they have "the" best, they will not be able to demonstrate their capability.

I look at it the other way, plenty of coaches destroy their players and clubs. They have the cattle but dont get the best out of their team. Hinkley, Ratten, Lyon and Teague come to mind.

You don't think Lyon got the best of his players? got a lot of duds into grand finals

Agree. Ratten never destroyed Carlton & Lyon could easily be a triple premiership coach if for not the unluckiest bounce in GF history or the luckiest toe poke in GF history. Not to mention Freo missing sitters.

Armchair expert wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:I've had a long standing conversation with colleagues about whether you are a great coach and the players lift around you, or the cattle maketh the coach.

As a very miniscule example I look at Marty Mattner. He is/was an exemplar coach but now he doesn't have the cattle (or does he?). Are the results because of his coaching, or because he doesn't have the cattle. Conversely, did the cattle make the coach? I'm interested in both sides of the conversation, knowing that there seems to be no right and wrong, moreso your opinion.

I look at the AFL and EVERY coach wants better players. That makes me think that unless they have "the" best, they will not be able to demonstrate their capability.

I look at it the other way, plenty of coaches destroy their players and clubs. They have the cattle but dont get the best out of their team. Hinkley, Ratten, Lyon and Teague come to mind.

You don't think Lyon got the best of his players? got a lot of duds into grand finals

I think Malthouse did with the 2002 Collingwood side too.

Simplistic answer but you need both.

You need both but to simplify it a bit IMO:

A very good core group of players who can do majority of the grunt work and lift younger, smaller players up around them.
Good onfield and off field leadership- players, board, coaches/mentors etc - the fish rots at the head….
Quality structures suited to the playing group you have. It’s not one size fits all. Good coaches squeeze everything they can out of the entire playing list.
Every coach needs good help, people that respect him/her to make the decisions, not undermine them or look for the next opportunity to move up the chain.

In Carltons case I don’t think he has the ‘cattle’ at all. Only a couple of genuine A Graders isn’t enough to be competitive at the top these days.
Gold Coast are the same, and to blame the coach is always the easy target. Young players are always inconsistent for a few years, but unfortunately the football public and media aren’t very patient. Then hanging on to your good kids is harder once the more successful cashed up clubs come knocking. It’s no different to any other job, you always want to advance your career for more money, or responsibility, or success.
Tough gig being an AFL head coach I reckon. Can see why a lot of assistant coaches don’t want to make the next step. Very good money still being involved in something you love without all the responsibilities and lack of job security…

A good coach will develop his bottom 5-8 players into great role players that compliment the top end talent and make a formidable team.

Only need to look to Richmond in the modern day to confirm this.

Dutchy wrote:A good coach will develop his bottom 5-8 players into great role players that compliment the top end talent and make a formidable team.

Only need to look to Richmond in the modern day to confirm this.

Flaggies are a good case in point.
Your success, comes down to having good players, in the right roles doing their thing.
A monkey could coach you blokes

There's no recipe that is guaranteed to work.

For mine, for it to truly work you need a coach that has a style of play his players can execute and they can believe in as the three main ingredients.

No point having the best plan if the players can't execute it. If all three are in place then you're a chance.

Footys a pretty basic game really.
Win or halve the 50/50 ball and keep it off the opposition.
That's done by minimising skill errors, total team defence, fitness and guts.
Three of those are on the coach. The fourth is totally on the player. The coach can give him a bake, and a good one may get a positive response....or not.

daysofourlives wrote:
Tough one, there was the Dawson factor lol but ultimately he couldnt get it done when it counted, that St Kilda team shouldve won a flag or two, now wether that was Lyon, the players or the club culture is anyones guess.
Could they or Fremantle have won it with a different game plan, who knows, imo yes i think they couldve.

Lyon is a bit like Geelong in the nineties, good but came up against some pretty hot outfits

Geelong on the hunt after losing the unloseable the year before
Collingwood during their eighteen month period when they were pretty much touchable
Hawthorn threepeat side

Saints very stiff in 09 in particular. Then and Geelong the year perhaps the best two sides not to win the thing. I reckon the 08 side was the best side we had and we didn't win the flag. But that loss seemed to give us the edge to win it the next year.

regards,

REB

tigerpie wrote:Footys a pretty basic game really.
Win or halve the 50/50 ball and keep it off the opposition.
That's done by minimising skill errors, total team defence, fitness and guts.
Three of those are on the coach. The fourth is totally on the player. The coach can give him a bake, and a good one may get a positive response....or not.

That's true in 1950 maybe or not at the elite level.

regards,

REB

Spargo wrote:
Agree. Ratten never destroyed Carlton & Lyon could easily be a triple premiership coach if for not the unluckiest bounce in GF history or the luckiest toe poke in GF history. Not to mention Freo missing sitters.

Luck my arse. Shit take. There is nothing lucky about a defender kicking the ball away from an opponent, at least Scarlo had a hand (well a foot really) in it and it just didn't bounce into Ablett's hands. Sheesh.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

tigerpie wrote:Footys a pretty basic game really.
Win or halve the 50/50 ball and keep it off the opposition.
That's done by minimising skill errors, total team defence, fitness and guts.
Three of those are on the coach. The fourth is totally on the player. The coach can give him a bake, and a good one may get a positive response....or not.

That's true in 1950 maybe or not at the elite level.

regards,

REB

Still true in today's game REB.
Win contested footy and limit turnovers and you win.