Suppose you were a coach, and your teams won more than 80% of their games consistently for a few years...with the same group of kids. Is that considered a "good" coach? Is there any way that you were considered a "bad coach" with a winning track record?
-
-
Seriously? Is this a real question, what are you 10 years old?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post -
Its the Pat Riley/Phil Jackson argument.
Are they great coaches or were they lucky because they had the greatest players.
The answer: A little of both.Comment
-
It's all relative. What age? What gender? What competition? Sounds like travel ulittles.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Based on their track record as executives, Riley great and Jackson luckyOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
-
Maybe you do. I have no problem admitting the our Cfc club attracted the strongest players and had the better results. I also have no problem admitting that the coach had nothing to do with it.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Silly dumb statement. Plenty of talented teams that have done nothing. Troll someplace else.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
No, you don't luck into 11 titles BUT I don't care how great a coach you are, if you don't have the players you're just not going to win (consistently anyway).
So as I previously stated - its a little of both, skill & luck. Keep in mind though that one definition of luck is: 'When preparedness meets opportunity'.
Take that for what its worth.Comment
-
I would agree to an extent, but there have been plenty of situations over the years where overachieving teams battled their way to success with coaches playing a large part in that. Also situations where talented teams fall flat. It is so difficult to win a title in any sport, with so many outside factors, that if you manage to do it 11 times, you're pretty good at your job.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
Comment