AJC > Sports > Hawks > Blog > Archives > 2007 > January > 04
Thursday, January 4, 2007
What makes a great coach?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The past few weeks I’ve been embroiled in the great coaching debate with several friends and colleagues (yes, you all are included) from around the globe. And we’ve all agreed to disagree about what onus for a team’’ success rests on the shoulders of the coach (yet another topic that I know has legs around here, since Mike Woodson’s name remains the most tossed about 11 letters in this space).
My argument is that it always depends on the circumstances of a particular situation – Mike Fratello’s is far different from Mike Woodson’s just like Jim Mora’s is far different from Dennis Green’s just like Glenn Mason’s is far different from Lloyd Carr’s (I know, you don’t want me to go there. But there are places some of you go everyday that I don’t hate on, so roll with your boy for a minute).
Fans, media and casual observers like us evaluate coaching performances on a game-by-game basis (basically, what have you done for me lately). Owners, GMs and decision makers clearly judge them differently. So the application of our theories compared to the people pulling the strings on who gets hired, who stays and who gets fired will remain a painfully fruitless exercise.
Follow me now.
My continued complaints (whether you or I think they are valid or not) about what I perceive to be an inept coaching job being turned in by the guy at the helm of my favorite team mean nothing. Same for you and your complaints.
One of my very best friends is a basketball coach. Has done it on the high school, college and professional level (in Europe). He knows his stuff. We’ve always had raging debates about who we both feel are the good and bad coaches, the guys who know their stuff and they guys who know how to pry the very best out of the talented and temperamental individuals they work with.
One of the few things we’ve ever been able to agree upon is that it’s a complex mix of things that factor into a team’s ultimate success – everything from the chemistry between the players to the relative maintenance of health to the lucky bounces that have to bounce a team’s way at the crucial moments. The specifics are endless.
I say it’s more important that a coach hold guys accountable and treat them all the same than it is for him or her to be a fountain of information about the technicalities of a specific game. It always helps to have a technical genius but I’ll take a coach with the proper people and communication skills every day over one without.
But I also say the best coaches are flexible and willing to examine their own theories and beliefs on a continual basis if it means his team responds to what he’s trying to cajole them into doing. I’d take a leader over a dictator. A charismatic manipulator over a bully. A Jim Boeheim type over a Bobby Knight type (and both those guys, for example, are excellent coaches who get great results but by using quite different methods).
Because of the limitations of control that exist for so many coaches at the professional level, some have complete say-so in regard to the talent they have to work with while others do not, the standards change depending on the situation.
Player uprisings are much more likely at the pro level than they are at any other (One of the most egregious mutinies in recent memory remains the New Jersey Nets’ revolt against Byron Scott, who coached them to back-to-back trips to the NBA Finals. And no, they haven’t so much sniffed that rarified are since.)
Again, this is what makes the great coaching debate so intriguing to so many people. Cases can be made for and against keeping or firing just about every coach that isn’t contending and winning titles on a regular basis. And even some of those guys (Larry Brown comes to mind) find ways to get run out of town.
The debate rages on and on and on …
