Although this topic has been addressed before, it warrants even more attention due to the many articles and commentaries that continue to appear related to this topic. For example, in a recent newspaper article it was brought out how a Division I football coach was a great coach even though he had multiple losing seasons.
According to the athletic director the problem was that there were too many injuries and he just needed a good recruiting class to turn the program around. In addition, he was unable to offer a full complement of scholarships so that he was limited in getting the players that he wanted.
In the TV program 60 minutes Coach Weiss of Notre Dame was interviewed. It was brought out that although his team had a losing season, he was one of the best coaches in collegiate football. To be successful, he only needed a good recruiting recruiting class.
Many more examples can be given extolling the virtues of the coach with excuses for why he does not have a winning team.. But how can the coach be considered great if he is not capable of taking the talented players that he presently has available and making them into a great team? How do these “experts” who define greatness?
To my way of thinking a great coach is one who is capable of taking the talented athletes on the team and making them great. Almost all players who are recruited, whether it be on a collegiate or professional level, have some basic talent in order to be selected. All of them have potential for improvement.
However, it is obvious that the coaches do not know how to improve talent i.e. their technical and physical skills and abilities. Compare these coaches with Anatoly Bondarchuk, who is considered to be perhaps the greatest Olympic coach ever, and the answer becomes obvious.
Bondarchuk was the Soviet coach of hammer throwers and produced multiple Olympic and world recordholders. His throwers were so good that they took first, second and third place in four consecutive Olympic Games. No other coach has been able to come even close to these achievements.
He did not rely on recruiting as there was no league from which to select players. Instead he relied on improving players’ technique and physical abilities specific to the hammer throw. He was innovative in his training methods, many which are now incorporated by coaches and athletes in many different sports throughout the world. Based on his experience and education, he was capable of devising ways to produce the best athletes possible.
With sorrow, we rarely if ever, hear of coaches like this in the US. Instead we keep making excuses for the coach and creating virtues that are nonexistent. When a coach is capable of making a great team that is successful in competition with “limited” talent, then we can say he is a great coach. Until then, let’s face reality and stop making excuses for incompetence. Most anyone can be a great coach if he has the best players
If you’re interested in more information on the works of Anatoly Bondarchuk, read his book Transfer of Training. In it he brings out the results of a decade-long study of the worlds best athletes to determine the effect that different exercises have on sports results. It changed how and when I use many different exercises, especially those that are not specific to improving specific abilities.
You can also check out my website for more info: www.dryessis.com or listen to me on the radio at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/search/dr yessis .
Be Well,
Dr. Mike Yessis