The late Shane Warne famously quipped “a coach is something you get on to travel to and from the ground.” The dig was aimed at Australian cricket coach John Buchanan. On another occasion he was reported as saying that “Coaching is for 12 year olds, not international cricketers.”
Once retired from playing the game Warne’s name came up a few times in relation to taking on the role of National coach of India and England. On both occasions he was fairly dismissive, but also stuck to his guns in relation to his beliefs and comments when making the comment regarding travelling to the ground. At that time during Australia’s Ashes tour of England in 2006 he said, “You need some sort of team manager more than a coach – like we have at Hampshire with Paul Terry, where the captain runs the team and the manager sorts out everything else.”
There were plenty who agreed with Warne. However, top level coaches are now what top level sport is all about. On many occasions you see the coach receiving more press coverage than the players and the team. Sadly many simply trot out the usual cliches and actually tell the viewers or fans absolutely nothing.
At the time of these two sound bytes from Warne he also asked a very pertinent question that many have forgotten, “does the coach make the team or does the team make the coach?” Warne was very much of the opinion that John Buchanan was fortunate to have the role of coach at a time when the Australian team was overflowing with not only world class players, but also strong leaders.
Fast forward to the Australian team under Darren Lehmann and the whole sandpaper incident and it is fair to say that Justin Langer did have a huge influence in changing the team culture, and certainly what the public and other nations thought of them. Although it appeared as if their true colours came through again.
Many of a certain age will recall that the man in charge of football teams were always called “The Manager” as opposed to the title of “The Coach” that we see today.
The dictionary definitions are as follows:
A Manager – ‘the person who is responsible for managing an organization,’ or ‘the person whose job is to organize and sometimes train a sports team.’
A Coach – ‘someone whose job is to teach people to improve at a sport, skill, or school subject.’
So what is the difference between a coach and a manager today?
Having trawled through a number of websites belonging to teams in different sports, and in different countries, the general feeling is the same, although the actual specifics in terms of responsibilities may differ from club to club. The fact that so many clubs actually define the role of the coach and the manager for fans to see is a good thing, as it makes it very clear which individual is responsible for what
In simple terms the general view is that a football manager has broader responsibilities than the coach, and that these are likely to include not just coaching the team but also making strategic decisions about the club. This can and does in many cases involve player recruitment, contract negotiations, and the overall team strategy, or way they want the team to play They may also oversee the actual coaching staff and have a significant say in the club’s overall direction when it comes to playing the game.
Some will no doubt read this and say isn’t that a similar role to a Director of … Fill in approprtiate sport. The answer probably would be a ‘yes.’
However, in many instants the role of the coach is actually described as being one that typically focuses on the day-to-day training and development of the players.
The coach is responsible for working on specific tactics, skills, and game preparations. In many cases the coaches report to the Manager, or the director of said sport, and may not have direct input on broader club decisions. Their role is described as being more specialised in terms of the technical and tactical aspects of the game and the team.
In some sports the Manager or Technical director will develop the training strategy that the coach has to follow. This is often the result of them having studied their upcoming opponent, and is focused on how they need to play in order to win the next game.
Fans across many clubs across the world want to see more transparency when it comes to these roles. When their team is underperforming they will bay for the manager or coach’s head. Yet in many cases it is the person above them who is pulling the strings in terms of how the team plays and the players recruited.
Sure most modern-day managers will have a wishlist of players they want to sign or pick but who makes the call if that player signs for someone else?
Of course there are still some sports where a selection panel will pick the team. The coach or captain often a part of that panel as they should be. The feeling has always been how can you sack a coach if someone else picks the team for him? Equally it is very hard for a captain if a player is forced upon him/her that they do not believe fits the culture or is not up to the mark.
Sport is riddled with stories of directors influencing selection decisions. Even owners buying players simply to boost their own ego, rather than doing what is best for the team. It happens at all levels of the game. Directors of State bodies delaying or influencing the selection process in youth teams to ensure that their child is picked is a fairly regular occurrence and often a motivating factor in the individual becoming a board member or director. Years ago it was even worse in some countries where this even happened at senior international level! Parents living out their dream via their offspring.
Many have said that the structure changed in football because the managers of the 1980’s and early 1990’s wielded to much power and influence, and those in the boardroom did not like it. When rumours surfaced of brown paper bags in motorway service stations in England, relating to players signing for certain clubs, the man on the sideline was always going to lose some of his power.
Of course the managers of this era had a similar structure to what is being discussed. Sir Matt Busby is a football icon, but how important was his assistant coach Welshman Jimmy Murphy? Murphy was the first person Busby employed when he became manager at Manchester United, and Murphy had the role of “chief coach” from 1946 until 1955, and became assistant manager in 1955 after Manchester United won their third consecutive FA Youth Cup. Murphy stepped down in 1971 but remained as a scout for the club. He never took on a management role, as he hated the spotlight.
Another who was acknowledged as being a great assistant coach was Don Howe. Howe did have spells as a first team manager but never set the world on fire with 144 wins, 114 draws and 143 losses in 401 games with four clubs. Yet as assistant coach at Arsenal under both Bertie Mee and George Graham he saw the club win major honours. He would also be part of the England coaching set up under three different England managers Ron Greenwood, Bobby Robson and Terry Venables, which says a lot about how respected he was in that role.
So a good right-hand man has tended to alway be important.
One question that many over the age of 50 are asking today is whether there is too much emphasis on tactics and formations at the expense of technique and flair. Many players today are automatons.
An automaton is a mechanical device that is supposed to imitate the movements of a human being. To do that it performs a range of functions according to a predetermined set of coded instructions. Does that sound similar to many players today in a number of sports? How many have had the ability to think for themselves taken away from them?
When one hears players being told that they are not to back themselves in games, and some even being dropped for having the temerity to do so, one realises that those in charge want them to play to a predetermined set of coded instructions.
When you see players yelled at by coaches for looking to take on a player and try and beat their opposite number rather than play a simple ball and keep possession you start to understand why so many diehard fans are walking away from sport and even not watching it on whatever device they choose.
This is not just happening in football, but across a variety of sports. When players who should be in their prime in their late 20’s or early 30’s are walking away from the sport you have to ask why? This writer has done so, and incredibly many say the same thing, something it is hard to argue against, and that is they were no longer enjoying it. The fun and the thrill had gone. Why? Because the way they were being told to play was so rigid, and their natural game had been coached out of them. Ironically they are being asked to stop doing the very thing that one suspects was the aspect of their game that saw them selected.
The sad fact is across many sports coaching has become a money spinner. To coach you must go through a series of coaching courses, all of which cost money. As has been asked for several decades, does this mean that the best coaches are being employed? Again many who have a natural flair, having been players themselves, and who understand the game at levels those training them can only dream of are walking away in droves, as they are no longer allowed to coach kids on a Sunday morning unless they have certification. (Coaching Courses – Are They Still Relevant Or Do They Just Need To Evolve?)
There are a number of coaches that have somehow risen to a level far higher than their competency through simply talking a good game. They talk about formations and structures, yet you watch their teams play and it is clear that there is a definite breakdown in communication as the players are not complying. As usual it is the fans who are getting shafted. They are paying to watch and have a level of expectation, and part of that expectation is to be entertained.
Today we see sporting teams supported by assistant coaches, nutritionists, strength and conditioning coaches, sports psychologists, physiotherapists, the list goes on. Of course there is an argument that these are all needed and vital to a team succeeding, but what if the team is not succeeding? What if it is clear to everyone that they are not improving?
The key term in sport forty years ago was man-management. Australian fast bowler Rodney Hogg referred to the former England Cricket captain Mike Brearley as “the guy with a degree in people.” There was no England Cricket coach when Brearley was captain. Shane Warne would have approved, there was only a team manager. The captain was very much the man in charge on the field of play, and it was their job to draw the best out of their players, which Brearley definitely did with a number of players under his charge recording career best performances when he was captain.
Cricket is obviously a different sport to say football, and the great Brian Clough uttered the famous line when asked if there was a place for psychology in football, “Ask Sigmund Freud how many European Cups he won.”
Despite that comment one of the things that made Clough stand out from the pack along with some of his contemporaries was in fact his man-management.
Clough and Sir Bobby Robson were two coaches who always said that they had been taught as players how the game should be played, and this was why their teams had a distinct style. Both understood that although the game was about winning, there was also a duty to entertain.
These two men were students of the game. They saw things and knew what little tweaks were needed to change the flow and even the outcome of a match. There were plenty of others like them who could do the same. Watching some of the coaches today one wonders if the same can be said as they repeatedly try the same thing hoping for a different outcome.
As one retired international player admitted, they asked their coach what was plan B in their quarter final match at a major tournament. The coach didn’t have one, and told them that plan A would work! For the record it didn’t.
Managers in this era knew what to say to a player and when to say it to obtain the best out of them. They also knew which players needed a tight rein and which didn’t.
Former Manchester United coach Sir Alex Ferguson knew when he signed the mercurial Eric Cantona that if he wanted to get the best out of the Frenchman he needed to give him a little more leeway than many of his other players. When those players saw what Cantona could o and his personality, they understood, and knew that this was going to give them the best outcomes as a team.
Another former player who this writer shared a drink with the day after his team had won a league title listened to the player in question repeatedly slag-off the manager, and why he didn’t like him. He was reminded that he had just won a league title, not many players get to experience that, could the manager have actually been very good at getting the best out of him? Could he have been a great man manager without the player realising?
The player in question moved on from that club the following season. He played over 100 games for one of the next four professional clubs he played for but never won another league title in the professional game. So did the manager in question get the best out of him in that one season?
If you talk to many of the players who played for the successful managers in this era they will tell you that all of those in charge tended to be of the opinion that they had signed them because they knew they were good players, their managers trusted them to go out and perform. The focus was not on trying to make them better, but how to make them more effective with the skills that they had within the team.
Isn’t this the complete opposite to what we are seeing coaches do today, where they are suppressing that natural talent rather than encouraging it? Surely drawing that magic out of a player and making them more effective, that is the essence of great coaching?
Back then coaches looked at a players strengths and they worked on those to make them more effective within the team. They key was to ensure that those skills were utilised as and when the team needed them. Again, what was great about some of these managers was that they did not work on these players weaknesses they worked on making what was good about them great.
The theory was that the lesser players would learn to cover for these players weaknesses, which is what a team is all about. Former Southampton manager Lawrie McMenemy is famous for having said that the ideal football team consists of seven road-sweepers and four violinists, to try and illustrate this point.
To make a talented player more effective is great coaching. Or is it good management? As to manage to make a player consistently play a level higher than they had previously is a special skill, some would argue that it is more about managing the individual than coaching them.
Coaching is vital at the start of a player’s career, learning how to receive a pass, how to pass, the body position, etcetera skills differing depending on the sport. Yet when you hear top level coaches telling you that players are coming into a high performance environment without some of these basic skills you know that the emphasis is all wrong. Too much time is being spent on tactics and formations with young players rather than ensuring that players have perfected the basics.
Let them get those right and enjoy the game. Let them express themselves at a young age and then you will see the talent shine. Bog them down with formations and many of the truly talented young players will walk away.
Looking back to that era and hearing players from those times talk, many use the word ‘trust’ when reflecting on who were the good coaches. They were the ones who trusted them to go out an represent the club or their country and do the job they were entrusted to do and do it very well.
Once you know that someone trusts you a bond is formed, and you never want to break that bond or that person’s trust. Players feel an obligation to repay that trust.
Despite the definitions of a ‘manager’ and a ‘coach’ today the most important person is the one who trusts the player to do his job, works on making him/her better at that job, which in turn drives the team’s overall performance. Sadly some modern-day coaches would not even know how to go about that.
Not everything that is old was bad. The old methods paid dividends, and without the cast of thousands in the background man-management was the vital key to unlocking success. Many believe it still is. It certainly helped make the games more entertaining.
