He Just Has The Best Players

 This is from  Big Soccer

With State Cup upon us it is inevitable that there will be some talk about the coaches and whether or not they have a roll in the game.  I want to focus a discussion on the statement "He is not a good coach.  He just has the best players."  Which side of the argument do you buy into?

"Look, if he switched place with Trev's u12 girls third team coach, we'll be talking about how great this coach is. "

So then by that logic phil jackson/sir alex ferguson/pete carroll/coach k/john wooden were or are all average coaches? Being able to win with talent does not mean you aren't a good coach. it can be very challenging to take a group of players that are all very skilled, and get them to buy into a team concept and make individual sacrifices in order to win games. Just because a coach has talented players does not mean that "anyone" could win with that group. If that were the case Kansas' mens bball team would have won the mens bball championship this year, Brazil would have won the World Cup in 06, the Yankees would win the world series every year, and so on. Winning with talent shouldn't mean that the accomplishments of the players and coaches involved should be diminished. Sure there are other coaches around that could have won with some of the teams that Eclipse has produced on the girls side, fair enough, but the fact is that the girls came to play for Rory or because of the reputation that Rory has built at Eclipse should say something about his ability to work with a group of talented individuals and get them to play as a team and achieve results, as well as put these players into regional and national pool.