The general thoughts on 1 eyedeel are that our Eels need better assistant coaches, especially in the area of attack, game management, tactics etc. Ive read that some believe, "probably rightly so" that BA is scared to hire really good assistants such as Flanagan or Fitzgibbon type's that could actually take over from him if the team were to perform badly etc. It got me wondering, Do coaches including BA refuse to hire assistants that they believe could land a head job at another club. If we take a look at Barrett at Penrith, he completely changed their attacking mindset and the results were phenominal, youngsters left right and centre performing way above their best and dominating at NRL level or about to, which directly led them into an NRL grandfinal, however the downside of having Barrett onboard for the Pennies is that he is so good he has picked up another head coach position at the Dogs and is now decimating the Penrith youngsters bringing them across to the dogs. If we were to hire a good/great assistant coach in the same vein would that be good or bad for our club if they were to leave and take our improved players with them.
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
Replies
Perhaps there is some merit in having "nearly good assistant coaches" that will never get a head coaching job and therefore not be in a position to form close bonds with the players and be able to take them to a new team should they get a head coaching role elsewhere.
I don't buy the crap that any coach is "scared" to hire assistants that might be better than him. I think in the case of BA, he just doesn't trust that many people to deliver his message. Head coaches must have complete trust in his staff, which is why they hire the assistants they want, the ones they trust to not undercut their authority.
Like I said, I don't think BA trusts that many people to deliver his message. We have to always remember that assistant coaches don't operate in a vacuum, their job is deliver the head coaches message, not their own.
Of course this is all speculation on my part. Maybe he is very happy with how Kidwell & Murphy are doing their jobs, maybe they are doing exactly what he wants them to do.
You may be right Brett - the assistant's "job is deliver the head coaches message, not their own" - but I prefer Jack Gibson's approach.
He sought the "best" help he could get and to hear what he "needed" not what he "wanted". Not all yes men.
Perhaps it's no accident Gibson won his titles with Massey by his side, and then Massey later helped Bennett's career. That's two of the most successful coaches of the modern era, arguably in our game's history. It's also no accident that many of Bellamy's assistants have gone on to become head coaches or key assistants elsewhere.
BA may have the best assistants for him, and his own ideological reasons, but they may not be the best he can get.
Personally, I feel he also needs to engage a sports psychologist or a mental coach. Just my opinion.
Next year will be Arthur's 8th season at the Eels. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my initial studies no coach has ever taken more than 7 consecutive seasons to win a title, at the one club. He'll have to overcome 113 years of history - to be the first.
And I'm not suggesting that BA needs to have "yes men" as his assistants, just guys who are on the same page as him. As much as Ron Massey might have been unafraid to give his opinion to Jack, I'm sure at the end of the day Mass respected the fact that Jack was the boss and in the end it was Jack's decision. Jack Gibson doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to pass the buck to anyone.
On top of that, the fact that Mass was Jack's assistant for basically their entire careers says more to me about how much Jack trusted him than it did about anything else Mass might've brought to the table.
You referenced Wayne Bennett, I remember it took him years to finally relent to even having an assistant coach, it was only when the workload of the head coach increased exponentially that he agreed to hire an assistant. His reasoning for resisting the idea was that he wanted the players to have one voice in their respective heads, and he wanted to make sure that his message didn't get corrupted.
Brett, I agree trust, respect, & having the same purpose are critical.
But, there are still fundamental differences from Jack's & Arthur's approaches to assistants.
Gibson said he'd "sack" himself if a "better" assistant was out there.
Two, Massey had his "own ideas" - his "own message" that disagreed with his boss': meaning they were often on different pages about things. Jack's mind was open to that.
That also differs from what you said, too: the assistant's "job is deliver the head coaches message, not their own".
Anyway, I hope your the family and your loved ones are well, mate.
"fundamental differences?"
As in poles apart HOE, possibly even from different planets.
The interesting part about that observation is the closest we may come to seeing such a relationship between coach and assistant today, is probably Bennet and Demetriou.
Then again the major beneficial factor being Gibson kept an open mind and listened when Massey disagreed with him. From earlier reports, Bushy strikes me as a person who would be offended by someone like Massey and not take notice of good advice.
Thats a great example HOE, of what i was trying to allude to, having a great assistant coach that didnt want to be a head coach.
win / win.
Yeah good point, Blue Eel, thanks mate.
Your now Australian rugby union coach Dave Rennie hired one of thee best coaches to assist him when he was at the Chiefs in Wayne Smith.
Its actually smart hiring guys that are very good at what they do.
Dont know if a relationship exists but I'd hire a guy like Neil Henry in a heartbeat.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next