90% of people will point to the coach as the reason behind the success or otherwise of a team. This is widely believed, as coaches are the first to be fired when a team is not delivering. To many people, coach is even more important than players. But for long, I've not been very comfortable with this widespread belief.
Let me bring a little argument:
-If I coach Barca and and Mourinho, Fergie & Wenger, for example combine to coach Sunderland, do you think Sunderland will beat my team?
-Newcastle has changed coaches several times this season alone, yet there is hardly any change, do you think coach is the problem?
-At this crucial stage of Newscastle, do you think any coach can rescue them?
-If we form a team of 11 + 3 subs from Brazilian national team, without a coach, and tell them to decide and agree within themselves the formation they want to play etc, and they face Sudanese national team coached by whoever is believed to be the best coach in the world, can they beat coachless Brazilian team?
These are things I keep wondering about, when coaches are discussed, even though I know it's amateurish thinking.
My belief is, for a team to succeed this is the order of relevance:
-Luck 5% (You may be lucky in very few matches e.g opposition team's own goal, fluke goals etc but these wont happen everyday)
-other factors 20%
Am I the only one that believes coach's relevance is overrated? Anyone to convince me I'm wrong?