FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Cassidy's Ultimate Sexy said 05/02, 03:22 PM
I am going to say GOOD COACHING.

Have you ever seen talented teams fail? I have.

Team chemistry comes from winning. Asks Cubs fans the value of a lovable loser clubhouse.

I am sure a majority of communities support their local high school teams, but to what end? Concessions and raffles could be bringing in revenue through the roof for new equipment, new field, better weight room, but will this ensure even an ounce of success onto the field? Not necessarily.

Good coaching is the backbone to getting an average team to play above their heads. Talented players need strategy, thorough practicing, and designed training and plays. This all starts and ends with the coach. If the coach doesnt know what he is doing it will have a trickle down effect onto the players, the chemistry, and even the community who will no doubt get tired of tirelessly supporting a losing program.

A couple of movies stick out in my mind where good coaching translated into success: We Are Marshall and Hoosiers.

Why do you think college coaches make millions of dollars these days n the big programs? They are the difference between a winner, a good team, and a losing program.

So, what say you?

Cassidy's Ultimate Sexy said 05/02, 03:44 PM
This is the definition of chemistry from WordNet: the way two individuals relate to each other.

I will go out on a limb & say that whether the chemistry is good or bad, it is formed in an environment. A winning environment tends to foster better bonhomie than a losing one. You can practice all you want b4 a season, but until you hit the field, the floor, the diamond, whatever, and see how you interact with each other on the field of competition against an opponent not called intersquad, you have no idea what type of TEAM you have. Besides, when have you heard of a losing team that had great chemistry that wasnt a beer softball league?

You cite Leyland as an amazing manager, but is that based on him getting the Pirates to overachieve? Why was he available to the Tigers in the first place? Not so amazing that was was unemployed previously. And even if he is indeed an amazing and talented manager, you make my point that without him what would the Pirates circa Barry Bonds era have been without him? Probably somewhere close to where Tony LaRussa's talented Cardinals team finished last season.

Coaching is the difference maker. Look what happened to Nebraska w/ Callahan? Zip=bad

Cassidy's Ultimate Sexy said 05/02, 04:05 PM
Thats the point. A terrible head coach has a trickle down effect on EVERYTHING-chemistry, talent, community support. Callahan was an excellent example.

You cite Leyland as the mother of all baseball coaches yet turn a blind eye to how that exactly makes my point: Without Jim Leyland(GOOD COACHING), where would those Pirates, Marlins, or Tigers teams have been? They certainly werent relying on chemistry, because they were just a bunch of nobodies, right? Leyland was the difference and they won because of him, unless you want to fall back on your chemical argument that they won in spite of his great coaching because their chemistry was so good?

You use an isolated example of one HS in DC. Well how about the countless others that when their longtime coach retires the program goes into the tank? This happens despite everything else being equal-location, area talent, field, training facilities, etc.

Now we may be arguing just opinions here like which is better, apples or oranges? Well I am going to say in that case that one bad apple(coach) spoils the whole bunch(team).