View Single Post
01-05-2013, 11:30 PM
Nullus Reverentia
Registered User
Nullus Reverentia's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Periphery
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 18,058
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Atomos2 View Post
Bold: Right, that was his mistake and if he had given a speech, it may have yielded a better outcome. Obviously we have no way of knowing but atleast to him (and also to a lot of Canadian fans) it was in the realm of possibility.

If you are thinking in basic literal terms, then you're right, a coach is not responsible for how a player plays on the ice. But if you factor in the choice of players, the mode of preparation, the assigned lineups and d pairings, then its easy to see that a coach has a lot to do with the success of the team.

One NHL coach (I prefer him to remain nameless, but if you prefer to know the name I will tell it to you along with the link in the response) said as a coaching staff, they have to take responsibility because they didn't prepare the hockey club to go out and compete. Whether he deserves it or not, Hockey Canada and Spott know that he must take a huge share of the responsibility, especially with the talent he had in his possession. You can't possibly believe Hockey Canada will hire him next year.

As for putting the two top offensive dmen on during OT, what about during the game? He had them together for every game in the tourney. Why would you have that same risk and reward mentality all through the tournament? I'll agree that we cannot expect any better resultfrom a Harrington defensive partner. But it would be much less of a gamble logically and at least the pairing wouldn't look like an accident waiting to happen, which inevitably it ended up being. This is an elite competition and Spott should of had someone to defend the net at an elite level at all times. Because Spott never considered that, the defence was left exposed, to the Russians.
I'm a firm believer that a hockey coach is the least important on-field manager in the five major western team sports (Hockey, Association football, Gridiron Football, baseball, basketball). They set up plays but they're more general systems which depend mostly on the players. They're primary job is to direct the players, but I don't believe they have much effect on how a team performs on ice. It's one of the reasons coaches have such trouble getting into the Hall of Fame.

Which brings me to the point, the only way I see a coach negatively affecting a game is not understand how a certain game is played (Playing a run and gun offense against a team that shuts that down, playing an outdated defensive system), royally screwing up matchups and rampant bench minors. Otherwise, they can do a below-average job but I don't see how they can affect a game.

Taking responsability doesn't mean you are at fault. Many coaches will take responsability for a teams failures to get the pressure of their players.

Anyways, risk and reward shouldn't be limited to one period, though it didn't exact hit the jackpot I can only remember one goal where it this pairings fault, this last goal.

Nullus Reverentia is offline   Reply With Quote