View Single Post
05-06-2013, 07:17 AM
Registered User
Chimp's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The average consumer
Country: Sweden
Posts: 11,579
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
Wow, you're just wrong. Objectively and flat out wrong. That's not how sports at any level work. That's dysfunction by definition. You can't have every player making his own decisions about what he wants to do or doesn't want to do, when he wants to listen and when he doesn't want to listen. In that way madness lies. You don't have to like a coach as a player, but you damn sure have to listen to him and do as he says out there. I feel like I'm explaining team sports to a child right now. I really hope this is just your view and not shared by anyone else out there. Scary stuff.

I guess you loved the story about how Titus Young decided to line up wherever he felt like on the field and run whatever routes he wanted to. That's just a player who is doing what he thinks is right. He didn't feel like the coach earned his trust and respect so he didn't jump off the bridge with him. Sad to see no one has scooped up such a smart young man yet.
Allurohile just gave you two definitions of known terms when a team quits on their coach. You call that childish? I call you narrowminded. You call that scary, then I have to ask you, have you ever heard of the Milgram experiment? What is your definition of authority and if someone has it, do you always obey? That is scary, people who are indoctrinated into not thinking for themselves and putting their responsibility on someone else.

No one is above the team, the coach included. The coach just has a role in it all, he's not the team and he's not a monarch chosen to rule until he dies, like you seem to imply. You also make it sound like some total chaos erupts where people arrive at practice whenever they want or decide to flip the puck up in the stands instead of trying to score a goal. Can we assume professional players are not drunken pirates when the coach doesn't look?

There's an extreme difference between justifiably quitting on a coach because he isn't getting the job done for various reasons and quitting because you don't like him on a personal level, which is childish indeed. You don't seem to see the distinction, hence you blow things out of proportion.

These players have tried to listen and obey Torts for several seasons, he's had the fingers in handpicking the players he wants for his useless defense factory hockey and what do we have to show for it? A mediocre bubble team that would sniff good draft picks if we didn't have that goalie.

On another note, you are just defining one role a coach can have. The dictatorship one, which supposedly is common in your sports culture. Let me tell you for a fact, there are other ways to coach a team. If all that matters is winning, who cares about sports doctrines?

Let me also tell you of the national coach for the Swedish handball team that was a power house during the 90s. You know his secret? He allowed the veteran players to take part of the strategy themselves. They were the ones who ultimately had to take care of business, so why should they not be involved in the discussion how to win the games and how to improve? During timeouts, he rarely said a word. Instead, it was up to his players to pep talk and discuss the situation at hand. And he never verbally ripped his players apart, because that's not how he would have wanted to be treated as a player himself.

Last edited by Chimp: 05-06-2013 at 08:00 AM.
Chimp is offline