Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
I have to admit, I’m starting to wonder about the psychology of
‘It’s not the coach, it’s the players’.
Because some people stick to it, coach after coach.
Is it resigning yourself to some inevitability, or creating the illusion that perhaps there is hope for change, simply because a decision on coaching typically happens on a once in a few years basis (barring extraordinary circumstances)
I’m suspecting it’s some kind of defense mechanism
|
Let's be honest. Both positions are valid. The data point can be used to make either argument, just a matter of choosing which one supports one's position.
Argument 1: The failure of this same core under 4 different coaches suggests coaching isn't the problem, the players are
Argument 2: The failure of 4 different coaches with this same roster suggests this team is hiring the wrong type of coach
Same data point. Opposite arguments. Both valid.
What I don't understand is how can be so locked in that you can't see how the information can be rationally used to argue for either position. So instead you default to "must be a defense mechanism".
Again for the record - I don't like the coach or the roster.