Carlton, Essendon and Tasmania are looking for a senior coach. This is the question they should be asking
Much of the attention will focus on qualifications as Essendon, Carlton and Tasmania begin searching for their next senior coach. Who is the smartest tactician? Who won the Prime Ministry? Who has the strongest coaching resume?
Players tend to ask different questions. Can we trust them? Will they support us? What are they like when things aren’t going well?
Because from a player’s perspective, these answers are often more important than any one line on a CV.
After working for over a decade in elite sporting environments, I am convinced that there is no such thing as the perfect coach. There are different types of coaches and different groups that need different things at different times.
I played under coaches I could run through walls for. I also played under coaches with whom I had a hard time connecting, and I don’t think either of us got the best out of the relationship in those environments. When we look back, it seems that the difference is not due to football knowledge.
Elite coaches all understand the game. The difference was often leadership style.
One of the biggest misconceptions in football is that players all want the same thing from a coach. They don’t.
Some players thrive on inspiration. Others need structure. Some people need faith. Others need responsibility. Ultimately, what players are looking for is trust, and coaches build trust in many different ways.
Some are storytellers. Luke Beveridge’s ability to create belief and purpose was central to the Bulldogs’ title run in 2016.
Others are orchestrators. Chris Scott’s strength is creating clarity and consistency. The players know where they stand and understand their roles.
Some are teachers. Craig McRae came to Collingwood and rebuilt trust through growth, learning and connection.
Others are binding. Chris Fagan has helped transform Brisbane into a club where players want to stay, develop and invest in each other.
Then there are generals. Coaches who set standards through accountability and discipline. The message is clear, direct and uncompromising; your Adam Kingsley types. Every successful football club needs elements of this style, whether from the senior coach or more broadly.
leadership group.
But as a player I always felt that teams would only respond positively to one or two real sprays each year. They lose their effectiveness if used too frequently. The best coaches know that accountability isn’t about volume, it’s about time. The group listens when they talk because they know it’s important.
Neither of these styles is inherently better than the other. The challenge for clubs is to determine which style best suits their playing group.
A young rebuilding list may need a tutor. A fragmented list may need a linker. A talented but inconsistent roster may need a general. The prime ministerial candidate may need an orchestrator who can iron out the final details.
There is also a tendency to evaluate coaches in isolation. The truth is that modern coaching is a team sport.
Top clubs create coaching panels to complement their senior coaches. A great connector may need a sharp-edged standards coach at his side. A tactical genius may need assistants who excel at relationships and player development.
Just as lists are built around complementary skills, so are coaching departments.
Often the most successful clubs are those with the best coaching staff.
Most of the time we talk about coaches as if they were plug-and-play. As if the same coach would achieve the same results in every club. Football doesn’t work that way.
The same coach who is successful in one environment may struggle in another; not because he became a worse coach, but because the group needed something different.
Tasmania’s research highlights this perfectly. They don’t just appoint a coach; They are establishing a club from scratch. The question is “who has the best resume?” not. What matters is what kind of culture, standards and identity they want to create.
During coaching calls, there is also a tendency to think about everyone except the people the coach will spend the most time with.
Fans want hope. Boards want credibility. The media wants headlines. The constant debate about James Hird’s coaching future highlights this perfectly. Sometimes aspiring coaches are as concerned with public perception as they are about the suitability of football. But coaches aren’t appointed to win press conferences or satisfy outside noise. They are assigned to lead the players and this is where the real evaluation must begin.
Because when a new coach comes, the players do not discuss tactical innovations. They ask different questions: What is he like? Do they support their players? Are they approachable? What are they like when things aren’t going well? Do they apply the same standards to everyone?
These questions reveal something important. Players don’t necessarily want a coach they like. They want a coach they can respect.
The coaches I respect the most challenged me, demanded more from me, and gave honest feedback. I always knew where I stood.
Players can deal with harsh realities. What they struggle with is uncertainty.
I have won premierships under coaches with very different personalities and leadership styles. What they all understood was playgroups. They did not try to coach another team’s roster. They coached the people sitting in front of them.
That’s why the smartest clubs aren’t just looking for the best coach available. They are looking for the right coach. His leadership style fills the biggest gap in the playing group at the moment.
Because from a player’s perspective, coaching success is rarely just about tactics. It’s about harmony.
