Cherry Versus Cooke Part Deux; Thinking Outside The Box

Again. Agreed.

***

There's a belief pimped out by pundits in sports whereby only people who have played the game professionally can really truly know the game and therefore are best suited to run a league, coach, scout - whatever.

I would argue it's actually the opposite. By staying within the confines of a system it becomes incestuous where an old boys network settles in with the same bad ideas and misconceptions prevailing indefinitely. Soccer is filled with dinosaurs. So is the NHL.

I'm not suggesting a complete outsider with zero experience is better than a person who has been in a sport all their life. Rather, what I'm arguing is former players shouldn't be, for example, handed coaching jobs because he played. Coaching is entirely different craft almost independent of playing. Soccer is the worst offender of this strategy.

Most organizations fail or wallow in inept misery because they can't evolve. They stick to tired and failed philosophies because it's simply the way "it's done." They learned a certain way and they follow through on it.

For their part, coaches shouldn't be given free reign either. They're too preoccupied with the short term. I can't blame them given the dismissal rate. Unfortunately, they've come to accept it as "part of the job." Win, you stick around. Lose, you're out because, you know, in one year your message has become "stale." Truth is, it's an art deciphering how bad or good a coach really is.

To me, whenever I see a club constantly firing a manager or coach it reflects poorly on the organization itself. Either it has poor hiring principles or it doesn't have the guts to stand by their guy. Teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers are a precious rare exception. They prove it's not about just coaching but the entire organization: Stability brings pragmatism and pragmatism gives patience breathing room. When you have that combination you can evaluate your talent and resources far more effectively.

Teams that always seem to be at the forefront of high drama, teams that restrict themselves to available talent (for political or other reasons), teams that follow the typical "well, we can't fire the team" logic, will always suck or always pretend - if they have a good marketing department - they'll always have a "shot" at the title. What they don't tell you is if the many "ifs" fall in their favor. Good teams reduce the "if" factor as much as they can.

And one way you avoid sucking is you think outside the box. You embrace new people and ideas. That way, your chances of stabilizing your team and finding the next Billy Beane or Lou Lamouriello are in your favor.

There's an anatomy to winning and losing. Over time, you manage your risk and reward (and luck factor) better that way. Mess that up and you become part of the losers who always blame others for their failures.

So yeah, whenever I hear former players turned commentators yelp about "fans" not knowing anything about the game or that a bunch of "suits" are ruining the game,  I want to throw the TV out the window because when they say things like that what they don't realize is it's not just about kicking and hitting, it's about the integrity, development and sustainability of entire sport and league. It stretches beyond the little clique they wish to preserve.

Believe it or not, there are many people out there who can do the job.