Might be a question impossible to answer but does a guy like Tim Anderson have the goal to coach professionally?
A lot of the great coaches have come through the school path in the past. I remember reading comments from Eddie Jones about how many young coaches wanting to be professional coaches don't have the ability to educate players anymore. They are fountains of knowledge on technical aspects of the game but lack the ability to nurture it. Personally, I'm not an Eddie Jones fan but I understand the point.
We all would have come across bosses/managers that are very good at their job but can't mentor someone to save themselves and also the other way that some people just naturally can get the best out of you and build an environment you grow in.
I think of a guy like Anderson over the last few years at Joeys and I'm sure others can chip in for their various school affiliation but for View I think of a man like the late Les Kirkpatrick and what he brought.
This is a great perspective, GoR. It is difficult to gauge the aptitude of coaches when variables such as player natural talent, rugby culture and other financial variables come into play. I think of:
* Riverview's Matt Hutchison was a great thinker, but word is that Murray Harley was a huge reason for this mid-90s success.
Les Kirkpatrick and James Rodgers were inspirational coaches of teams not naturally gifted, but perhaps not as technically savvy
* Joey's Br Anthony Boyd had talent to burn but knew kids really well, more than most. He was a real student of the game, to the end, and success followed deservedly. Anderson and Thomson don't have the human connection and genuine understanding that Boydy has and their popularity wavers. They lost games as coaches when the rest of the school was winning every week
* Newington's Brad Gill had success when the school pivoted their rugby platform philosophy. His predecessors struggled without the same support
Scots' Brian Smith (see above). His predecessors such as Peter Koen, Graeme Dedrick and Phil Barlow had nowhere near the support, although Warwick Melrose did, in 1992/3
* Kings' James Hilgendorf is doing really well without the level of resources that some others have, and people like experienced John Warr have been crucial. Andrew Parry and Rob Egerton achieved success at the turn of the century, but what role did other Hawkes intervention financial strategies play in this?
* High's Tony Hannon was the Jack Gibson/Wayne Bennett of his School Rugby - perhaps not as technically proficient as his counterparts but he was "game-smart" and was loved deeply; he often won because of the loyalty engendered. His players would, rightfully, die for him
* Shore's Gareth Inches, Guy Shrosbree, Tim Wallace, Andrew Tate are greatly under-estimated. IMHO were better coaches than many of those listed above because they had to coach above their station, and achieved more than their results reflect
* High's Rob Farrugia was similar to Tony Hannon and Les K. Think Sam and Andrew Mower (I hope I got that right). Many others '95-'05 made them competitive
Measuring a coach's ability and effectiveness needs to factor in the talent available, the resources available, his connection to his troops, his knowledge of the game, his willingness to adapt and his motivations to succeed.
