Re: LSSU Laker Hockey
I think Roque is probably a hell of a good guy
Absolutely, until you challenge his beliefs, or simply ask for explanations.
Beside other skills which can easilly be delegated, a successful coach has a vision and an ongoing
two-ways communication (i.e. face to face discussions) with each player on the team, whether he plays 25 mns per game or sits out all the time.
It is essential for the team that each member understands how he is supposed to contribute to the plan, and is convinced that
he is getting something in return (development, recognition, money etc.); it is also a simple question of human respect.
What about a team where players (There may be exceptions) never have a focused conversation with the coach, and some having the feeling that the coach doesn't see them at all (knowing that he may change his mind tomorrow is only a cold comfort).
Would you expect understanding and involvement ?
Admitting errors is not enough (specially when it is for the show, and only in favor of some). You need to show that you take action, including questioning yourself. Bad luck and small means cannot explain everything.
Some very successful coaches happen to be blamed for being tough on players (please don't resume a useless debate, as it would be irrelevant), but they are always recognized for being fair (no pets, no scapegoat), consistent (no permanent changing mind) and clear (explaining again if not understood).
Being tough is not a must, and properly empowered assistants

can take care of almost any of the coach's tasks; but who has seen a coach succeeding without leadership.
When everyone resigns oneself to finding his own answers, wouldn't you expect some confusion ? (individual and collective).
I think of Casiani off the top of my head.
Just to mention one other, What about Pat Inglis; there seemed to be a consensus amongst his teammates that the coach destroyed him. Whether right or wrong, it is an indication that the attitude of the coach was neither shared nor understood.
Is it coaching ? Not sure if any of us know. Is it just a team of players with a few good guys but not enough to make a difference. I don't know that either . That is why we debate and argue on here I guess. We all want to know what the main problem is but we don't and so we come here to vent or find answers.
It is probably a combination of a lot of reasons, and being a small school is certainly one of them. But, if you had to make some improvements, you would not just sit and wait until you know the unique and unquestionable root problem.
You would probably want to do something, focusing on what you control, and preferably where you have identified obvious shortcomings, with the highest impact. Then you can fine tune addressing other issues.
But we are not deciding anything, except that
buying is voting.
Does it make sense ?
