I read a tweet recently saying a famous coach was not good enough because the team were doing badly. I disagreed.

Even at the highest level, it's impossible to judge a coach purely on results because there are so many other factors at play: form, talent, confidence, conditions and opposition. You can play to your maximum potential, you can be as well-coached as possible and still lose the match.

I think the measure of a good coach is different. It's down to having the trust of the players. You have a good relationships. They believe you. They feel safe with you. You build their confidence with honesty. You fit into and help mould the character of the team. They want you with them.

These are not as easy to measure as results or as easy to see as technical changes, but they are a fairer reflection of what the coach can do. A coach can't control players like they are a computer game. They can sow seeds, create a safe environment and hope they grow.

At the lower levels, we can measure this more easily. Do kids keep coming to cricket sessions you put on week after week, year after year? If they do, you can feel successful regardless of the results of your team's matches, or the technical perfection of your players (most kids don't care much about these things anyway).

The result is part of the process, not the end goal.

What do you think?


AuthorDavid Hinchliffe