[qwerty49]

To see that some of these players were rated in the top 100 boggles the mind. Such ratings are far from infallible.

i suppose that's true, but wouldn't we want a coach who sees talent that scouts don't? the diamonds in the rough? the players that turn out to play higher than their rankings rather than the players who play lower than their rankings?

Well wait a minute. Let’s assume the ratings are generally accurate. If someone plays higher than their rating, isn’t good coaching the first reason that comes to mind? And if someone plays lower than their rating, isn’t lack of good coaching the first reason that comes to mind?  It’s not like the player just takes a magic pill.

If those ratings are even remotely accurate it’s pretty clear to me we underperformed — and that is just poor coaching on many fronts.

If our system doesn’t fit the talent, good coaching makes the necessary adjustments.

[qwerty49]

To see that some of these players were rated in the top 100 boggles the mind. Such ratings are far from infallible.

i suppose that's true, but wouldn't we want a coach who sees talent that scouts don't? the diamonds in the rough? the players that turn out to play higher than their rankings rather than the players who play lower than their rankings?

Well wait a minute. Let’s assume the ratings are generally accurate. If someone plays higher than their rating, isn’t good coaching the first reason that comes to mind? And if someone plays lower than their rating, isn’t lack of good coaching the first reason that comes to mind?  It’s not like the player just takes a magic pill.

If those ratings are even remotely accurate it’s pretty clear to me we underperformed — and that is just poor coaching on many fronts.

If our system doesn’t fit the talent, good coaching makes the necessary adjustments.