Time for a first post & why not jump right into the middle of a minor bicker.
There's a massive difference between being a player that was developed, and developing players. Where is it written that a top player will make a top coach? There's good reason to think that they have other problems - it must be awkward training players that are going to have much less potential, and ability than you yourself did - are you going to be able to relate as well to them?
It's true that some excellent coaches weren't great players, and some great players are/were excellent coaches. It's an inexact science, sometimes you can get lucky...for example when Scunny turned to their physio. I daresay not many thought Adkins would be so good, but his Div 3 success was based on a time honoured formula....find yourself a couple of frontmen, play 4-4-2. Scunny got Sharp and Keogh...then Hayes and Hooper.
I'd imagine Cooper's non league sides and briefly Posh all played 4-4-2....when he arrived in March, he said he wanted to learn from KMac as he had a record of player development and playing one up front.
I'm in a bit of a minority, insofar as I don't mind playing one up front, and I don't mind the style of play being dictated by a DoF, who also recruits the players....my gripe is that taking those things into account...you need to be appointing someone who can demonstrate at least belief, if not excellence...which is why I was happy with KMac.
