Why don't ex-players start as position coaches?

[NoPace]

I know the money wouldn't be great and that there aren't often specialist position coaches like in say American football, but I was listening to Shearer commentate and then Rooney at halftime and it's just so obviously clear that if either was going to be a decent manager, it would probably come after a good few years of coaching strikers (say they could work with the first-team strikers and also the academy ones at a club) and learning the job and being an assistant to a better manager and then maybe eventually take on a #2 role and then manage if they do well there.

I know in those specific cases (or really for star players) the money and lack of prestige might not appeal, but in general for players, the American football system where a player tends to be the coach in college or the pros for their position group for a few years and if they do well they get poached by a bigger team for the same role and then if they do well eventually gets to be in charge of an offence or defence (and it does seem like occassionally managers do effectively have a coach they charge with organizing the defence for instance).

I guess we are doing this with Benni McCarthy, but it really should be the model for guys who want to manage but aren't geniuses.

 

[Skills]

Positions are quite fluid in footy. Outside of the GK coach, teams don't generally have a dedicated coach for strikers, midfielders etc from what I know.

American football is weird. It's actually often a 1v1 sport like Baseball or Cricket is, but made to look like a team sport.

 

[duffer]

Apart from goalie coaches, it's not really a job at most clubs.

 

[tenpoless]

Not everyone is Benny Harvey, let's stop at that no need to analyze further.
It's like saying why don't fishermen become chefs specializing in seafood? because the foods they cook might turn out to be shite that's why.
There are successful ex players coaches but coaching is not for everybody. Especially position coaches... don't even know how that would work.

 

[Kazi]

The players you’re thinking of won’t be paid enough

 

[stefan92]

I know the money wouldn't be great and that there aren't often specialist position coaches like in say American football, but I was listening to Shearer commentate and then Rooney at halftime and it's just so obviously clear that if either was going to be a decent manager, it would probably come after a good few years of coaching strikers (say they could work with the first-team strikers and also the academy ones at a club) and learning the job and being an assistant to a better manager and then maybe eventually take on a #2 role and then manage if they do well there.

Position coaches are really not a thing in football, simply because the game as such is so fluid. You don't want to have only your strikers being able to score, you want to be able to put your CBs into the box to convert corners etc. But what you more likely have in football is "skill coaches" - assistants, who focus on certain aspects. A common example today seems to be an expert for set pieces, but I also just read about Ribery now being Salernitana's "technique coach". But in general I agree with the gist of your post - it surely doesn't hurt to get experience as an assistant and learn how the "big job" works before taking over.

Why don't many do it? Ego, money demands, and simply I think a lot of ex players actually are going that way, but are just not that popular than the examples who start managing directly after their playing career.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Is it that common outside of GK and occasionally striker? I remember Steve Bould was Arsenal's head of defence or something like that during Wenger's time, I can't remember us ever having one.

 

[Nickelodeon]

The players you’re thinking of won’t be paid enough

Short term money shouldn't be a problem, right? If they spend a few years with lesser responsibilities while working under good managers, it could aid a much better career as a manager which would ultimately be financially rewarding.

 

[RedDevilCanuck]

Rooney was a 10 and it's weird that people associate him with being a striker. I think he may have played 3 whole seasons as an out and out striker.

I agree with the OP though.

 

[NoPace]

Rooney was a 10 and it's weird that people associate him with being a striker. I think he may have played 3 whole seasons as an out and out striker.

I agree with the OP though.

If I was showing Rooney games to a young player to learn from, no question I'd show him Rooney as a 9 those post-Cristiano seasons over any of his #10 seasons.

You can't really teach what Rooney had as a #10, and he was all over the place defensively (Welbeck was better at marking DMs like the Xabi Alonso tie) but as a sort of false 9 he was great back to goal at starting counters, got headers and found space to convert cutbacks and was just a good overall team player until his body started to go. So yeah, it was a short time, but fundamentally speaking, his strongest period. Hell, you could make a case that Rooney as a 9 between Cristiano and Messi would be as good a front 3 as any possible for 21st century footballers, though I'd probably slot a Liverpool Suarez between them, but the better forwards like Lewandowski and especially Haaland might hurt the main men out wide.

 

[NoPace]

Apart from goalie coaches, it's not really a job at most clubs.

My guess is that will eventually change. Because football and especially baseball are slower and turn based (is that the gaming term, it's something like that) and even basketball has clear possessions, stats got better and more integral earlier than the much, much more fluid games of soccer and hockey, but analytics have increased in both and specialization should follow.

You look at our team under Ten Hag, and I don't really see why we couldn't have a coach for the #9, one for the wingers, one for the midfield (or that would be Ten Hag or whoever is the manager most of the time) and one doing Bould's old job of co-ordinating the defence.

Or a team like Inter, you could have one coach for the CBs, one for the wingbacks, one for the 3 mids and one for the strikers and it would seem to fit nicely.

I never played American football, but it seems like the players generally respond well to having a specialized coach working on the technique and tactics of their position (often a younger guy closer to their age, or someone who just knows the position like a book because they've been focused entirely on it for decades if they never moved up), and it's a coach who they are close with and isn't the authoritarian king that is the main coach and of course with academies, it would streamline what is expected of players in those positions so they can more seamlessly join the first team. And the head coach can delegate that specific work (already done by a lot of them) and still remain a bit distant and able to enforce what he needs to.

 

[Alex99]

What one club wants a striker to do may be very different from what another club wants a striker to do. Midfielders even more varied.

There's probably little value in focusing too much on a single position for the outfield players when it's more important that they're coached together, in whatever system the manager wants them to play in.

Goalkeepers are a bit different as their role can often be a lot more isolating, and obviously the core skills are very different from those of any outfield player, regardless of position.