Best ever DEVILS coach

Thread starter #1
I am surprised that Andrew Lord is claimed to be the best ever coach when he hasn't yet exceeded what John Lawless achieved.

THREE League Titles

THREE Play Off Championships

ONE Benson & Hedges cup

I will let you decided where the Conference titles lie in relation to the major competions
 

Finny

Well-Known Member
#2
Firstly, 'best' is very subjective. 'Most successful' is the term I've used.

Secondly, what years did Lawless win the three league titles and three playoff championships?
 

James

Administrator
#4
I wasn't watching back then, but would the level of coaching be the same as it is now or was the league still at the 'buy the best players and they'll know what to do' style that it was at the start?
 

Devil_Abroad

Well-Known Member
#6
I wasn't watching back then, but would the level of coaching be the same as it is now or was the league still at the 'buy the best players and they'll know what to do' style that it was at the start?
For me when I started watching back then, if you had the Cooper brothers as long as you employed 3 then 4 quality imports you were guaranteed the BNL. Then suddenly to cope with the introduction of Sheffield and I guess wanting parity (??) the rules were relaxed and in came Superleague with imports flooding the league.

Good coaching always makes a difference but also coaching and the game moves on in development so it’s always difficult to compare. For me Lord is the best ‘coach’ we have had not only because of the success but because most who know him and work with him say it themselves.

I wasn’t around much for the BBT days but I hear Adams was a top quality coach for ever making do with less budget than others and still putting good quality teams on the ice.

Lawless was, well, Lawless. First to bring in professionalism to hockey here. Built a team from nothing and in a short time dominating the league. Played, scored, agitated, shot the clock, organised the printing of programmes, did he drive the mini bus?!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Rob Batch

Well-Known Member
#7
The League title,for me, is the one you want. Andrew Lord seems to have worked out how to survive, in a way , for the 56 games. It's a long battle, which makes it special. I don't always agree with tactics but I'm arm-chair-like in that regard. The PO's is obviously a different animal so will be very interesting to see how we approach the challenge.
 

Kevlar68

Well-Known Member
#8
Tricky one really. The game is so different since the Lawless years when you had big enforcers along side the skill set players, players are getting more fine tuned as years go on. You could ask the question i suppose would Lord have been a good coach back in the day and same for Lawless in today's game.
 

kingmo19.1

Well-Known Member
#9
There was, to a certain extent, a get the Coopers and your more than half way there. So i definitely don't think coaching was important in those days.
Spot on. If I remember it went something like:-

Durham had them - they won the league.
They came to us - we won the league.
They went back to Durham - guess what, they won the league.
They then came back to us - you know what happened.

Far easier to coach then than it is now. The Heineken era wasn’t much above a glorified beer league.
 

Ocko

Well-Known Member
#11
Tricky one really. The game is so different since the Lawless years when you had big enforcers along side the skill set players, players are getting more fine tuned as years go on. You could ask the question i suppose would Lord have been a good coach back in the day and same for Lawless in today's game.
Agree with you on the game being different; I'd say a hell of a lot more coaching is involved now with video, fitness and general well being now being so important whereas in the Lawless era it didn't really exist.

I'd point out though that in the Lawless era whilst there was a lot of fighting he didn't really have many enforcers and not many teams had any monsters, bar Mike Ware at Murrayfield. Big players in those days tended to be 6 foot.

The standard of league was also pretty crap in the grand scheme of things and our previous heroes like Hope and McEwen probably wouldn't even get looked at let alone considered by EIHL sides.
 

E.D.S.

Well-Known Member
#12
Agree with you on the game being different; I'd say a hell of a lot more coaching is involved now with video, fitness and general well being now being so important whereas in the Lawless era it didn't really exist.

I'd point out though that in the Lawless era whilst there was a lot of fighting he didn't really have many enforcers and not many teams had any monsters, bar Mike Ware at Murrayfield. Big players in those days tended to be 6 foot.

The standard of league was also pretty crap in the grand scheme of things and our previous heroes like Hope and McEwen probably wouldn't even get looked at let alone considered by EIHL sides.
I might be reminiscing too much and have rose tinted glasses but I still think MC would coast into any team in any era.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Mooney#16

Well-Known Member
#13
I think that's unfair given both of them played and played well in the Superleague era along with Moria as well. I think the way they adapted to the Superleague era was a credit to them given how long they'd been out of North America. I think age beat most of those guys not talent. I still believe the Superleague was a higher standard however that's also probably due to it being pre zero tolerance refereeing and the instigator rule so it was a completely different brand of hockey. Being honest one I liked more than the modern day.

To the original point. I'd say Lordo and Lawless are level pegging but if Lordo can three peat the league next year he'll be walking it. Still feel slight sympathy after all the crap he endured G never got to coach Devils in IAW.
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#14
I might be reminiscing too much and have rose tinted glasses but I still think MC would coast into any team in any era.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most definitely, that’s like saying Best, Charlton, Law, Pele, Eusebio,Maradonna, couldn’t hold a candle to today’s players, different era maybe but come on.
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#15
Agree with you on the game being different; I'd say a hell of a lot more coaching is involved now with video, fitness and general well being now being so important whereas in the Lawless era it didn't really exist.

I'd point out though that in the Lawless era whilst there was a lot of fighting he didn't really have many enforcers and not many teams had any monsters, bar Mike Ware at Murrayfield. Big players in those days tended to be 6 foot.

The standard of league was also pretty crap in the grand scheme of things and our previous heroes like Hope and McEwen probably wouldn't even get looked at let alone considered by EIHL sides.
By the same token our top players wouldn’t get a spot on teams in 10 yrs time, it’s all relevant. Just enjoy what we have at any given time.
 

Kevlar68

Well-Known Member
#16
When you come up against a player like Mike Ware who's playing against you as a coach be it Lawless when Mike was at Murrayfield or Lord if Mike were playing now i think both coaches would have problems with a game plan against such a unpredictable player.
 

Ocko

Well-Known Member
#17
I didn't mean they wouldn't of been good enough, like you mentioned they adapted and become excellent players, at a good level too.

What I meant was that if we turned back the clock to the time they signed over here straight from junior hockey they wouldn't of been looked at. They didn't play Major Junior, only Junior A. Not many players make the grade as pro players from Junior A. Doug McEwen played a couple of games at Major Junior level but was sent back down. Most of our players now were good players at that level.
 

Kevlar68

Well-Known Member
#18
All the coaches are of their time. Don't forget the game plans may be the correct ones to win the game but if you haven't got the players you need to execute those plans then its a uphill battle.
Many teams have had great coaches but not the team to work with.
 

august04

Well-Known Member
#19
While the overall level of play was undoubtedly lower (bar the Superleague era), the standard of import was generally very high back then and remember there were only 3 or 4 of them on each team. As far as Doug was concerned, it was perceived his game got much better over here as he was given the ice time that he needed to excel, something which he never had back home. He got better in the U.K. I have no doubt that the likes of Hope, Moria, Brebant, McEwen, Hand, the Coopers, Longstaff etc could still compete in the modern game. They were terrific players then and would still be now.
 

kingmo19.1

Well-Known Member
#20
While the overall level of play was undoubtedly lower (bar the Superleague era), the standard of import was generally very high back then and remember there were only 3 or 4 of them on each team. As far as Doug was concerned, it was perceived his game got much better over here as he was given the ice time that he needed to excel, something which he never had back home. He got better in the U.K. I have no doubt that the likes of Hope, Moria, Brebant, McEwen, Hand, the Coopers, Longstaff etc could still compete in the modern game. They were terrific players then and would still be now.
Agree with that, also add Rick Fera into that list - awesome player and his stats were better than Moria, Brebant & Tony Hand's.
 
Top