The rules of engagement have changed for coaches. Sports writer Adrian Seconi looks at how the role has evolved over the past 25 years.
They could get by on tactical appreciation rather than academic credentials.
They were more of a one-man band than the CEO of a management team.
Nobody knew what KPIs were.
The players association did not get in a twist if the halftime speech was colourful.
And while a loss was reviewed, there was no microscope required.
None of that holds true anymore. Coaching has evolved. It had to. The athletes coming through have changed and so have their expectations.
Coaches are a different breed as well.
They are likely to hold a series of coaching qualifications and lead a management team.
Their performance is more keenly scrutinised than ever before and it is not enough just to bark orders and expect compliance anymore.
What would Alex "Grizz" Wyllie think?
University of Otago associate professor Tania Cassidy has a few ideas — not about Grizz but about the evolution of coaching.
She is a co-author of the influential Understanding Sports Coaching: The Social, Cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice.
She draws a link between the evolution of coaching and a kind of panic which took place in Great Britain following its dismal performance at the 1996 Olympics Games.
"It was not very good for their colonising spirit," she said.
"There was a lot of soul-searching in the UK around that time."
The Brits responded by throwing money at the problem and climbed from 36th on the medal table in Atlanta to 10th in Sydney.
That new-found success, and securing in 2005 the hosting rights for the 2012 Olympics, resulted in an explosion in the number of tertiary institutions teaching sports coaching.
Other English-speaking countries tended to follow suit, Prof Cassidy said.
What that meant for coaches was there was "an expectation they would be engaging in the literature" and pursue "qualifications through the tertiary sector".
"That drove the tertiary sector to supply more qualifications and programmes in the universities.
"That is what drove the development of coaching at the academic level."
But as coaching became increasingly professional, people started looking for an edge.
Coaching philosophy and team culture took on more importance. Buzzwords like alignment and buy-in emerged, and players started taking a more active role in their preparation.
Green Island stalwart Dean Moeahu can vouch for the shift which has taken place. The halfback made more than 200 appearance for his club between 1995 and 2015. Since retiring, he has stayed involved through the club’s junior academy.
He also coaches the Green Island premier team and is an assistant coach for the Otago under-19 side.
"The players expect a lot more information now," Moeahu said.
"The fundamentals of the game are the same but it is the way the information is delivered which has been the biggest change that I’ve seen. You are almost a teacher.
"Everyone learns differently and you are trying to find the best way to teach your players to get a good result out of them.
"You still have to be honest with people but in a positive way without sugar-coating things.
"You have to be a bit more mindful and respectful of your players and how you deliver that information."
That lesson has come too late for some.
Black Sticks coach Mark Hager crushed a few toes when he inadvertently sent an email to the entire squad criticising the fitness of several players.
That incident led to complaints about the culture of the side, which had only months before won gold at the Commonwealth Games.
And before Hager’s email bungle, New Zealand Football technical director Andreas Heraf resigned.
His position had become untenable after a dozen or so players complained.
Heraf’s comments about the Football Ferns not having the quality to compete with Japan was arguably the catalyst for his departure.
Rowing New Zealand high performance director Alan Cotter also resigned following an independent review of the organisation’s culture. Cotter was in the role 10 years but was criticised for putting results ahead of athlete welfare.
While it seems as if there has been a sudden swing in the atmosphere, Cassidy warns against rushing to conclusions.
"It is evolution, not a revolution," she said.
"I think what is happening with coaching is only reflecting the shift that has happened in education.
"The young people that coaches are dealing with have come through a school system with a completely different environment from when we went to school — where you basically sat down, shut up and were told this was what you were doing.
"Unless coaches recognise the shift that has occurred in their players and carry on in the same vein, then it is like Mars and Venus — they’re not talking to each other."
Cassidy believes it has set up a "tension between expectations".
And the power is shifting from the coaches, who are under more scrutiny, to the players, who have a more platforms to express their dissatisfaction.
Former New Zealand sevens coach Sir Gordon Tietjens felt the climate change during the last 18 months of his 22-year stint with the national side.
Tietjens achieved tremendous results during his long career but, leading up to the 2016 Olympics, he felt his power base erode.
The leadership group had expanded and they were having more input into the team’s preparation.
It was "ruled by majority" and it "takes away from you as a coach in your ability to do what needs to be done".
"You are now empowering players to make those decisions as well."
As Tietjens’ grip on the reins was loosening, he was increasingly more accountable. Sevens’ inclusion in the Olympic programme brought greater profile and greater public expectation.
"I think the coach still has to have the power if he has a real belief in any certain area. That is his role — he makes the final call.
"But at the same time good coaches communicate with a lot of people before they make decisions, so they put a lot of thought into the process before making big calls.
"We still have to have that right. I think, at the moment, a lot of coaches feel as if they have to get input from the athletes before they make a decision — which I think is wrong and I don’t agree with that."
