My view, as usual, is how much of this defeat is down to the coaching staff and how much is down to the decision making and performance of the players?
Perehaps you could offer an answer to your own question?
Would still be interested in your thoughts on your own question.
How many times have I answered this in the past?
The coach obviously has an input in the preparation of the players and the tactics but it is then down to the players to go out and perform. If they do not have the skills/application/mental toughness to put the plans in to practice then it is down to them.
So I would say 20% coach and 80% players.
I have some sympathy with your views but I feel that a
good coach has more influence than you suggest. It takes time for a coach's influence to be felt. Sure, there can be a "bounce" with a new coach but a good coach should be able to bring the very best out of a team, such that they are greater than the sum of their parts. Of course if you have a world beating team, such as the West Indies had under the captaincy of Clive LLoyd (did they have a coach in those days?) then leadership is more straightforward, although success is not guaranteed (
vide Botham/Richards/Garner at Somerset).
However if I move to a more contemporary example, the turnaround in the Australian team between last summer and this winter was astonishing. The XI that played in Brisbane included 9 of the 11 players who appeared in the 5th Test at The Oval, and indeed played in most of the 5 Tests in England. While England's abysmal performances with the bat (and to a lesser extent the bowlers) helped, the improvement by a largely unchanged team was colossal. Yes, Johnson was a revelation but one man doesn't make a team. It is pretty obvious that replacing Micky Arthur with Darren Lehmann had a huge impact on the team, somewhat more than 20%, I suggest?
Even the very best coaches go stale. (It's the same with successful politicians who fall into the trap of hubris after a few years). Mike Brearley in yesterday's Times had a very good article, generally applauding Andy Flower's tenure as England coach, but fearing that the team eventually needed a change of style, which AF would not be able to deliver.
Yes, once the players step over the boundary rope they are responsible for executing the team's plans. If they can't (or won't) then the coach must select players who can and will; and as an onlooker, he sees more of the game. Of course, if the coach is to be saddled with the responsibility, then he must have the authority, something that is very opaque within Essex CCC.
