Conventional hockey wisdom says Messier and Gretzky would be awful coaches. But that thinking is wrong.
Between them, they own 10 Stanley Cup rings, 11 MVP awards, three Conn Smythe Trophies and 10 scoring titles. They amassed 4,744 regular-season points and each has a Hockey Hall of Fame blazer in his closet.
Yet, somehow, in the eyes of many in the hockey world, neither Wayne Gretzky nor Mark Messier has the credentials to coach in the NHL. At least not right now.
How does that compute? We have heard the notion that superstar players don’t make great coaches—that because the game came so easily to them, they have difficulty relating to the worker bees. But the fact that few star players have become great coaches could also be explained by the numbers—the stars are generally the best paid and get the most endorsements, and therefore have no burning financial need to take on a full-time job once they hang up their skates. And the key for any coach, especially a former star with a life outside of the game, is embracing that full-time burden. “There’s no downtime for a coach,” says the legendary Scott Bowman. “From the beginning of September to whenever your last game is, your mind has to be all hockey all the time. There can be some glamour, no question, but it is very time-consuming.”
But if these Hall of Famers bring the same commitment to work off the ice that they did on it, there’s no reason they can’t succeed. Messier, who is reportedly interested in moving behind the New York Rangers’ bench, doesn’t have a wealth of experience, having only coached in a couple of international ventures. And just because he was a great leader doesn’t mean he’ll be a good bench boss. Coaching requires inherent talent, as well as growth and improvement born of hard work. Those who know Messier insist he is methodical and meticulous. He was a great student of the game and an excellent communicator. And having sat next to Rangers GM Glen Sather as a special assistant for the past few seasons, he has a keen understanding of their assembled talent.
With a couple of experienced assistant coaches, why wouldn’t he have a decent chance of succeeding? Fact is, says Bowman, you can compensate for any coach’s shortcomings by surrounding them with the right people and making the most of the insights and intelligence they bring. Few established coaches would command more respect in the dressing room. It is a gamble, but not a bad one.
The same applies to Gretzky, whose coaching credentials have been tarnished by his time in Phoenix. Over the four years he was in the desert, the Coyotes had a 143-161-24 record, but the numbers don’t tell the whole story. Gretzky was learning on the job. He took over a team that was old and slow, had budget issues you may have heard about, and eventually began to build with youth. It has conveniently been forgotten that in the middle of the 2008–09 season, Gretzky had his team in fifth place in the Western Conference, and people were talking about him being a coach of the year candidate before the team began selling off players.
No one would argue that his first coaching stint was spectacular, but Gretzky developed in the role, and those who played for him would say he was far better the day he resigned in Phoenix than the day he signed up. “One thing about guys like Gretzky and Messier,” says Bowman, “is they knew how to win, an extra sense of what it took.”
They bring an insight into the game few coaches could match. Maybe Gretzky or Messier shouldn’t be the first choice for the Rangers, or any other team, but they wouldn’t be the worst choice, either.
This story originally appeared in Sportsnet magazine. Subscribe here.
