So that would be the Wolverines, right? What did you think of Walden method?

Even if you didn't like it, I'd say there is room for a variety of methods -- let them all go head to head. And, sure, an uncoached team could also have plenty of capability. I certainly can see that a coached team might not work for a lot of local riders (the coach might be bad, or "bad" for those riders) and they'd search out another path.

I agree that technology and communication (Internet, specifically) are huge changes. It also seems like this personal coaching thing is recent and rather new. It pretty much didn't exist in the 80's. (A team coach could certainly spend personal time, though, helping custom hone a plan to help a rider find form and skill.)

I agree about races not really being controllable all the time, esp by a coach on the sidelines (ha...better regional teams these days can be seen with the ear-wires!).

Still, it seems like riders are so intense and diverse/different that if you had a squad of 20 of them -- whew! -- how to keep the cats herded and not scratching? Even when there's a fairly clear upper pecking order, a star and a couple lieutenants, that doesn't seem like enough order for best results for everyone. There can be quiet resentment and less productive attitudes even when everyone seems to be getting along. There seems to be something good when even the stars submit to some higher structure. But, of course, the whole idea that's been mentioned of "this is all voluntary" needs respecting as well.

I just know of a new team of a couple dozen hard chargers, 75% of them fairly new. They have it all. Personal trainers and all the latest tech. Far more than our old teams had. But they don't have a coach. And they really don't seem to know that much. And they don't want a coach, from what I can tell. They are confident in their skills and resources. And it's true that maybe a coach isn't needed. But to me it seems like they might be missing out. Maybe they could try one just to see sometime. It's the only thing they lack. Just the whole idea of a team of all athletes, everyone striving in their own ways. Even if they all get along fine... I dunno -- a coach seems like a special kind of person, with different skills and thinking and vision than an athlete.

Their situation reminds me of a young champ I know -- Andy Liebner, in XC ski racing / biathlon -- he rocked the US, got major college/junior titles, then got a temporary knee injury -- quickly recovered, but got dropped anyway from his high-hopes UST program -- they didn't want to risk resources on someone recovering. So he went to Europe on his own to prove that he was ready for the next level despite what the bosses said. No one told him that this was a good idea. But he couldn't be stopped. He was pure passion and fire. He got into so much trouble over there! He couldn't deal with the technicalities of bureaucracies. He was almost jailed a few times. He needed a coach! He had a personal trainer. He needed grooming and to be put on starting lines and pointed to the finish and allowed to do his thing. He was smart for racing and training. Very observant. He learned a huge amount about performance. But he's not a diplomat. He needed guiding. His dramatic experiences make for good stories, though! : ) (He just came out with a memoir, "Wild Shot.") Anyway, now picture 20 of these guys in a group, all friendly ... but with no group overseer... Is technology and the Web enough to optimize their experience?