Prior to the start of this season, I had the Knights pegged to be at best, a 4th 0r 5th position team, and looking upward at the Rangers in the standings. London graduated it's primary offensive players, and would only be returning a core of weaker players who hadn't yet shown any indication of progression beyond secondary scorers. Somehow, my prognostication got reversed, and heading toward the Christmas break, those teams have managed to both overachieve, and underachieve. So, it begs the question : What is so significantly different between these 2 teams ?
As I see it, it's coaching. One coach identified his team's strengths & weaknesses, and got 3 significant players to shore up the weak areas. He then gave those players well defined roles to play, and worked toward strengthening individual weaknesses of the remaining players. A game plan was devised that took advantage of the team's strengths, and minimized the dependance on " elite type players." The result: Team began playing more as a team, and far less reliant on individual talent. That team is now " overachieving" and I'm pleasantly surprised to have been so far off in my initial assessment.
I've no doubt that the Rangers have players with talent. For whatever reason, they don't give the impression of a cohesive team working toward any specific goal. Maybe a reassessment is in order, and players given defined roles that take advantage of their strengths. That alone would place them in situations where they're more likely to succeed. It might also improve that area of player development, that some fans have identified as needing improvement.
Good luck, the rest of the way.
