Those sort of stats are basically nonsense. The whole thing is subjective. You would have to look at what the coaches were given. For example, Neesham started out with a bunch of mostly undersized WAFL players who were thrown into a new amateurish club. He did ok, if you call winning a few games ok. Ross (IMHO) had a mature team of lively bandits who had a good shot at a premiership and then mostly retired leaving a big hole. Write your own narrative but take it with a pinch of salt.
Once you enter this world of subjective appraisal you're entering believe your own BS territory. I'm more inclined to looking at the player stock than imagining that the team performance somehow magically emerges from the personality of the coach. Coaches don't get to choose their own playing stock unless they've been there for a decade and even then they are only one input to the process, along with the selection panel and Lady Luck.
