No, but if he did you'd say he's a greater coach than someone who only successfully coached teams with outstanding personnel. However, the analogy falls short because Belichick has coached a long time with teams with very different personnel over the years, and always seems to have some degree of success. Lendl starts with great players and leads them to greatness. Ho hum.
Well, Belichick has been a coach all his bloody life. In the meantime, Ivan Lendl was busy setting tennis records. Lendl, unless I am mistaken, has had two coaching jobs and both times his pupil had immediate and previously unreached success at the very top level. This, to me, is outstanding.
And, sorry to say, but Belichick will always be remembered for his Super Bowl wins and his overall record with the Patriots; not for whatever success he has had before. I just checked his Wikipedia page; he was an assistant on two Super-Bowl winning teams while his pre-Pats head-coaching career (the one that counts when one talks about greatness) was pretty crappy, to be honest. And, he-he, turns out he
did coach the Browns... you can check his results with them... not good
By your logic, Steve Kerr is a ho hum coach too... I don't recall him having any prior success as a coach before taking over the Warriors. So is Pep Guardiola. He had a couple of uneventful years as a youth coach before taking over the mens' team of Barca and immediately winning everything that could be won... several times over. Both Kerr and Pep, with virtually no prior coaching history, started with great players and led them to greatness, to use your own words. Ho hum indeed
Anyway, I am not really arguing since people will always have different criteria on how to rate/grade coaches. It is very difficult since it is not the coach per se who does the playing; the players do. But let's not pretend that what Lendl has done is not special; it freaking is.