To achieve point 2, you will often hear coaches blame the team's 'fitness' for poor performance. This technique is so entrenched that you will commonly hear lay people make the same statement - 'They are not fit enough'.

Teams and athletes don't lose simply because of their physical preparation. Physical preparation is at most 25% or one of four components of athletic success. When you add culture, equipment, and funding you now have ten components. Physical is one-tenths or 10% of this model. It's a very long bow to suggest that controlling the physical preparation dictates the performance.

All the use of the term 'performance coach' does is play into the hands of those who seek to use the 'new kid on the block' (physical preparation) as the fall guy should one be needed in the event of individual or team failure. Controlling one-tenth of the total athlete preparation gives physical preparation coaches no more rights to claim they are 'performance coaches' than any of those in the coaching and support team who control / influence the other nine components in the 10-part model.

It reinforces the myth that if an individual or team fail to win, it is because they lack appropriate physical preparation.

And no, the flip side is rarely promoted - that when they win it is because of their physical preparation. The same people in the coaching team who seek to shift the blame to the physical preparation coaches in the event of a loss will step up in the event of a win to take credit. Now they seek to be titled 'great coaches'.

This pattern of blame / credit is only outperformed in inaccuracy by the physical preparation coach who controls only one of the four sub-components of physical preparation (e.g. strength training only) - and seeks to take credit for the wins. They control 25% of 10%, or an estimated 2.5% of the generalized preparation.

The only situation I believe a physical preparation coach can even consider calling themselves a 'performance coach' is when they control over 50% of the total athlete preparation. Which means they would have to control technical, tactical, physical and psychological preparation (totaling 40%) - and more - to control over 50% if the total program.

Rarely achieved. I would not need more than one hand to count the number of physical preparation coaches I have encountered in three decades in this industry who meet this criteria.

This also raises the question of how many years back in each athlete's career they had this control

Take the athlete's age minus say 4 years of age, and then divide by 2 - have they been in control for more than half this number? If not it means they haven't controlled the majority of the training process that led to this point.