Thursday, February 16, 2006
Coaching styles
Now I come to a series of coaching-related thoughts.
If you’ve read the last few posts, you probably get the feeling that I’m both long winded and analytical. This happens to be true. I’ve also been described as somewhat blunt – I’m quite willing to tell someone exactly what they did wrong and how they can do it differently. I know that these are my strengths as a coach – my ability to analyze play and suggest specific improvements. I’m a good “X’s and O’s” guy; this is who I am.
On the other hand, I am decidedly NOT a great inspiration/motivation coach. I know this; this is who I am. I am perhaps comfortable with this limitation to a fault. That is, as a coach I play to my strengths and avoid my weaknesses. I don’t spend a lot of time doing motivation stuff because I know this is not my thing. Here’s the thing – some players need that different sort of coach, and I have a hard time being that guy. You could make the argument that I should try to play against type a bit more, spend more time trying to motivate players 1-on-1 as oppose to just giving them tips 1-on-1, et cetera.
While almost all of the players on the Purdue women’s team last year improved from the perspective of working within the new offensive and defensive systems I put in place, two or three players stand out as having improved dramatically on an individual level. The common thread between these players is that they are all great academic performers, and very level-headed, rational people. These are the players for whom my usual long-winded explanations were not sufficient, and they would ask more questions after I was done. (One of my favorite pictures from the season is a picture of the team during a half-time at regionals, where I’m talking and every visible player is looking somewhere else, except two of these players. I would guess that one or two other players might have been looking at me, but you can’t tell. To me, this picture is hilarious.)
The point is, while I think I was an effective coach overall, I was most effective in helping people who were naturally inclined to respond to my somewhat pedagogic style. This is unsurprising, and I can’t say I really do anything special to fight it.
So what does all this mean? I’m not really sure. Should teams have more than one coach/leader when it is needed to cover for a certain coach’s stylistic shortcomings? It’s possible, I guess. To a degree, this can just garble the message. Moreover, it’s not like there’s only one sort of motivation. Catt Wilson (CU Mamabird) and Michael Baccarini (Paideia) are both very good motivators, but their means of motivation could not be more different. There are an enormous number of variables involved in this.
If you’ve read the last few posts, you probably get the feeling that I’m both long winded and analytical. This happens to be true. I’ve also been described as somewhat blunt – I’m quite willing to tell someone exactly what they did wrong and how they can do it differently. I know that these are my strengths as a coach – my ability to analyze play and suggest specific improvements. I’m a good “X’s and O’s” guy; this is who I am.
On the other hand, I am decidedly NOT a great inspiration/motivation coach. I know this; this is who I am. I am perhaps comfortable with this limitation to a fault. That is, as a coach I play to my strengths and avoid my weaknesses. I don’t spend a lot of time doing motivation stuff because I know this is not my thing. Here’s the thing – some players need that different sort of coach, and I have a hard time being that guy. You could make the argument that I should try to play against type a bit more, spend more time trying to motivate players 1-on-1 as oppose to just giving them tips 1-on-1, et cetera.
While almost all of the players on the Purdue women’s team last year improved from the perspective of working within the new offensive and defensive systems I put in place, two or three players stand out as having improved dramatically on an individual level. The common thread between these players is that they are all great academic performers, and very level-headed, rational people. These are the players for whom my usual long-winded explanations were not sufficient, and they would ask more questions after I was done. (One of my favorite pictures from the season is a picture of the team during a half-time at regionals, where I’m talking and every visible player is looking somewhere else, except two of these players. I would guess that one or two other players might have been looking at me, but you can’t tell. To me, this picture is hilarious.)
The point is, while I think I was an effective coach overall, I was most effective in helping people who were naturally inclined to respond to my somewhat pedagogic style. This is unsurprising, and I can’t say I really do anything special to fight it.
So what does all this mean? I’m not really sure. Should teams have more than one coach/leader when it is needed to cover for a certain coach’s stylistic shortcomings? It’s possible, I guess. To a degree, this can just garble the message. Moreover, it’s not like there’s only one sort of motivation. Catt Wilson (CU Mamabird) and Michael Baccarini (Paideia) are both very good motivators, but their means of motivation could not be more different. There are an enormous number of variables involved in this.
# posted by Tarr : 2/16/2006 01:45:00 PM
Comments:
<< Home
You sound like Wicks, whose motivational speeches are usually just a little too rehearsed-sounding.
The obvious solution is for one of the captains to be the motivator.
The obvious solution is for one of the captains to be the motivator.
Jim, while the other captain had the same goals and the same strategy in mind, he felt a slight dichotomy in the coaching and decided to step down to give the focus totally over to Eric.
The team has a major problem with "one voice" so this should help a bit.
The team also contradicts itself by not wanting to listen to the frustrated, "jerk" captains, but yet still expects them to be the sole motivators, peace keepers, and everything else a paid coach should be.
The coach has the advantage of at least an obligatory cooperation from the team. The same performance expectations are held up to the player/coach/friend, but the cooperation is given sparingly. This perpetuates the frustration and in turn, the jerk factor.
We had originally relied on the help of other high ranking, well respected players to boost the motivation, but that comes in spurts at best.
The team has a major problem with "one voice" so this should help a bit.
The team also contradicts itself by not wanting to listen to the frustrated, "jerk" captains, but yet still expects them to be the sole motivators, peace keepers, and everything else a paid coach should be.
The coach has the advantage of at least an obligatory cooperation from the team. The same performance expectations are held up to the player/coach/friend, but the cooperation is given sparingly. This perpetuates the frustration and in turn, the jerk factor.
We had originally relied on the help of other high ranking, well respected players to boost the motivation, but that comes in spurts at best.
Jim, that would of course be the best solution. And I thought some of the leadership last year was reasonably good at motivation - definitely better than me when it came to reaching certain people. I would lean on them to help me salvage the situation when I inadvertently pissed somebody off.
But in the abstract, there's always the problem, what if I think the captain's motivational style sucks, or if they just don't understand how to reach a certain player? And like Hunt implies, the more people you have in "leadership" the greater the risk of the message being garbled.
The best solution is just to get better at reaching people, of course. I suppose I learned a lot by coaching a bunch of college girls last year. It's just a very different situation - at times I felt like I was walking on eggshells. I remember the worst day I had as a coach - day 1 of sectionals - I lost control of one of my most personally loyal players, I was getting in arguments about playing time... and all of this while we were winning every game! I remember after we had completed the day, I had this monumental sense of relief when I went over to the men's field. I felt like (in comparison to the rest of the day) I could say anything, be as much of an asshole as I wanted to be, and nobody cared at all.
To me, a great motivational speech is, "This is it folks, this is why we work so hard. Leave everything out there." That's pretty much all I need. I guess the point is, a great coach needs to understand what other people need to hear, as well.
But in the abstract, there's always the problem, what if I think the captain's motivational style sucks, or if they just don't understand how to reach a certain player? And like Hunt implies, the more people you have in "leadership" the greater the risk of the message being garbled.
The best solution is just to get better at reaching people, of course. I suppose I learned a lot by coaching a bunch of college girls last year. It's just a very different situation - at times I felt like I was walking on eggshells. I remember the worst day I had as a coach - day 1 of sectionals - I lost control of one of my most personally loyal players, I was getting in arguments about playing time... and all of this while we were winning every game! I remember after we had completed the day, I had this monumental sense of relief when I went over to the men's field. I felt like (in comparison to the rest of the day) I could say anything, be as much of an asshole as I wanted to be, and nobody cared at all.
To me, a great motivational speech is, "This is it folks, this is why we work so hard. Leave everything out there." That's pretty much all I need. I guess the point is, a great coach needs to understand what other people need to hear, as well.
An ultimate coach should be overwhelmed by the responsibilities, even with an assistant and some powerful captains. Look at the jobs that he has to do: instruction, mentoring, strategy, tactics, sub-calling, motivation, ref-baiting, practice planning, etc. How can one person (or three, even) do all this? He can't.
Along this line, a team who is looking for a coach should figure out which of the above are most important to them, and structure their interview process around it (or, if there is only one candidate, tell the coach what it is they're looking for rather than just "coaching us").
Post a Comment
Along this line, a team who is looking for a coach should figure out which of the above are most important to them, and structure their interview process around it (or, if there is only one candidate, tell the coach what it is they're looking for rather than just "coaching us").
<< Home
