Coaching

Questions I'd like to pose:

What, if any, is the causal relationship between coaching during games and an athlete’s individual improvement in his or her sport?

What is the relationship between over-coaching and a team’s success in a sporting event?

Some quick thoughts on the issue:

In the sports environment, there are many people that keep a sport alive and entertaining – the players, the coaches, spectators, and referees. Let’s analyze just two of these roles – the players and the coaches. What is the relationship between these two people? We first must examine the role of the coach. The coach’s role in an athlete’s life is debatable. It could be perhaps to teach, encourage, or lead. A player could take on information from the coach and use it to better or worsen an individual or team’s performance. It is up to the athlete to decide what to do with the coach’s advice. However, it is the coach who determines what advice should be given. There are also different places a coach fulfills his duty - at practice, during a game, or outside of anything related to the sport. Practices usually help athletes prepare for their games. Practices are a time for questions, to make mistakes, and receive instruction from a coach. Games are a time for athletes to demonstrate what they have learned in practice. This is not the time for coaches to instruct the athletes what to do. Rather, coaches should sit back and observe the fruit of their efforts in practice in order to further overall team and individual performance. If athletes are being instructed how to play throughout the game, it is more of a robotic movement of the coach’s desires rather than a test of what the players have learned. In addition, coaches do not see the game from the same physical perspective as athletes. A player may see a better option for a play than the coach sees. Hearing instruction from a coach would make it harder for the player to make his or her own decision and may cause panic. Thus a player’s self confidence decreases and he or she becomes dependent on the coach’s instruction. When athletes switch coaches, they will not know how to play the sport for themselves. Coaches’ instruction during games may lead to immediate success for a few games, but in the long run, an athlete’s ability to play a sport is hindered by this instruction. The sports that apply here are usually fast paced sports such as football, soccer, basketball, or hockey. Half times and time-outs are a time for coaches to give advice for style of play. During these breaks, players can focus solely on this instruction, and they can decide to use this information or disregard it. Ultimately, it is the player’s decision because the athletes are the people playing the game. In professional and college basketball, it is common to see the coach pacing by the bench shouting at the players on the court, telling them what play to run. Imagine the difference in a game where coaches were not allowed to speak to their players. A spectator would really be able to tell which players know how to play the game and which players are dependent on their coach's instruction. The game would probably be more entertaining to watch as well, because the players could be more creative and think for themselves. What if NFL coaches didn't have headsets during a game? During each play, the athletes would be forced to make the call. Is this the way it should be or should coaches be just as much a part of the game as players are?