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?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I had a little change of plans and now this blog will be discussing the issue of over-coaching during sporting events and its effects on athletes.
3 comments:
The art of coaching is a hard task to master. It is a hard to choose when to step in a "coach" an athlete or allow that athlete to make his own decisions. I agree that during practices a coach's job is to train a player to be able to compete at his highest level during a game. Also, by allowing the athlete make his own choices during a game, it does strengthen the character of the athlete. A player must rely on his own instincts and the skills he has learned during practice. However, a coach is not always there to coach, to tell the athlete exactly how they should play their game. Often times coaches provide moral support during a game. They are on the sidelines to encourage the athlete. Although I agree that you may not need a coach to actually "coach" during a basketball or football game, what about other sports? Athletes that compete in sports such as track or cross country oftentimes need some coaching during their event. They sometimes need the perspective of an outsider. For example, a pole vaulter needs the assistance of a coach to help find the athlete's steps on the runway and if or when they need to adjust them during the actual jump. In this case, the athlete can not see the mistakes they are making so they need another set of eyes dictate the problem. Once the problem is established, the athlete can then choose to make his own decisions based on his training to further improve his performance. Therefore, the involvement of a coach often depends on the sport.
The first thing i think you need to address is to define what "game" implies. I agree that today in virtually all sports it has come to include the actions of the coach. The coach is the 6th man. Your stance on this i disagree with. I agree with you that the coach's actions most definitely do alter the style of play but perhaps its for the better? You explored the possibility that the player sees a better play than the coach has instructed them to run, but what about the opposite? The coach in court sports such as football soccer and basketball sometimes has a better view of the court/field as a whole than a player can from inside on the court/field. Do you think that you should be able to count the coach as a 6th, 11th, 12th player? If not, should halftimes/timeouts be a time for self reflection or discussion among the players on how the game is going? Also an athlete's ability is not necessarily hindered by excessive coaching during matches. If a coach calls a play different from that the player would have, and it works successfully has something not been learned. Coaching can be used to associate what a player sees personally from their position on the field with the situation as a whole on the field. This can lead to better decisions by the player. Also coaches don't get to be coaches of competitive programs by being ignorant. A coach has the wisdom that players sometimes lack. I had a soccer coach at the highly developmental level of middle school soccer who had a unique style. During games and such he would comment but his comments were sparse and clear. For example a few of his remarks were "Who To?!" , or "Touch. The. Ball!." A coaches style like this lets a player know what to do better, but leaves them to learn why these are the right things to do on their own.
On the other hand Ms. Runner brings up a good point. What about individual sports? I will be interested to hear your take on these. In competitive running coaches know their runners very well, almost better then some of them know their selves. Is it wrong or does it distract form the sport when a coach remarks for a runner to keep their form, or to let them know how many spots the team needs them to gain? I myself am a runner so I'm inherently bias. The boost when you come around the third lap of a mile dead tired and sucking wind and the coach yells at the top of their lungs what split you need to run the last lap in to perhaps run a certain time, is like none other. In this instance the coach is not exactly "coaching" the athlete, but rather providing the athlete with a standard or reminder of what to achieve. You feel accountable, especially because the coach knows to a huge extent how fast you are capable of running that last lap. Sorry for the anecdotes. Where do you draw the line between acceptable coaching and unacceptable coaching?
I agree with the you, ncrunner, that a coach's involvment varies based on the sport. There are different types of sports, fast-paced and continous like soccer, volleyball, football, etc. And there are sports such as golf where there is ample amount of time to make decisions. When I was writing about coaches giving instruction during games, I was mainly referring to the fast-paced sports where the decision-making process must be very quick. Honestly I don't know much about the events that go on at a track meet. As you mention the role of a pole vaulter's coach, it reminds me of the coach's role in baseball when the runner is deciding to run or stay on the base. Just as the pole vaulter can't see his own mistakes, the baseball runner may not be able to tell where the baseball is at the time. Nearly all Major League Baseball teams use this coach as another set of eyes, too. Should teams rely on these coaches or should they learn for themselves through practice and aid before the game situation how to make these decisions? If the coach makes the wrong call, it could cost them the baseball game if the base runner starts heading for homeplate and gets tagged out. Should the coach have this much of an impact in a game/meet? It's generally accepted by society already but is this how it should be?
Post a Comment