|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 2, 2009 8:42:28 GMT -6
I didn't want to start a new thread, but I didn't want to hijack the Inner Game of Tennis Thread as I felt that book was a good jump off point, but.... I was originally going to make an assertion about the styles of coaching from an "american" point of view, as compared with a"european" view, though I don't think I could really support that argument. However, most tennis coaches, and illustrated with the authors of this book, share a methodology that may seem out of the ordinary in our culture. My question has more to do with the differences, and more importantly, the rationale behind that contrasting philosophy with player/coach relationship. Whereas, we in the West, traditionally see the player/coach relationship as more of an acceptable dictator heirarchy, where the players follow the coach to the "T" or they are replaced or worse. The relationship dynamic that is seen in "european" (we'll include Western Olympic coaches here) contexts (best illustrated with high caliber Olympic athletes), is one of shared mutual respect working toward the athletic performance of the athlete. My question / curiosity is what can be gleaned from both to better serve our programs? Also, why is one model embraced moreso than the other? It would stand to reason that with non-select (high school athletics) sports, discipline and control have to be valued over relationship, as you really have little to no control over the quality of athletic talent. Therefore, the domineering, controlling 'administrator' of the team is needed to bring order out of physical chaos. The coach is aided by the players to work as a group.  When specialization occurs, naturally peak performance on every contest is desired as there is a concerted effort on the athlete's part to get the best output. It is the athlete aided by the coach for the result of the individual. The relationship is more intimate and more trust-centered.  That being said and understood, can we find ways to embrace a more impassioned responsed from both coaches and players to gravitate towards the trust-centric "Olympic" model? What could it benefit us? Additional readings The Coach - Athlete Partnershiphere is an interesting piece from 'access athletes' blogon coaches controlling team cohesion |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Sept 2, 2009 12:22:15 GMT -6
Is this really a question of American vs. European methods or is really a question of coaching individual vs. team sports? Do American tennis coaches coach differently as a group than European tennis coaches? How do high level European soccer and rugby coaches (as opposed to club or town teams where the organization is much more casual) compare to American football coaches in the U.S.? To European coaches of American football? Maybe our European friends on the board can add some insight.
|
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Sept 2, 2009 12:38:24 GMT -6
Some scattered points/thoughs:
1. I think a really important thing mentioned in your 2nd link is the coaches effort to relate to the players. I don't think we need to listen to their music or have a facebook page or things like that, but I do think we need to make an effort to understand our boys lives to demonstrate that we really are there for them AS PEOPLE, not them as athletes.
2. The piece on cohesion got me thinking, because it really is crucial to sustained success. Fostering cohesion isn't easy, but I'd argue that it's got to be part of our mission as coaches. If we haven't done anything to build team chemistry/cohesion/unity, how can we expect it to develop and how can we expect sustained success?
3. I think having a low athlete:coach ratio makes the 'European' approach more feasible. Such an approach requires more customization and attention to individual athletes. I don't think I could put a perfect ratio down, but I'm thinking that, for an example, a varsity team of 50 with a staff of about 12 coaches would be necessary. Not only that, but 12 well coached, well trained, personable coaches, which is hard to assemble. I can look at the program I'm involved with and say that I think we could pull that together by selecting the best from all 3 levels (frosh, jv, v), but that would leave our frosh and jv squads without any real leadership or particularly talented coaches.
We're always struggling for more qualified, talented, motivated coaches and I think that shortage is part of what makes for our dictatorial style. It's easier to teach an average (read: ok) coach a specific technique execution routine ("head up, butt down, feet shoulder width, step with your outside foot, etc)" that he can regurgitate to the players than it is to teach him how to coax the desired technique from his boys through a battery of drills and movement exercises.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 2, 2009 12:51:14 GMT -6
Is this really a question of American vs. European methods yeah......I dunno. I was wondering about the dynamic of how WE (the west) perceives what a coach should be and what type of relationship he should have. The broad brush generalizations of "West" and "European" was just a matter of semantics. The "european" approach was taken mostly from Olympic training, which is primarily individual performance training. It was essentially a two-part question. 1) Do we in the "west" perceive that a coach must be Gen. Patton / Bear Bryant and dictate everything just because that is what our cultural stimuli tells us? We do it because he did it, because the guy before him did it (that way).....How much of WHY we do it (methodology) is based on necessity, and how much is based on indoctrination? This also begs the question of the teaching profession. As in 90% of America, to coach you need to be a teacher. I'm not quite sure that is the same litmus for European coaches (moreso the Olympic model). Does being an educator, namely a member of the American Education System (and its mentality) persuade / influence our model of "coaching"? (you can control a population / force in the classroom that you could not do in any other real-world environment) 2) The acknowledgement upfront of the contrast between coaching team and individuals is noted. However, can coaches in team sports glean anything from what is so effective with individual coaching dynamics and apply it to the team/group milieu? A large part of this component requires less micro-managing of the unit and more encouragment/persuasion/motivation of the body of athletes (letting them take ownership, with the coach simply providing direction)? Maybe our European friends on the board can add some insight. maybe the most under-appreciated element of this board. Would love their feedback |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 2, 2009 13:05:01 GMT -6
If we haven't done anything to build team chemistry/cohesion/unity, how can we expect it to develop and how can we expect sustained success? I can look at the program I'm involved with and say that I think we could pull that together by selecting the best from all 3 levels (frosh, jv, v), but that would leave our frosh and jv squads without any real leadership or particularly talented coaches. a couple of great points - but these in particular. BUILDING CHEMISTRY: no easier (?) sure-fire way to build chemistry than in the off-season weight room and training. It could take months for all players to gel or mesh.....would it be more advantageous to start in July or in January? RATIO : obviously key and essential (not only for safety, but also sanity). Ratio is needed to manage the team, to make sure it isn't the inmates running the asylum. How small that ratio is, depends largely on the maturity of the population you are leading. Not to hijack my own thread, but this also plays greatly into coachcb's thread on the purpose of S&C, as when you get down to it, the S&C program is the CORE of how you take care of both of these elements. You will grind and develop those athletes, instilling the leadership intimately (with likely a few coaches), the work ethic, and the sacrifice, so by the time THAT GROUP of kids reaches the Fall, the whole "(team) control" factor should actually be on Auto Pilot (the team runs itself, the coaches just gently guide it along at this point). And maybe in a disjointed fashion, this encapsulates why "Olympic" coaching is successful. When you get past the actual (Olympic) S&C, you get down to execution/performance coaching.....the 'grind' is taken care of, the athlete doesn't resent the coach, but sees him as one who is looking out for the athlete's best interests, pointing out the nuances of execution. Those pointers / CP's are appreciated/valued. |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 2, 2009 16:49:48 GMT -6
I'll have more to say on this later (very good topic), but I don't think it's accurate to refer to the "west" when you mean the United States. Europe is generally considered the "west" (or at least western europe is).
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 2, 2009 17:11:23 GMT -6
Touche - and essentially when I say "European" it ultimately stems from a Soviet bloc methodology honed during the Cold War
|
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Sept 2, 2009 19:57:11 GMT -6
Thanks for the links..be careful on the third one my filter picked up a virus when I tried to download it
After the first Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkopf came out with a very interesting book/autobiograpy called "It Doesn't Take a Hero"...(Yea I know..the whole football war thing..) anyway he goes on talking about how you have to treat troops/players individually..he made the point well...you treat a farm boy from Nebraska..different than a city boy from Detriot...different than a kid from suburbia..Are you still the same coach..yea..I think so..some kids need a swift kick..others need an arm around the shoulder..all benefit from discipline
|
|
|
|
Post by poweriguy on Sept 2, 2009 22:51:54 GMT -6
It would stand to reason that with non-select (high school athletics) sports, discipline and control have to be valued over relationship, as you really have little to no control over the quality of athletic talent. Therefore, the domineering, controlling 'administrator' of the team is needed to bring order out of physical chaos. The coach is aided by the players to work as a group.
If you look at our(US) model, athletics is very much intertwined with the school system. whereas mostly in Europe, athletics and the schools are separate. Last year we had an exchange student from Germany, and he was telling us that the schools had no sports teams. If you wanted to participate in sports, you had to join a club team. So I would think that club coaches couldn't be the "domineering, controlling 'administrator' of the team" in that they would run off or lose players to other clubs. If you loved the game and were willing to pay and make time outside of school to join say a soccer club, would you put up with a dictator type of coach? Also i believe that the top level athletes are identified at very early ages. Major club teams like Ajax and Man United , and national sport federations put these kids in youth academies. All the coaches in those situations do is coach. They don't have to teach 6 periods of math, grade papers rake grass off the track, then go out and focus on 30+ kids who have been though 7 periods of classes they don't want to be in. Coaches focus on kids who know they are there to learn the sport they are in. It really is the ultimate in specialization. The kid is going to bust his arse to stay in that academy because he knows that there is some other kid willing to kill to have his spot. And no way does he want to go back to where he came from. So I imagine the academy coaches are more focused on improving technique and strategy, then making sure little Johny isn't screwing up in social studies. They have kids willing to do what it takes to be successful. Nothing is "owed" to them, unlike alot of american kids who play sports. Also the kids who are not in those elite academies, play club sports. And club ball over there isn't really much different than club ball here. Just the club has no competition from the schools. No HFHS, no NCAA, no Ed codes, no teachers union, none of that stuff. Maybe the coaches over there have more freedom than american coaches. With less laws and regulations, they don't have to be such tyrants. I don't know. Well that's just some of my ramblings. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 3, 2009 7:39:51 GMT -6
I suppose those links best articulated what I was getting at; Carl R. Rogers explained that a helping relationship involves an ability or desire to understand the other person¡¯s meaning and feelings, an interest without being overly emotionally involved, and a strong and growing mutual liking, trust and respect between the two people.
Helping relationships are optimally effective relationships, in that they facilitate selfactualisation (i.e. ¡®to be the best you can be¡¯). [/size][/blockquote] ¡ñ Closeness describes the emotional tone of the
relationship and reflects the degree to which
the coach and the athlete are connected or the
depth of their emotional attachment. Coaches
and athletes¡¯ expressions of like, trust, respect
and appreciation indicate a positive
interpersonal and affective relationship.
¡ñ Commitment reflects coaches and athletes¡¯
intention or desire to maintain their athletic
partnership over time; it is viewed as a cognitive
representation of connection between the
coach and the athlete.
¡ñ Complementarity defines the interaction
between the coach and the athlete that is
perceived as cooperative and effective.
Complementarity reflects the affiliation
motivation of interpersonal behaviours and
includes behavioural properties, such as being
responsive, friendly, at ease and willing. - There should be mutual respect among members.
- There should be effective two-way communication that is clear and direct.
- There also needs to be a feeling of importance among the team. You should do your best to make each member feel like they are a part of the team and contribute something important.
- Having continuity in practices, and in every part of the team, can contribute to the cohesiveness of the group.
[/size] [/li][/ul] an even better write-up, bryanrothamel.com/academic/athletic-administration/playercoach-relationships/It is a serious problem when athletes are thinking they need to change their character traits in order to gain favor of a coach. It creates a major hegemony figure in athletes’ lives.
Player-coach relationships should be fostered and nurtured to find the best outcome for the player.
|
|
|
|
Post by julien on Sept 4, 2009 7:09:55 GMT -6
Thanks Brophy for bringing that topic on. As some of you know, I'm a French Coach. First of all and as POWERIGUY said athletics and the schools are separate in Europe. "Schools had no sports teams. If you wanted to participate in sports, you had to join a club team". So Coaches aren't teachers most of the time (I'm journalist). So players have to pay in order to play. Money change player/coach relationship a little. You don't want a guy to yell at you when you pay 249$ per year to play and another 427$ to buy your gear... This is what my team charge as an amateur football team. That said - no matter the game, no matter the level of play - there are tyranic type of coaches and more trust oriented ones in France as everywhere I guess. As a French speaking of France sports history, I can't remember a dictator coach with success over the years. If you've been to France or if you speak with other Europeans, you'll see that French are often describe as undisciplined people. We simply do not want guy to yell at us. We have a history of Resistance Fighter. We are still proud to be the only one people to have cut throat of our kings and Queens. Another difference I see is that Coaches are way more respected by the community in US. Here in France nobody cares unless you run a pro rugby or soccer program. Sorry for being that long. Hope you get what I mean.  |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Sept 4, 2009 10:33:49 GMT -6
I don't take on a dictator role; at least not completely. I do try to develop solid relationships with my players; I use as much positive reinforcement as possible on an individual level and really only have confrontations when kids are being lazy. In those situations, I lay it on them; I can coach technique, I can do my best to motivate you, but you have to give the effort. My first speech to my defense is pretty simple; "I've given you the keys to car, I'll do everything I can to teach you how to drive it, but you're the one that has to get behind the wheel, you're the one that has to get your foot on the gas pedal." I do strive to have a good balance and to show them that there is a mutual respect between myself and the players. However, I expect them, straight off of the bat, to respect me as a coach (not a dictator) and as a person. Respecting me as a person is pretty easy; be polite and understanding with me. By respecting me as a coach, I am just asking them to be coachable, give effort and understand that I emphasive hard work over athletic ability. But, respect is a two way street; I don't yell at players, I don't berate them, because I don't feel that's respecting them as a player or as a person. I have an open door policy; they can come and talk to me about anything and everything; from coaching, to school, to their personal lives. I don't want confrontations with my athletes, I want discussions, discussions that lead to understanding and compromise. Here's a good example of what Brophy has brought up; something that I saw last summer. We were at a camp with several other teams, many of the Wing T teams. I was standing on the middle of the field, one Wing T offense to my right, another to my left; both going into the end zone. Both teams have the same situation at different points; a pulling guard getting caught up in the backfield, because of penetration and what not. One OL coach walks up the pulliung guard, keeps his tone at a normal level and coaches him up; take a deeper pull step, "run the circle", and then pats him on the back and sends him back in. He then coaches the center, who tripped up the guard, pats him on the back and sends him back in. The other OL coach comes unglued and storms over to the player. "Coach, I tripped over the tackle, I'm sorry." His response: "ATHLETES DON'T TRIP!" He walks away, the kid plays just as bad, if not worse through out the rest of the day and nothing was gained from the situation. Can you guess which team we played in the state championship and which team we beat by 30+? And, to be honest, I saw the whole thing go down, so I did pick on that guard a little bit when I called defensive schemes against them. |
|
Fridge
Sophomore Member
Re-Building the Bocholt Rhinos (18+) in Germany for 2024.
Posts: 148 
|
Post by Fridge on Sept 10, 2009 5:11:21 GMT -6
Great thread, I think, and a good analysis between US and European sports culture.
I think Julien pointed it right. Here in Germany my players (14-19yrs youth team) have to pay $750 a year (including money for our 7-day training camp). Your equipment costs you appr. $500, if you don´t want higher standard helmets or pads, though ours are quit good.
We are settled in an area, where you have 2-3 clubs in a 25mile-belt. Mostly parents are not willed, to drive their kids to practice. Here you may get a driving licence with 18, so they only have to travel by bus or train, but if you want to go to another town, it could last some time.
Next thing is, WHEN you practice. We start practice at 6:30PM. It´ll end at 8:45PM. And we still have some issues with our players, because they arrive from school at 5:15PM and have to leave at 5:30PM to be in time. They come home at 10:30PM, and then have to do their homework.
Terrible situation for sports. But they do everything they can, to attend practice. They and their parents pay a lot of money to play that sport. Because we have clubs, there is no chance of doing a "football season", and a "hockey season" and whatever there is. If we stop practicing football for 4 weeks, we´d loose players. But because of this, you practice 10months, to have a 2 month season with 6 games. Having additional pre- and postseason games, you´ll have 8-10 games. That´s what they do it for.
I, as a coach, have to honor them respect, that they do that. I don´t allow them to do what they want, but I cannot be harsh on them all the time.
We do yell, we do shout, we do let them know, if they {censored} up something. But we need to find a very small path between "we need them" and "they have to show, that they want it."
Fact is, I had 26 guys starting our first season with a completely new team. After our 7-game season, I only had 18. 8 guys quit, because they did not attend practice regularly, and so they were benched during our games. So they left, and headed to clubs with less players which need players, and where you can play, even if you only attend 50% of the practices.
I don´t want such guys on my team, and will never ever let them play. But if we fall under 18 active players, the league will forfeit all our games and pull us out of the league, and now you have to find a way, to deal with that.
I prefer talking to my players a lot in private. We meet, we phone, we chat via Internet... You CAN disappoint a coach, but you will not disappoint a friend. With that approach, at least our 18 guys have a great relationship and there is some heavy team spirit. Every new guy is informed by the players about what happened to the team during the season, and that they don´t want players without attitude.
We´re up to 30 now, so I guess, we found the right way.
Sorry for the long post an my rumbling language. Still at work and trying to multitask^^.
|
|
|
|
Post by bouncingboredom on Mar 31, 2010 15:49:26 GMT -6
This seems as good a time as any to step in and contribute.....
Here in the UK, with the universities, the money is provided by the University but all us coaches are from outside the system (I'm in the security industry for example). We have to pay for our own qualifications and membership to a coaches association and the players have to pay their fees as well (hiring pitches for example) so a dictatorship model simply wouldn't work.
That's not to say there isn't room for order and discipline, it just has to be based on respect and for the benefit of the team at large.
|
|
