Just reading David Harris' book The Genius about how Bill Walshs' coaching philosophy evolved. Football and hockey seem to have many of the same types in their coaching ranks as both sports require an equal amount of skill and toughness to be successful. Interesting insights about coach Walsh's move from the in your face approach to a more humanistic tact.
When he began his coaching career, "there was this religion of toughness in coaching circles those days and all coaches were trying to be like marine drill sergeants and scare people into playing well. I got caught up in that for a while but I concluded it didn't come close to working. It was kind of a mass delusion."
"All the coaches thought the players loved them, despite how badly they treated them, and all the players were doing were putting up with the coach so they could play football. Instead of loving and revering the coach, they couldn't stand him and were disgusted with him but they wanted to play football. They wanted the fellowship, they wanted the association, they wanted the excitement, and only put up with the bullying because they had to. Most played football in spite of the coach."
"By the time I left Cal I had decided that if you taught people to play the game better, that was real coaching -- being a teacher rather than a thug".
Unfortunately, there are still coaches that believe that they need to threaten players to improve performance. Interesting, that you never seem to see this at the professional levels. There are probably 2 reasons for this. #1 The players would not allow it. and/or #2 The coaches realize that convincing players to take personal responsibility for success is the surest route to making it a reality.
Far too many coaches are convinced that it's "their team" but in reality, it's not. If they were to come around to the understanding that it's the player's team, that they are there to facilitate a structure and discipline for the team to function well as a group, their experience and the teams would be greatly enhanced. Once a coach makes this transition his approach to working with his players becomes much more of a conversation than a lecture. Lectures do have their place and players will still need to read the riot act from time to time. But if this is the norm, rather than the rarity, players soon learn to tune out the coach's messages and view the coach as someone addressing his own needs before the teams.
What are your thoughts on Coach Walsh's approach?
No comments:
Post a Comment