Whilst watching a video during the week 5’s
lecture, Keith raised the question to whether you need to be a good athlete to
become a good coach.
This is a question that for me had a lot to
it and it my opinion is best answered by examples.
Some of the best coaches in many sports
have not been convincing at the top level for example Wayne Bennett in rugby
league, Mick Malthouse in AFL and John Buchanan in cricket and these three
coaches have gone on to be 3 of the most successful in their sports.
On the other hand a coach I have often
admired is Ric Charlesworth, who reached the pinnacle in two different sports
(cricket and hockey) and has gone on to be the most successful Australian
hockey coach in both male and female teams.
When comparing these four coaches, it is
obvious that their coaching philosophy is similar and after reading Aidan Brown's blog it is obvious they are cooperative coaches (aka the teachers) who
break the down the sport, but focus on key components or their given sport and
are always motivating their athletes to strive for perfection.
This question also makes it worth noting parent-
sibling relationships in sport. As parents are often going to have a huge
influence on their siblings sporting careers. This is very common in
individual sports such as tennis where often coaches are close relatives to the
players for example Rafael Nadal and his Uncle Miqual who was not a successful
tennis player. On the otherhand there is
some parents and relatives who prefer to observe or play little role in they’re
relatives sporting careers such as Gary Ablett who has had no influence over
his sons footballing careers.
Although I’m sitting on the fence to this
question I think I have identified that you don’t have to necessary be an
successful athlete to become an successful coach.
But after having my say I would like to
know yours!!!
Hi Trent,
ReplyDeleteYou actually beat me to discussing this topic for my blog, so I really enjoyed reading it. I think that there are advantages to both types of coaches. The retired athlete has a unique understand of the stress, and pressure that can be placed on their athletes and also their own personal experiences from potentially having played under a number of different coaches. This can sometimes allow them to develop slightly different athlete-coach relationships with their athletes, particularly if they are dealing with athletes that they competed with or against. Is there an automatic respect in place for an retired athlete coach (particularly if they were successful) or is it more of a friendship? It would be hard to say if this is a good thing or not though as I can imagine it would depend on the coach and how they conduct themselves. It would definitely be an area that would be interesting to look into more deeply to see from personal experience what the coaches have found.
I am looking forward to reading what other's think.
Once again another great post!!!
Sarah
Trent
ReplyDeleteThanks for the alert to this post. Like Sarah I really enjoyed reading it. I think that what is required of a coach is that he or she has a big picture of the sport. My concern has been that sometimes (often?) people who appoint coaches get caught up with experience rather than big picture. My hope is that coaches who can observe and decide what and how to share can be recognised as powerful educators.
Best wishes
Keith
I think its all a question of degree. To coach elite players you have to have an indepth knowledge of the tactics that players need to master; you don't need to master them as a player to be able to coach them.
ReplyDeleteAt the other end of the spectrum working with talented young players (U14s and U16s) you're going to have to have enough skill to spot when they're making technical errors and coach them how to correct them; at this level you need to be a competant player if you're going to get these young players mastering advanced techniques