People often dismiss philosophical disputes or differences of opinion as mere quibbles about words. But shifts in terminology used can turn the tide in perception of many different discussions that take place every day. People get caught up in in heated discussions about topics often based on a perception they have or partial information which distorts reality.
Such is the case with the perceptions of student-athletes. The notion of the student-athlete playing university sport and being at the highest echelon of non-professional sport is really unique to North America. It really isn't the case any where else in the world and for most sports, elite athletic development does not take place via academic institutions but from national training centers, academies or professional clubs. There are also very different realities faced by student-athletes on both sides of the border within the NCAA, NIAI and here in Canada USport. Many people have broad stroke general perceptions about student-athletes, about what being one means, about all the benefits they get, all the corners that get cut for them etc. Is this truth or is it a myth? Well .................. In the US especially think about the frenzy that takes place during football bowl season or during basketball's March Madness. We see it here in Canada on a smaller scale where only during playoff time do we get a wider exposure for university sport. During big time competition, we will hear people refer to these student-athletes. But is this term accurate? Or should we perhaps leave it behind for a more honest and precise name? The term “student-athletes” implies that all enrolled students who play college sports are engaged in secondary (“extra-curricular”) activities that enhance their education. Their status, the term suggests, is essentially the same as members of the debate many coaches including myself. puts it, “Student-athletes must, therefore, be students first.” There are, of course, many cases of athletes who are primarily students, particularly in “minor” (i.e., non-revenue producing) sports. But what about NCAA Division I football and men’s basketball, the big-time programs with revenues in the tens of millions of dollars that are a major source of their schools’ national reputation? Are the members of these teams typically students first? Especially now that NCAA basketball has the one and done rule where student-athletes play 1 year then are eligible to move on into the pro draft. Knowing they are moving on after a year, are they really taking the studies seriously? Many studies, both formal and informal have shown that by a wide variety of measures the answer is no. For example, football and men’s basketball players (who are my primary focus here) identify themselves more strongly as athletes than as students, gave more weight in choosing their college to athletics than to academics, and, at least in season, spend more time on athletics than on their studies (and a large majority say they spend as much or more time on sports during the off-season). The same priority is reflected in many colleges’ own practices. Football and men’s basketball players are admitted and given full scholarships almost entirely because of their athletic abilities. Academic criteria for their admission are far below those for other students (for example, their average SAT scores can be pro-rated down to allow for the fact that they perceived to be spending time in their sport so somehow it is ok that they have lower scores.) In Canada, there is anecdotal evidence that some schools will "add" a few percentage points to a students overall academic average for the process of admissions assesement to improve their chances of acceptance in a program. Realistically, given the amount of time most such athletes devote to their sports, they would have to be academically superior to the average student to do as well in their classes. As a result, the graduation rate for student-athletes has been consistently be shown to be lower than for the general student. This is usually for various reasons. Student-athletes might take the minimum amount of classes in order to participate in sport and once their eligibility is used up, they leave the school or simply university sport is used a springboard for athletes into the pros and they just leave before graduation. Even these numbers understate the situation, since colleges provide under qualified athletes with advisers who point them toward easier courses and majors and offer extraordinary amounts of academic coaching and tutoring, primarily designed to keep athletes eligible to play. Now, this is not the situation for all student-athletes everywhere across North America, and in fact, it is probably a small percentage of all student-athletes, but most will get tainted by this perception. The idea of the so-called dumb jock. It’s clear, there is number of student-athletes who are in reality athletes first and students second, both from their own standpoint and from that of their schools. However, the significant majority move on from the athletic careers once done, with a degree in hand and ready to enter the work force. Of course, many supporters of university athletics see no problem here. They think that athletics provides great entertainment, develops loyalty to schools, and has itself an important educational role for team members — not to mention the millions of dollars it brings in. So what’s the harm if high-profile players are more athletes than students? However, if we were to look at all the universities and colleges across North America, how many really generate these millions in revenue. At a minimum, there’s the harm of saying that players are primarily students when they are not. This is a falsehood institutionalized for the benefit of a profit-making system, and educational institutions should have no part in it. The deeper harm, however, lies in the fact that, in the North America there is a strong strain of anti-intellectualism that undervalues intellectual culture and overvalues athletics. As a result, intellectual culture receives far less support than it should. Money is poured into sport but cultural activities, the arts, music programs, quality educational initiatives don't always get a fair a share of the pie. When universities the main centers of intellectual culture and higher education, lower standards of academic excellence in order to increase standards of athletic excellence, they move away from their primary vocation which is to educate young adults. It is often said that the money brought in by athletics supports educational programs. But the large majority of schools lose money on athletics, and the fact that some depend on sports income confirms, in monetary terms, the perceived superiority of athletics. To show proper respect for and support of what should be their primary mission, universities need to ensure that their athletes truly are students first of all. To do this they could look no further than their standard practice regarding nonathletic extracurricular activities. They could take account of athletic potential in the admission process the same way they do potential for debate, theater, student government or service projects. All admitted students would have to fall within the same range of academic ability, with exceptionally talented athletes meeting the same standards as applicants with exceptional talents in other areas. Such a move should be obvious for the many schools that lose large amounts of money on their athletic programs and have relatively little success with them. (I don’t, however, underestimate the pressures to continue even such disastrous programs.) But there’s little practical point to suggesting this move to universities that make large amounts of money from athletics and strongly identify themselves with winning at the highest level. Still, it’s hard to see how even these schools can maintain the myth that their revenue-producing players are primarily students, particularly as the moral case grows stronger for paying the athletes who are central to the tens of millions of dollars some teams bring in each year. But there is a way that profit-making athletic powerhouses could avoid the hypocrisy of the student-athlete. The counter argument to this is always that the student-athletes are benefiting from a high quality free education thanks to scholarships. However, once again, this is a false statement that while true for a small percentage of the student-athlete population does not apply to a majority. So is there a possible alternate solution? Well how about maybe, admit athletes who fall far short of their regular academic criteria as “associate students” (or maybe even “athlete-students”), who take just two or three courses a term as required for participation in sport and are not expected to receive a bachelor’s degree after three or four years. They would instead receive an certificate or diploma as currently exists at many universities which would, after four years, put them in a position to gain regular admission to a university where they could complete a bachelor’s degree in two more years. (There would, of course, still be athletes who met standard criteria of admission and so would be expected to earn a regular degree in the normal cycle of study). This would end the bad faith involved in pretending that unqualified students, devoted primarily to playing sports, could truly earn a bachelor’s degree. But it would also give a significant educational purpose to the under-qualified athlete’s four years on campus. Although this is hardly an ideal solution, it’s better than trying to maintain the myth of the student-athlete. But what a magnificent gesture it would be if, say, a school with a legendary and lucrative football program could find the courage to give up the money and the glory for a ringing endorsement of intellectual values. I share my opinions here as both a coach of a varsity team in a Canadian university and as a management professional in the work force who regularly hires employees. I do believe that someone able to complete a degree successfully while playing university sport is a well rounded, very hire-able person who will bring a unique skill set to his or her employment. However, just like university is not for everyone in the general sense, must everyone who plays university sport absolutely need to complete a full bachelors degree? I have seen first hand the effort and commitment that student-athletes require to meet all the demands of their role and I think that the student-athletes I work with and work around are much more indicative of what the majority of student-athletes in North America go through. They should be seen as any less of an accomplished student than the so called regular student but at the same time, we shouldn't how a lower perception of the individual for whom the athlete part of the being a student-athlete is more important. Like many things in society, rather than generalize, we should take things are these are, each being their own reality and knowing that it isn't always black or white, but more often simply lots of gray.
0 Comments
Hello,
I had previously written a blog with a similar title a while back. If you are interested to get some context, you can read the prior post by clicking on this link. i-give-up-i-quit-ok-so-see-you-all-tomorrow.html The main theme of both posts is about coaches dealing with the ups and downs of coaching and the some time knee jerk reaction that some have to think about quitting coaching. Now, we can use the one all encompassing word coaching as if it represents the same to everyone involved as a coach. The reality however is that there are very different and specific situations involved depending what level someone is coaching at and there level of involvement ; youth vs junior vs senior recreational vs competitive vs professional volunteered vs paid part time vs full time coaching club vs school vs pro teams coaching males vs females Each of these and in different combinations makes the notion of quitting, of walking away from a team or athlete to coach elsewhere, or perhaps, give up coaching completely very different. For some it might mean giving up a paid ( well paying ) position to seek employment elsewhere, it might mean making a career change, for others, it might simply mean finding another hobby. In my specific case, I have a paid coaching position on a part time basis. Over the course of a year, I might invest in the area of 800 to 900 hours in coaching on top of a full time job where I spend 40 to 45 hours per week, plus home life. The coaching hours are not evenly spread over the full year, with a significant portion of these being mid August to early November and January to March. The fall season is the worst where for the 3 weeks of preseason it is 6 days a week on the field with a few double sessions and once the season starts , 3 training sessions and 2 games each week. So simply the factor of fatigue will at some point have me thinking about walking away. At the end of each fall season primarily, I will get sick as the body which has been working on adrenaline for a few months let's go. I also, each year, go through the reflection about if I have the energy to do it again. So far, the answer to that question has always been yes. As I have written a few times on prior blogs, truth is that I am much closer to the end of my coaching career than the beginning but for now, I love what I am doing and I can't imagine not coaching. However, every coach goes through moments where they think about quitting and everything that goes with making that decision. So regardless of what level someone coaches at, how might they deal with these thoughts? To QUIT or not to QUIT, that is the question. Is it better to fight to overcome the frustrations and disappointments hoping tomorrow will be a better day, or just walk away and not have to deal with the stress that comes from coaching ? Bring on the clichés! When the going gets tough, the tough get going. The only real failure is in no longer trying, in quitting. Never quit. Never, ever, ever quit! and, of course, my all time favorite. A quitter never wins and a winner never quits! Clichés aside, let's look at a few thoughts I have on the subject which have served me in the past. First off, let's get one thing straight: Quitting is not always quitting. What do I mean by this confusing double speak? Simple! There's a big difference between leaving coaching ( or any job, past time , basically anything you are involved in) at the right time for the right reasons and prematurely giving up for any number of wrong reasons. When you do the former you're being smart, clear thinking, possibly courageous or all of the above. This is not quitting in the true sense of the word. This is not being a quitter regardless of what others around you might say about it. However, when you do the latter and leave too early, you may be acting stupidly self-destructive, taking the easy way out, allowing your frustrations to run the show, robbing yourself of an opportunity to be successful later on down the road or all of the above. The word quitting has such negative connotations attached to it that far too many athletes and coaches go out of their way to avoid it at all costs. They equate quitting with failure and with being a failure. Unfortunately this is an unbelievably shortsighted way of approaching such a complex issue as leaving your sport. So why then to coaches contemplate leaving coaching ? The game or practice isn't going as planned. The team isn't able to stick to a game plan that it has been working on for weeks in preparation of an important game. Your feedback, no matter where it is directed, seems to fall on deaf ears or it feels as if you are suddenly speaking a foreign language and no one understands anything you say. You gradually began to increase the volume of your voice and sprinkle instructions with colorful words and phrases that always seem to creep into even the best of the coaches dialogues at some point. Maybe your think that the increased volume will somehow get the message across better. As the game or practice drags on, the players on the bench gradually inched further and further away from you or maybe the look of total dismay sweeps over everyone's face as you explain how you want a specific drill to work. Soon your assistant coaches have become strangely and uncharacteristically silent. Sound familiar ? I suppose that if you coach long enough, sooner or later you're going to run into one or more of these heart-warming, gratifying kinds of days, even with a good team. Things just don't seem to work out. No matter what you try, your players seem to be playing with two left feet, stone hands and prehistoric reflexes. They are out of step, out of sync and totally out to lunch. Their timing is way off and they can't seem to execute, even if their lives depended upon it. So it is usually at the is moment, or more importantly moments if they happen close together that coaches might tend to question why they put in the time and effort. I've seen coaches really lose their tempers during games or practices, leave the bench and go up into the stands during a game because they couldn't stomach what they were seeing out there on the field. I have had peers tell them they were done with coaching, that they longer had the patience to work with " these spoiled, entitle kids of today who don't care about their team or have any work ethic" and yet still be involved years after. I myself have gone home after a particularly bad loss, telling myself that I was done, that this was my last season. The next day, the sun came up, I was a little rested, and I started planning for the next practice or game. As a coach I don't have to tell you how critical it is for an athlete of yours to never, ever give up. You are probably well aware that persistence in the face of adversity is the secret to success. Those who quit or prematurely turn back from this adversity rarely get to enjoy the thrill of victory. Those who persist, even if of lesser skill or lower talent level than an opponent will ultimately accomplish their goals and emerge on top. So if this is true for the athletes, why should it be any different for coaches? Quitting your team because things are getting frustrating is a sure-fire recipe for failure and teaches your athletes the wrong lessons about persistence and hanging in there. As a matter of fact, tenacity and dogged determination is such a rare and valued commodity that it can't always be taught to athletes. Coaches can talk about the importance of relentless persistence. They can encourage the pursuit of hard work and a never-say-die attitude. They can even model these characteristics in all their interactions with their players. However, this does not guarantee that the athlete will adopt them. Quitting on the other hand can be easily taught. I think it's far simpler to train someone to consistently take the easy way out rather than the more difficult one. The primary method that coaches employ to do this with their athletes is never so much in what they say as in what they do with them on a day-to-day basis. Modeling is by far one of the most powerful teaching tools available. You teach far more in how you are than in what you say. It's the old cliché, I can't hear a word that you're saying because your behavior is speaking too loudly. So before you decide to let your emotions run the ship and sail away in the middle of your team's game or performance, ask yourself the following questions What do I really want my athletes to learn from this intervention/interaction? Is this the best way for me to teach them this lesson? Is this lesson consistent with what I am modeling in my behavior of leaving? I'm not naive. It's not realistic, nor even healthy for you to keep a optimistic attitude and smile on your face at all times. Even the best coaches get angry and frustrated with their athletes from time to time. The key issue here is what do they do with their frustration and anger. If you can't find a way to constructively channel it then you're better off sitting on it and keeping it to yourself. Otherwise you risk making a fool of yourself and losing your team's respect. The very last thing that you want your athletes doing is quitting, so why model for them what you don't want them to do? The issue concerning the lack of female coaches at all levels of sport is nothing new. While some strides have been made in recent years, there are still too many barriers which are standing in the way of females interested in coaching from being able to get involved.
It is often heard from male and female athletes that he or she prefers a male coach. Eighty percent of all coaches top levels of sport are male. Roughly 5% of the coaches of men’s teams and less than half of the coaches of women’s teams are female. In any area of society with sport being no different, when members of one specific group are admitted into fields in which they have, historically, been the victims of restrictive access or discrimination, there are many subtle and overt barriers to achieving equal recognition, compensation and opportunities with members of majority advantaged group(s). In the case of coaching specifically, many will come up with what they feel are plausible explanations and justification as to why it isn't an issue of discrimination but rather that athletes simply feel that they can progress further with male coaches. It’s important to take a careful look at the myths and misconceptions being voiced and, for administrators and decision makers to commit themselves to educating the media, the athletes and the general public about the impact of perpetuating the long standing myths about why female coaches can't succeed in sport. From experience in coaching myself and through discussions with peers ( both female and male) , athletes and people taking an interest in coaching generally, I find that there are a few consistent myths that always seem to come up in discussions. I've highlighted 5 main stereotypical myths about the issue of gender in coaching and try to debunk them, or at least provide my insight into them. Myth #1: Female coaches aren’t winning championships. This proves that male coaches are better. Even in sports when there is a 50-50 ratio of males and female coaches, male coaches are more likely to have the highest paying jobs, the status positions at major institutions and therefore the budgetary, facility, recruiting and staffing resources to maintain their successful and advantaged positions. It is not surprising, when you consider this information, to hear that female coaches are less likely to win national championships than male coaches. Statistically, the odds would predict such an outcome. Myth #2: Women are less intense and as such are not as demanding of their players. They aren’t strong enough. Athletes and others must recognize is that it is one thing to say that “Coach Jane is not an intense or demanding coach” and entirely another thing to say that “Female coaches are less intense and demanding than male coaches.” Attributing broad attributes and characteristics to any large group of people is the root of discrimination and bias. There are those who would say that all stereotypes impart essential truths. If this is really the case, then why is not wrong when all people making general statements such as; - student-athletes are not really good students - female athletes are mostly lesbians - black athletes are more naturally talented than white athletes - the quarterback is always the smartest player on a football team - female coaches can't coach men because it would make the locker room uncomfortable. and so many more. If the above statements are considered insulting, wrong, to general, then why is saying that woman lack the mental make up to coach, not put in the same category. Any statement that imparts a specific characteristic to a group as a whole is false. Stereotypes are the product of ignorance and discriminatory bias. We should all question the understanding, motive and experience of those who falsely generalize individual characteristics to large and diverse groups of people Over time, I learned that it isn't enough just not to agree with or react to comments of this nature but if I really want to impact change I have to confront and correct those who make them. Myth #3: Women turn other women off and don't react well to women in leadership roles. It’s easier to take coaching from a man. This one is not unique to sport. I have heard comments of this nature throughout my working career. The flip side to this was always " a woman has to manage like a man to get anywhere". Even though stereotypes are wrong, our culture still teaches them. Unfortunately, our parents and grandparents who grew up in different eras oftentimes reinforced behaviors and beliefs which position men and women as fulfilling their stereotypical roles (i.e., men are outgoing, confident, strong, competent, aggressive, etc. and women are quiet, subservient, weak, passive, etc.). It is then easy for a young person to grow up believing that men are supposed to instruct women, to tell them what to do and women aren’t expected to play this role. It is extremely difficult for young athletes to recognize and overcome these deep influences. It is an educator’s responsibility to talk about these influences and assist young people in challenging such beliefs. It is also important for young athletes to recognize that there are many styles of coaching and teaching. Some coaches ask that athletes just do what they are told to do. Some coaches never tell athletes what to do; they want athletes to be able to think about why they should make one choice over another. Some coaches yell and are psychologically abusive. Others are quiet and subdued. How a coach gets an athlete to perform to his or her potential varies considerably and varies as within gender as well as between genders. Often coaches will use different methods with different athletes because different personalities respond to different teaching methods. What is important for athletes to understand is that other than teaching methods demonstrating basic respect for the individual, there is no one right way to coach or teach. Another common way for athletes to use stereotypes of various coaching styles inappropriately is to assume that the methodology of one successful coach is the preferred style of coaching. For example if the male coach of a team that wins the national championship yells at his players and practices for five hours a day, then players should assume that to win a national championship requires (a) a male coach, (b) a coach who yells and (c) a team that commits to practicing five hours a day. Experience and common sense should tell us that such assumptions are very wrong. Myth #4: Female athlete and teams prefer male coaches. t’s not unusual to encounter situations where male or female athletes express a preference for male coaches, especially after a well-liked or successful male coach leaves a program. There are several reasons for such statements and beliefs. First, when change happen, the athlete wants the situation returned to the way it was, or as close to what it was as possible. It is not uncommon for athletes in such situations to experience anger and betrayal. It is important for both student-athletes and educational leaders to understand common reactions to change such as fear, anger and discomfort. Likewise, it is important to talk about all of these feelings and their sources. Women and members of minority racial and ethnic groups would never be able to overcome discrimination if making sure people were happy and comfortable was more important than doing the right thing.We also know that research shows that female athletes who have never had a female coach believe that male coaches are better than female coaches. Male and female athletes who have been taught to devalue the athletic abilities of females may really believe that females cannot coach as well as males. There may also be male students who believe their friends and opposing teams will make fun of their female coach. Indeed, because so few females coach men’s teams, this is a different and new situation which makes athletes uncomfortable. Again, choosing to do the right thing should take precedence over making sure a group feels comfortable with a decision. Myth #5: Older female coaches simply don’t have the skills and knowledge to coach highly competitive programs. Today’s female athletes in top notch programs who are now being coached by males may be better qualified to coach in the future. Now you have two stereotypes working in conjunction to try and validate why females can't coach, age and gender. I have two clear examples where this is simply false, Pat Summit of Tennessee and Olga Hrachuck of UQAM here in Montreal. Two long time basketball coaches, the first for women, the second for men. Both highly successful coaches over many years. We must confront any belief that younger means better. It is not right to attribute the characteristic of better to any large class of people. Such beliefs also play into the hiring of young and inexperienced female coaches into lower paying positions because of the absence of a track record of successful coaching. Also, using the above logic, we are still perpetuating the issue of gender in coaching since basically the thought is that women coached by men, might develop into good coaches. However, if women continue to be mostly coached by men, when do we break the cycle. When does it become "normal" to see women coaching. The problem isn't whether women have the skill set to coach, males or females, but rather making sure that the barriers which have traditionally discouraged women from getting into the coaching ranks are removed. The profession must be made more welcome so that not only will women want to get into coaching, but that they are given every change to thrive and more importantly where relevant make an equitable compensation. So next time you hear someone say that not having lots of women in coaching isn't an issue, ask them why they think that. If they use any of the explanations above, challenge them to prove it. When I used to run certification or refresher courses for coaches, the one common topic that almost always came up was the issue of handing parents trying to share their insights under the best of times, or become downright rude and insults at worst. Luckily, my coaching path hasn't put me with teams where the parent issue was a big factor. I have mostly coached players in their late teens or adults, or that the competitive levels where parents perhaps didn't feel the same level of comfort approaching coaches. Even at university however, I have had a few times when a parent would reach out asking about their daughter playing time, or decisions we had made. For the most part, I simply reply that those issues are between myself and the athlete and that I encouraged them ( the parents ) to have their daughters speak to me.
However the coach - parent dynamic is not unknown to me and I have experienced it on occasion, but more importantly I have witnessed out from an objective point of view. As a coach, dealing with parents just comes with the territory. But, handling overzealous parents is never fun. And you know what we’re talking about here. These are the parents who show up at practice demanding to know why their son or daughter isn’t getting more playing time. Or, the ones that come up to you at halftime to let you know the combinations you used during the first half aren’t working, and they had some ideas that might win the game during the second half if you wanted to hear them. You know, those parents.Although dealing with these parents is never going to be our favorite thing, it is something that we have to learn to get better at. The good news is that there are steps you can take to cut down on the number of unpleasant instances during a season. These steps and tips can help you not only retain your authority and credibility as coach, but help improve communication between you, your players, and their parents. And open communication is the most important tool you have when it comes to dealing with parents. When I was a course instructor, I would often get the questions, " How do we deal with over zealous or downright rude parents ?" There really isn't one right answer to this question. So what can you do as a coach ? The exact strategies any coach might use will depend on the age of the players, the type of league the team is in, and the individual's coaching philosophy. For example, a youth team that allows for equal playing time is very different than a select team playing in regional, provincial or national championships where results play a bigger role. Below, I will share some thoughts about how a coach, especially one who is perhaps closer to the start of his or her coaching career, might go about dealing with parents. Over time, every coach who hones their craft develops a manner in which to best deal with parents. It is essential, because, from experience, I will say that any coach who doesn't learn to deal with parents probably won't stay in coaching for very long. However it’s important to realize that as a coach you can’t, and shouldn’t try, to please everyone. It’s vital that you stand up for what you believe in and stay true to the coaching techniques you think work best. After all, you’re the coach, not the parents. For most teams, one strategy that really sets the tone often addresses problems before they even start is to hold a parents' meeting. You can nip a lot of problems in the bud simply by meeting with parents at the start of the season. Get to know them, and spend some time talking about your past coaching experience and how you’re going to manage this season. Make sure you go over what you expect from players, and what kind of practice schedule you’re going to keep. When planning a parents' meeting, some of the topics that you might want to discuss can include the following ;
Again from experience, I can tell you that the biggest point of contention between coach - player and coach-parent has always been and will always be playing time. One teams, where everyone might be the same ( and a significant amount) cost to participate, parents will question why come players play more than others ( or than their kid(s) specifically). Parents and players both need to understand that playing time isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. So make sure this is clearly explained in the pre-season meeting with parents. Lay out exactly how you dole out playing time. Yes, it’s probably going to go to the hardest workers, but what do players really have to do to earn playing time? What do they have to know? Spell it out so that there’s no confusion. If you coach a youth team and playing time is equal, parents need to know that. If not, you’ll get parents that think their kids should be playing more than others (so they can win the game). It’s important to ensure parents understand that your decisions will be based on merit and players who respect team rules. The default excuse many frustrated parents and players will go to is that somehow, your decisions are based on favoritism or that you will reward those kids that somehow, don't give you are hard time, question your decisions or challenge your coaching qualifications / know how. This is very important, and I covered some of the reasons as to why parents may come to this conclusion in a previous blog post coaching-by-fear-never-works.html Emphasize that the lessons you’ll be teaching them over the next few months will not only develop them as players, but as individuals that may help them later on in life. Bringing this up will help them remember that the biggest benefit of the sport isn’t about winning or playing time, it’s about personal development. It’s also important to explain how you feel about things like sportsmanship, honesty, and ethical behavior. These values are important in sports, and parents should know that you’ll be on the lookout for these things in their kids.It’s critically important for parents to understand your philosophy. This will eliminate countless problems down the road. t’s important to explain that if someone has a problem with their lack of playing time, the player, not the parent, should talk with you first. In the real world, people must know how to communicate. And, this is a skill your players have to learn on the team. This should be a rule that you explain during your first parent meeting, put it in your handbook, and remind parents during the year. Parents and players also need to know that you’re going to be treating their kids like young men and women. Many younger players are used to having their parents “take care of things” for them (like calling the coach to get them more playing time!). Again, however, you need to make it clear that players need to speak with you first about any issues they have. If a player feels they deserve more playing time, then they should bring it up with you. Now this might sound like a recipe for disaster, but it’s not. Letting interested parents watch practice time will enable them to see how you run the show, how players behave, how you critique, and how you make decisions about who gets to play and who doesn’t. Most importantly, parents will begin to “buy in” to your philosophy and tactics. As we all know, a big part of coaching is selling. And while you are selling your players on your philosophy, with enough repetitions, the parents will get sold on your philosophies and on you as a coach. Sometimes they just need to get to know you, understand you, and learn about your program. Letting them watch your practices is a great way to do that. If you let them watch, however, make sure they understand that they have to be quiet. You want to know who your biggest fans are? Your players. If they trust you and believe in what you’re doing, then they’re going to defend you against their over-zealous parents. So, make sure your players understand why you’re doing things the way you are. Sell your system to them, and they’ll sell it to their parents. Although it’s important to listen to what parents have to say, it’s also important to stand up for what you’re doing. Remember, you’re the coach. If parents don’t like what you’re doing, then they can put their child in another school system to play under another coach. Sound extreme? Well, sometimes giving parents a dose of reality can help bring them back down to earth. Stay out of the stands during the season. After all, plenty of parents will want to talk with you before or after games. But, is this really where your attention needs to be? Probably not. You need to be focusing on your players, not their parents. If you want to get to know your players’ parents, then summer and fall leagues are the best time to do it since those are generally looser and almost everyone has a chance to play. You should establish a rule that parents are not allowed to speak with you about playing time or any issues on “game day”. Those conversations must be scheduled for another day. Emotions are too high during game time and these issues can be handled much more effectively at a different time. So, make it a rule that you won’t talk with any parents before or after games unless it’s an emergency. And, it’s smart to bring this up in your initial parent meeting, as well. No matter how hard you work to prevent it, there are always going to be the inevitable irate or overzealous parents to handle. It just comes with the territory of being a coach. So how can you handle the big blowouts when they happen? First, listen. Let the parent have their say and don’t interrupt them. When it’s your turn to speak, then explain your point of view slowly and clearly. And, keep your focus on their child. Don’t do comparisons between their child and another player. If the parent starts raising their voice, then resist the urge to match their tone. Keep speaking in a calm voice at normal volume. And, try to keep your comments on the positive end. You can even offer to allow the parent to come to practice so they can see what is actually happening. Besides, how can the parent have an opinion unless they have been to all the practices? At the end of the meeting, make sure you thank the parent for voicing their concerns with you, and let them know you’ll take them under consideration. After the parent has left, ask the person who sat in on the meeting how they thought you did. Was there anything you could have done better or differently? Getting this honest feedback can really help you handle these challenging situations in the future. At the end of the day, it is about communication, consistency and being confident in your abilities and plans. You are the one who stepped up and offered to be the coach. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and complain or second guess, that part is easy, but finding solutions, dealing the the ongoing challenge of being a coach, that is were the real work lies. Be confident, be strong and stick to your convictions, it won't always be easy but overtime, it will get easier. Today's topic is a little more personal since with the upcoming Olympics and all the segments we will be seeing about the various athletes and how sport has affected their lives, it has made me reflect on the role sport has played in my life.
Now obviously, for anyone who regularly reads my blog or might scroll through my twitter posts, I've often shared about how my work in coaching has played a big role in my life, what it has given me, how especially in the last few years, it has given me a voice to advocate for women's sports and women in sports, but sports has had provided me with much more than that. When my brothers and I were younger, our parents or perhaps better said our father, encouraged us ( perhaps pushed isn't even a strong word) to participate pretty much just in soccer. It was the sport he know and loved. While overall in terms of activities or hobbies, they allowed us to try various different things ( collectively, we tried boy scouts, music lessons of various types, art classes, swimming lessons, sailing lessons, and a few others I am surely glossing over) so that we were able to make the decision of what we wanted to focus on. Obviously, we didn't stick with all of them and with each sibling, the interests varied. Like most kids, either you pick your favorites or your parents pick for you. I was fortunate enough to be able to pick what I wanted to do myself. However, while I tried a couple of other sports eventually, soccer was the only real constant up until high school. When I arrived at high school, the soccer team was only for senior students and I didn't have the physical traits to play on any of the other team available to Grade 7s and 8s, football, basketball or volleyball, so somehow, I found myself on the wrestling team. In terms of high school spots, I think in many ways it was the perfect sport in that you found yourself pretty much competing against other athletes of the same age and weight. For me personally, being involved in this individual sport, gave me a great balance against the team dynamic I continued to experience playing soccer with my club team. Competing in wrestling, a sport where it was just me, without the safety net of teammates, taught me so much about discipline, goal setting, training, autonomy, establishing priorities, but maybe most importantly, it was a huge step for me in terms of developing my self esteem and self confidence. Whatever success I achieved, it was due to my efforts and my skills and not a result of being carried by more athletic or talented teammates. As often happens, the more success I experienced, the more confident I became, and in sport that was not as high profile as some of the others at the school, my success actually helped my confidence in among my fellow students. I can look back at my high years and realize that my involvement specifically in wrestling was a huge step in my development as a person. My involvement in athletics as an athlete and a coach has taught me important life lessons that I carry with me every day. I will never forget these life lessons that my sports have taught me. They have made me a better person and shaped me into the person I am today. I am still learning new lessons every day from sports and my team. Sports, in my opinion, consistently make you a better person. I learned about the notion of sportsmanship very early on. It may not be easy, but it is important. It makes you a better person. But what is sportsmanship? When I competed in wrestling, it was about pretty much participating in a form of fighting, trying to impose myself during the match but then at the end or during the handing out of awards, it was about being a gracious winner and a good loser ( if I may brag, just a little , I must say that aside when I got to the national stage, losing didn't happen often). shaking the hands of those I had beaten but also the hands of those who had beaten me. Although we were opponents, we were still involved in a shared experience in which everyone is trying to succeed and that there is always someone better. Good things will come to those who congratulate others on their effort and victories. My parents come to Canada a few days after their wedding with plans and a few belongings. They always had good work ethic, and the drive to do whatever was required to succeed and make a great life for themselves and their family. so with them as role models, I guess it was natural for me develop a certain determination and desire to succeed. Early on, I realized and accepted that whether in soccer or wrestling, or any other sport I might try my hand at, I was not the most naturally talented, so I made the decision that I would strive to work harder than everyone else, become a student of my sport and it permitted me to achieve a certain level of success. Even if you aren’t the most talented person, hard work means more. You must work hard in life in order to achieve your goals and fulfill your dreams. It sounds corny, but hard work does pay off. As an small aside. ironically, the one area where this mindset was not a regular part of my values is school work. School for the most part came easy to me. I guess I possess a great memory when readying, and an ease for problem solving that I was usually able to remain within the top 10% of my class, with a fraction of the study time of my peers. It would drive my parents nuts, they were constantly trying to make me see that if I studied more, imagine how great my marks would be. However, I justified my study habits with the notion that maybe, this was my skill set, to do well in school with less effort, allowing me more time to pursue other interests. Sports has taught me a lot about optimism but also the reality that optimism on the whole, is not always easy. It is very easy to get down on yourself, get mad at your coaches, or say “I can’t.” However, sports teach you that you can’t just throw your hands up in the air and give up. This type of negative attitude is detrimental, and I have learned the same in real life situations. Negativity and freaking out at the first sign of adversity only hurts you but most importantly, limits your potential. Every success athlete knows that the basis for achieving results is anchored in confidence. You must not just think, but truly believe that you have the ability to be better than your opponents. This level of confidence can sometimes drift into a aura of cockiness but that is part of sports at the highest levels. It's not about the fear of losing but rather about the ingrained belief that you can't lose. When you are confident, it shows, When the going gets tough, the tough get going, how often have we heard this saying? It's a little dramatic as a saying but it actually holds a lot truth in sports and in life. Sports by nature is a competition, individuals or teams , 2 or more, going head to head trying to do better than all their opponents. In many sports, not only are you trying to do better than your opponent, your opponent is directly trying to impede your success. The success people and teams are those that compete best under pressure or competitive stress. This mindset can be applied to life also. As the 1st two lines of the Rudyard Kipling poem IF ... says "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you ..... " That is essence, keeping focused on task while the pressure is on and others around you are failing, this will make you successful in life and sport. Whether your involvement in sports in with a team or as an individual ( I can speak to both as I indicated earlier) you have a team you practiced with, conditioned with, and showed up to competition with. At every level of sport, there is always a team beside, behind and around you. They provide motivation, support and reassurance. They push you when you slack off, pick you up when you fall, keep you humble when you gloat. Teammates come in many different types, and the most successful endeavors are those where each member of a team knows his or her role and where the skills sets are complimentary to each other. Such is life, a well functioning work place requires people who can work together even if they don't always get along, who focus on the common goal and good and push in the same direction. You won’t get anywhere on your own in life. In every career, you need a team. You need other people to reach your goals and you need other people to win in life. Sports have taught me dedication. Once you start something, you need to finish it. Even if you want to quit or give up on something, you need to finish what you started. Their are time I wanted to stop wrestling, or playing soccer and yes even coaching as much as I love it. However, I never wanted to let teammates down or my athletes. It is disrespectful to give up on yourself and on your team mid-season. This applies to real life as well. If you are in the middle of a project, you won't quit. Finish what you start and then and only then, choose to move on if that is what is best for you. Sports have taught me how to manage my time wisely. When I wrestled, I would practice for at least 3 hours a day, 4 times a week. and needed to do homework in addition to that. I would get my homework done before practice, and at one point, I even went on a modified schedule to be able to have more time for schoolwork. I grew up with the mentality that academics came first. I could participate in my sports as long as my grades were up to par. Today, in my role as coach, I balance a full time job, 11 weeks of an intense fall schedule in soccer, with practices and games 5 or 6 times a week, recruiting in the off season, winter season training and games, administrative duties related to the coaching, plus yes a home life. Time management is crucial if I want to be at my best in each of those roles. Staying rested, eating well, preparing as required are all important factors to ensuring success and it all comes down to time, finding it in order to handle all the tasks. I feel very privileged that I was able to be so involved in sports growing up. I can’t imagine what I would do without them in my life. They have shaped me into the person I am today, and without them, I may not have ever learned these valuable life lessons that I carry with me. Sports allowed to enhance my Spanish roots through my love of soccer and Spain holding the World Cup in 1982 ( check on the link to this post) why-i-love-soccer.html and discover my voice in advocating for women's soccer , women in soccer and sport generally. It has defined me in many ways and allowed to live some life experiences that I would never have been able to without sports. Sports have influenced who I am as a man, how I am as a manager, and developed my confidence and self esteem. As I get older, being active, being involved in sports has allowed me to remain relatively healthy. I would never suggest that sports will have these benefits for everyone. There are many very successful and accomplished people for whom sports was never a regular activity, but when they take place in a positive environment, sports can teach some many life lessons that will help you well past your active playing days. We often hear people discuss the personalities or character traits of different coaches. Their are all kinds of "coaching types" and one in particular, the "old time" coach is often used to describe some who coaches or rules with an iron fist. Someone who is generally very task oriented, harsh, loud and motivates by the threat of consequences.
When it comes to our sports culture today, I would argue that some of fear is often still the primary driver at every level of play among coaches trying to motivate performance. It’s really time for this to change. Making someone feel bad about themselves doesn't make them generally want to play and work hard for anyone in a leadership position, whether at work, in the classroom or on the field of play.There still remain too many examples of an all too familiar narrative: a coaching style that neglects encouragement and motivates from fear. For anyone involved in any form of competitive sport, how often have we witnessed some form of a coach trying to push an athlete to perform by using some type of last minute coach-speak along the lines of; “This is your opportunity to turn your season around, don’t screw it up!” Anyone who has seen me coach, would probably say that I may in fact be too soft, that I don't push my athlete's enough, or motivate them to do what is required by using negative consequences to get the best out of them. However, it my opinion, ironically, coaches do a disservice to athletes when their primary motivational tactic is fear. I am sure there are some many different schools of thought about coaching to support a coaching method that elevates encouragement but sometimes common sense works just as well. This may come as a surprise to most people, but athletes are pretty normal in this regard. With this normality comes the shared human experience of having a fear of failure. Piling on more fear only makes the burden of failure that much heavier. What if coaches worked to eliminate fear instead of adding to it? In my current coaching role, one that I have held for 16 years now in which I work which individuals who are moving from being teenagers into young adulthood, my beliefs and values are rooted in the ideal that my athletes, should choose to do the the right thing, make the right choices, not because they are forced to, or scared into doing so, but simply because it is what is required for them to perform at their best, reach their potential and ultimately, achieve their personal and individual goals. I constantly talk to them about individual accountability, about making sure to take responsibility for their actions. If the ultimate goal is optimal level of play, we need to admit that sometimes fear is a helpful motivator. An athlete’s fear of failure does not need to be reinforced with more fear tactics. Instead, helpful coaching and encouragement to get them over this fear so they can play at an optimal level would be much more effective to bring about the results coaches want. If a coach knows their athlete well and believes they will respond positively in the moment to being motivated by fear, I believe that is fine. But, some questions I would ask if this is the case. Would the athlete agree that was the best way to motivate them at that time? Is this a circumstantial exception or the norm? Does the coach have the player’s good in mind as an athlete AND as a human? There is a time and a place where fear is an appropriate means of motivating, but what my experience has taught me is that most of the time fear gets wielded as a weapon, not as an instrument of change. When coaches find themselves feeling unable to influence a group or that their message isn't getting through, they might often fall back on the tactic of coaching by fear and consequence. One simple example I often use when giving presentation on coaching; how often do we hear about coaches sending player to run laps or having them do sprints as punishment for some sort of breach in team rules, or lack of effort in practices. This might work in very specific cases because let's be honest, athletes want to play the game that is their sport, not just run to run. However, if this is the default position every time something goes wrong, the athletes will associate the running with punishment. However, fitness, running to get fit, is an important part of being a successful athlete and should seen a required part of training not something you only do when you are being punished. So why do some coaches feel the need to rely on fear? One of the most challenging realities for coaches is the fact that the evaluation if their coaching ability depends on the performance of the athletes they coach. For the vast majority of coaches, those not coaching at the top of the profession but coaching youth sport being able to continue coaching and maybe move up the competitive ladder, relies on the hands and feet of girls and boys less than 20 years old, in essence kids. If you do not win early and often, you are out and your replacement is in. That is scary. Coaching is a dangerous profession to enter into for an individual who struggles with insecurity. Why? People who are insecure are constantly looking for validation from others. A quick google search of specific coaches show you what they are ultimately measured by—the amount of wins and losses they have accrued over the years. For someone who struggles with insecurity, the win-loss record becomes an extension of their identity. Thus, when the team struggles or individual athletes under perform, they have a tendency to lash out. One of the quickest ways to feel better about yourself is to make someone else feel small. A good question for anyone to ask when they motivate out of fear: Am I acting this way because this person just made me look bad or am I really trying to get the most out of this person? I’m concerned that using fear reflects the sad reality that many coaches lack the ability to control their emotions in the moment. This is unfortunate. Athletes don’t get a free pass for being out of control on the field. Likewise, coaches should not get a free pass for uncontrolled outbursts under the guise of motivation. I have been involved in sports at some level for the past 25+ years. One thing I have noticed is most coaches who motivate their athletes by fear are not trying to motivate at all, they are unloading their own anger issues at the easiest target. hile insecurity and immaturity use fear reactively, the desire to leverage power over a vulnerable athlete is often a proactive tactic. Every coach in authority over a player—especially in non-professional environments—understands intuitively that he or she has power over that player. Being on the team at all, playing time, and overall experience within the team is entirely controlled by the coach. Often, players feel powerless to “fight back” when they are being verbally, emotionally, or even physically abused by a coach. This is not only dangerous, but arguably also evil. It may produce wins in the short term but at what expense over time? You have an opportunity as someone who has been given stewardship over an athlete to help them move beyond their fear of failure. We are surrounded by a sports culture that places a premium on fear tactics. Encouragement, support, positive reinforcement are much more powerful motivators than fear. We need to stop equating support and encouragement with participation trophies and orange slices at halftime. Studies consistently show that athletes who play free perform better. If study after study shows athletes whose play is guided by a fear of failure are actually more likely to fail, we need to wise up! When people are involved especially at the youth sport level, the important thing is to encourage kids to stay in sport, to learn how to compete in positive and exciting environments. In today's reality, our youth have some many options that the minute they don't enjoy one activity they will move onto another. Our role as coaches, is of course to teach the sport, to teach them about winning and losing, but also to develop autonomy and confidence. I would rather be know as a supportive, positive minded coach, than someone willing to win at all costs. but that is just me...... One of the pillars of my coaching philosophy is that as a group, I want to focus on the process rather than strictly looking ahead at desired results. The reality is that there are so many factors that can affect or influence results,many of which we have no control over, that if we gloss over the process of working towards desired objectives, we might have short term success but might also not be able to maintain sustainable success over a longer period.
In the spirit of full disclosure, it has been a while since my teams have made playoffs within our conference. Some might say that my axiom about not focusing on results is a way justify under performance. Not the case. I read a quote by Ted Kennedy that he had put in his autobiography the Compass, it is resonates with me daily. The quote says ; “This is the greatest lesson a child can learn. It is the greatest lesson anyone can learn. It has been the greatest lesson I have learned: if you persevere, stick w/it, work @ it, you have a real opportunity to achieve something. Sure, there will be storms along the way. And you might not reach your goal right away. But if you do your best and keep a true compass, you'll get there.” I don't believe in shorts cuts, or taking a direction that isn't true to how I am and my values. There are a lot of misconceptions about the role of results in achieving your athletic goals. Of course, you need good results to be successful, but the question is how to go about getting those results and, ironically, the answer is not what coaches, athletes, and parents often think. First, it starts with the concepts of ‘outcome’ and ‘process.’ An outcome focus involved focusing on results, rankings, and beating others. Notice that this focus is on things outside of you. A process focus involves focusing on what you need to do perform your best such as preparation, technique, or tactics. In contrast to an outcome focus, a process focus is entirely on you. Now it’s time to discuss the paradox of outcome focus. Most people think that, to get the results you want, you need to focus on those results. But, and here’s the paradox, by having an outcome focus actually reduces the chances of your achieving the results you want. Here’s why. First, when does the outcome of a competition occur? At the end, of course. If you’re focused on the outcome, you aren’t focused on the process, namely, what you need to do to perform your best from the start to the finish of the competition. Second, what makes you nervous before a competition, the process or the outcome? The chances are it’s the outcome, more specifically, a bad outcome such as not winning or achieving your goals. The bottom line is that when you focus on the outcome, you are far less likely to get the outcome you want. In contrast, when you focus on the process, you increase your chances of getting the results you want. If you focus on the process, that is, what you need to do to perform your best, how you are likely going to perform? Pretty well, you can assume. And if you perform well, you’re more likely to achieve the result you wanted in the first place. My first suggestion, never think about results. In an ideal world, I would like you to be entirely process focused and basically never have results cross your mind. Secondly, in that ideal world I mentioned above, I would have parents and coaches never talk about results either. The fact is there is no point. You know when you’ve had a good competition and you definitely know when you’ve had a bad one. If you’re like most athletes, when your parents and coaches talk about results, you hear their chatter as expectations, pressure, or disappointment. Parents, good or bad competition, give your children a hug, tell them you love them, and ask them if they’re hungry. If you’re too excited about a good performance or too disappointed in a bad one, stay the heck away from your children because they will sense your emotions no matter how hard you try to mask them. Coaches, if your athletes had a good day, don’t say “good job.” Instead, help them understand why they performed well. If they had a bad day, pat them on the back, tell them you still believe in them, and help them figure out how to perform better in the next competition. Here’s where the real world collides with the ideal world that I wish existed. We don’t live in an ideal world and until someone invents a “process pill”, it’s not likely that you can expunge results from your mind. In the real world, results do matter. As an athlete, you are competitive and you probably do have some big outcome goals. I don’t expect you to not think about results. In fact, I’m going to assume that you are going to think about results a lot. So, knowing that an outcome focus actually hurts your cause, your challenge is what to do when your mind does fixate on results. First, become aware that you are focusing on the outcome. There’s no magic to this; you just have to monitor your thinking and notice your outcome focus. Once you see that you are thinking about results, you can take steps to get your mind off of them. Recognize that you can only focus on one thing at a time, so if you can replace your outcome focus with a focus on something else, you have stopped yourself from thinking about results. Ideally, you want to refocus on the process, specifically, something that will enable you to perform your best, but sometimes, focusing on anything other than results will do the trick. Go through your routine (in practice or competitions). The purpose of a routine is to get yourself totally prepared to perform your best and, if well ingrained, to trigger thoughts, emotions, and physiology that will help you perform well. So, by going through your routine, you are reminded of the process and it takes your mind off of results. Do mental imagery. If you are focused on the thoughts, feelings, and images of performing well, you’re not focused on results. Plus, the imagery will increase your motivation and confidence, help you reach your ideal intensity, and get your body primed to train or compete. If you just can’t shift your mind from outcome to process, the best thing you can do is get out of your mind completely. In other words, distract yourself by talking to others, listening to music, goofing around, anything that will prevent you from thinking about results. Finally, remind yourself why you compete, for example, for the love of competition, being with your teammates, or just plain having fun. This change gets you out of thinking mode and into feeling mode, generating powerful emotions, such as excitement, inspiration, and pride, that will get you fired up about getting out there and performing the very best you can. I often get asked the question that you see in the title of this post.... " Is coaching women's soccer really that different ?" . As the years have passed, the reactions from people who find out about my involvement coaching women's soccer has changed. As I have written a few times in the past, the logic that seemed to exist in the past that I was coaching on the women's side because I was somehow not good enough or sufficiently qualified to coach me, is not as prevalent as it once was. I think the growth of the women's game overall not to mention the impact the the success of Canada's women's team here in Canada, has significantly changed most perceptions. However, while people seem less intent on trying to figure out why I chose and continue to choose to coach on the women's side, I often get asked about how it might be different.
I have to start out by saying that I have fairly limited involvement coaching male soccer ( whether at the youth or men's level). I have never been really in charge of a men's team so I can't comment from direct personal experience but I have been around the game long enough that I can certainly provide generalities. So to answer the the question from the title, the easy answer would be to say no, it is really that different. Coaching soccer is coaching soccer and like any coach, I have to adapt to the group in front of me, male, female, youth, teenagers, adults, recreational or competitive. Furthermore, my coaching style and philosophy is an extension of my personality. If I am not the type to yell at athletes, come down on them hard etc, I wouldn't do it if I was coaching men or women. However, the reality is such that yes, there are differences. Are they significant? Are they such that a male with have issues coaching females, or vice-versa? I will share some insights and I will leave it up to the readers to draw their own conclusions. To begin with, I will say with conviction that overall, there are more similarities than differences in the two forms of the game. As you get higher into the elite category, there are nearly no differences in terms of attitude from the players They know what is needed to become an elite athlete and so their attitude is very professional. In some areas I would say that female players can sometimes be too serious. Occasionally it is good to relax and just enjoy the moment. Another thing is that women always seem to want to know why they are being asked to do something, while men just get on with it. That’s not to say one attitude is better than the other - sometimes it is good just to act and not overthink, and at other times it is good to ask questions. Emotionally I think that you can find as many differences from one man to another, or from one woman to another, as there are between men and women in general. What’s important is to get to know the players you are working with. After that you can ascertain their strengths and find a way of playing that suits the type of players you have. Obviously there are physical differences between men and women. There are differences of strength, which you see in particular when it comes to tackling. Speed is a difference too, but there is not so much difference in the relative changes of speed. Theoretically, this means female players should not have any problem dictating the speed of matches in the same way as the men do. But in practice, my own experience has shown that this is still a problem for many women’s teams. When it comes to tactical understanding, I think male and female players are pretty even off the field, but when it comes to making decisions in the middle of a game, the men still seem to have the edge. Technically, I think there are many top women players who are just as skillful as the men. But there are more players with those good technical abilities in the men’s game, which is why it’s perceived – wrongly – that men are naturally more gifted at soccer. I think that you see the on-field scenarios more clearly in the women’s game because there is less tackling than in the men’s version. Clearly you can enjoy both: appreciating the men’s matches with their high levels of intensity and good technical skills, and the women’s matches with technical and tactical skills that you can recognize more clearly. From my experience, having had the chance to coach at two fairly significant international tournaments, which in additional to the competition itself, allowed me to interact with coaches from other countries, the variations between the soccer cultures themselves in different countries are often more pronounced than the differences between male and female players specifically. As the women's game grow, we have started to see a change where the top players act professionally, but sometimes this concept of ‘professionalism’ is not always properly understood. It is not about how much money players are paid, but more about how they care for their bodies. The soccer cultures in countries where soccer is by far the more mainstream sport, the so-called professionalism in soccer seems to come about much easier even with amateur players, because the examples are ever present. One clear difference that does exist between male and female players across the world is that the males usually start to play soccer in a serious way much earlier than the females. Even at the age of four or five, boys are often attending soccer schools and learning the technical and tactical aspects of the game. They are therefore much more prepared than women for the demands of the elite game. In the end, though, it is all about being competent regardless of whether you are male or female, particularly from a coaching point of view. I don’t think you need to be a man to coach men or a woman to coach women, with perhaps one exception. When it comes to young female players, I think it helps to have a female coach, because when a woman tells them they can do something it is more credible coming from someone with the same physical attributes. Off the field, there is definitely more of a family atmosphere in women’s soccer. and women are also far more receptive to coaching. They recognize that they can always learn more, while men tend to think initially that they already know it all - it takes them a little bit more time to realize that they don't. "I think men also show very little emotion in training, perhaps because they would see that as a sign of weakness. Women can go too far the other way, being too sensitive at times and often taking things personally. There are other differences, such as the better spatial awareness that you tend to see in men and particularly young boys. They see the ‘pictures’ of a game quicker, probably because they have had many more years of playing the game in an organized manner. On the field men will of course always be physically stronger and faster but the women’s game has improved significantly in this area, as has heading, which is still a weak area of women’s soccer. Otherwise I don’t see any differences technically. While the women’s game is slower, that gives more scope for skill, compared to the greater focus on physicality that we see in the men’s game. As a male having pretty much exclusively coached females,the key differences concern communication, team focus and self-responsibility. As far as communication is concerned, the manner, content and frequency with which a coach speaks to the team plays a much bigger role in the women’s game. Female players want feedback on a regular basis. They especially want information in relation to performance; areas in need of improvement and reinforcement on the positive aspects of their game. They also require reassurance at times when confidence is low. Female players will be more inclined to dwell on their weaknesses, while male players will confidently expound upon their strengths - even if these are only perceived. "In terms of team focus, women tend to be more team-orientated and supportive of the team as a whole, whereas male players are primarily concerned about their own performances. In the right environment there is a far greater degree of genuine loyalty among female athletes. And finally, I would say that many of the elite female players also take on more self-responsibility than their male counterparts, perhaps because the prospects of becoming full-time professionals or, even if they are, they are still only modestly paid are so slim. This means they have to juggle their other commitments outside of soccer, so they are often more responsible, with better organizational skills. Aside from those differences, however, there is little separating the men’s and women’s game. In relation to on field physical, tactical and technical requirements, I don't see myself alter my demands or expectations depending upon the gender of my players. As part of this, I often call out players of mine who on occasion may use their gender as an excuse for me to somehow lower my expectations of them. In fact the lack of financial rewards in women’s football tends to produce an attitude that, ironically, can often be more professional, not to mention that female players remain in the game largely based on the love of the game. Similarly to how it is with the men, women’s football really is the world game. It is the only female team sport played in every part of the globe and I think every other team sport in the world must envy this great asset that we have. Overall I believe that the quality and entertainment value displayed in the women’s game has brought great credibility and acceptance of the sport among the whole football community. If we think about Canada specifically, hosting the U20 and women's world cups in 2014 and 2015 but primarily the back to back Olympic bronze medals, has put women's soccer on the radar with people hugely exceeding the niche fans who might have followed it previously. So it coaching women's soccer really that different? I guess you can ask 10 different people and might get 10 different answers depending on who they are. I will let you the reader draw your own conclusions. Fans, coaches, players and pretty much everyone in soccer is constantly talking about tactics. In recent years, we've seen trends come and go like the development of conservative 11-men-behind-the-ball approaches ( or so called park the bus style), the efficiency of tiki-taka during Spain's run at major tournaments between 2008 and 2012 the rise of the 4-2-3-1 which then saw teams moving to some form of 3-5-2 set up. How many times have I heard discussion about the benefits of high pressure like Barcelona, or playing a counter attacking side, etc. For some, they love this stuff. They will spend hours sharing their knowledge and insight into different set ups and styles of play, why they work, why they don't, why certain players can't fit into a certain scheme. A good tactical plan for a game can encapsulate everything beautiful about the world: artistry, hard work, intelligence, and the sudden harmony of different minds.
As much as everyone talks about them, though, there's a gap between how fans and players understand tactics. Fans see them as broad strokes and buzzwords, a way of making distinctions between different teams. Players see tactics as instructions, a few lines of code, the specific details on how to achieve goals. "Counterattack" isn't a specific or clear enough instruction. For one teammate, it might be a quick shorter pass on the ground, but for another it might mean expecting one long, direct pass in the air. One player makes the rune, the other plays a quick short pass and both look a little stupid. Both are trying to counterattack, but counterattacking means something different to each of them. For players, tactics are a way of to prepare for a game or opponent, a set of cues and instructions that players which step on the field with and hopefully execute as planned, when needed, and of course the opponent, will react exactly as anticipated. However, tactics as understood and undertaken by players is often very different from the pretty game seen on your television or from the stands. For a non player, and especially that highly interested fan who might have never played the game if he or she is really going to understand tactics, needs to understand all the intertwined aspects of what goes into team set ups, tactical instructions and phases of play. One really important factor to understand is a players individual accountability as I like to call it. Individual accountability refers to a player's understanding of his role at any given moment. It is the most important part of a tactical plan. If each player doesn't understand his role at every moment, the plan means nothing. It's just words thrown out in the locker room. There are a thousand decisions to make in a game. A team's tactics tell a player what to do in each of those thousand moments. Where on the field do we win the ball? Where should my first pass go when we win the ball? Where does the player on the far side of the field move after I make the pass? Every player understands every other player's thousand jobs. It's less important that the single player knows his individual job than that the 10 other guys know what he's going to do so they can plan accordingly. As the players improve their understanding of their own roles and how their roles are intertwined with each of the other 10 players on the pitch, the cogs in the machine start to align, and the picture from outside the field gets more attractive. When things on the field really click and we witness some great movement, passing, and finishing, it isn't a fluke or coincidence. Players have practiced movements tirelessly in training. Wingers know they needs to create width for the team at the moment of gaining possession. A quality striker knows to be an option short to receive the ball on the ground. The attacking midfielders know to attack the space behind the defense. They are clear on the their roles. As a result, a player on the ball knows where they will be and can put the ball to the best option among all the moving parts, as and when they want it. Each new pass and movement occurs seamlessly but also creates a new set of decisions to be made. What makes a team great isn't its tactics as a whole. It's the team's ability to get those thousand parts turning instinctively. The team that wins the World Cup won't do so because it has the best game plan. Heading into any game, no one can really say which system of player , tactical set up or game plan is better than any other. In the age of technology, with some much video available to detect tendencies and keep stats, teams can prepare not just what they want to do, but how to counteract what they think their opponent will do. The winning team will simply execute whichever game plan that it chooses well. Many teams try and keep possession with a pass-and-move philosophy so why does it work for some and not for others. Why do certain teams always seem to be changing their set up, while others step on the field with a set game plan seemingly each game regardless of who they are playing? very team accomplishes this differently. Some coaches spend hours on it on the training field. They devote entire sessions to going over every detail, having their players run to defend cones acting as the opponent, carefully explaining everything. They tell the center back exactly how far to move up and precisely when. They rerun the session every week to hammer it home. Some coaches get 11 intelligent players with similar tendencies who will naturally figure out how to play together, and let the players sort it out for themselves. They put 4-4-2 on the board and trust they have selected the right players. Some coaches make 100-page packets full of little circles and diagrams and associated bullet points, and go over it with the players in the meeting room. Each approach has won a championship; there isn't a perfect blueprint. he difficulty for a team is ensuring that all of the players have one mindset. The different players on the field, the different cogs in the machine, were molded in different ways when they were growing up. All of their coaches in the past had different views of the game. One coach might want his pressing wingers to force the ball inside to the crowded middle of the field. Another might want his pressing wingers to force the ball outside to the line with his outside back in support. If the player isn't clear on his job for his current team, he'll make wrong decisions. The winger will force the ball down the line when his defender behind him expects him to push the opponent toward the middle, waiting back. Lack of clarity. The opponent easily plays the ball down the line and breaks the pressure. The opponent gains an advantage. The present coach must make the players forget their old ways and accept the new. Even with the best teams, the best systems have leaks. Sometimes players mess up. Maybe they read the situation wrong. Maybe their technical ability lets them down. Maybe they get tired and their brain doesn't register what it needs to do. I talk about clarity like it's simple; the truth is that it's extremely complicated. It takes thousands of reps to make even the simplest ideas second nature. But the team that gets its stuff right more often than the other team does—regardless of the tactics in use—wins the game. We're not talking about tactics as the playthings of managerial genius. It's the players who win and lose games, as the saying goes, not the X's and O's on a dry-wipe board. But it's the roles that define the parameters in which they get to operate. And it's to the player's advantage to have a clear role. It helps the player show his best. For one thing, he can play quicker. He doesn't have to think about what to do. He doesn't have to waste milliseconds thinking about what his team needs. He knows the instant something happens what is expected of him. He can just act. He gets to where he needs to be and does what he needs to do quicker. More than just playing faster, a player who properly understands what he's supposed to do can play harder. When he knows that he is supposed to win the ball in a certain area, he can tackle with everything he has. When he knows that he is supposed to get to a certain space, he can run as fast as he can. He doesn't have to look over his shoulder to know whether his teammate his coming to support him. He doesn't have to worry about doing the wrong thing. His body instinctively knows the right thing to do. He knows that what he is doing is correct, and he can apply himself entire to the decision and action. It's a liberating feeling. Keep all this in mind next time you are watching a game, every time you see a player make a run, play a pass, or defending 1v1, remember you are seeing just one of the thousand moving parts in a game. Try and watch play away from the ball when possible ( easier when at games in person that watching on TV). Notice how the players work together and move with each other, and how, very often, they do neither. All of that goes into making the picture on your screen. The smoother the machine, the prettier the picture. Done right, it can be beautiful. . |
AuthorAfter many years of coaching at various levels and with different teams, I thought I would share some of my experiences and thoughts about coaching. Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|