Welcome to Blog 1 of coaches corner:
Question – What is it? Answer – A weekly blog exploring and developing the theme of COACHING
Video Analysis, Ideas, Opinions, Facts, the melting pot is explored here.
Written & compiled by:
Nathan Moore: 
BSc (Hons) Sports Science, P.G.C.E
Founder of NM Sports Performance,
Video analyst and Coach for NM Sports Performance
www.nmsportsperformance.co.uk Click Here
ARTICLE 1: Is there a place for every coach?
When asked to compile some words for Intouch magazine regarding coaching techniques and assistance it seemed such a daunting task. It felt like seeing an incredibly attractive person in a bar with their incredibly unattractive friend… You knew you had to get rid of the mate but you just didn’t know where to start…
So I thought about it (the coaching side of things, not the ugly friend) and decided to start at the beginning and have a look at exactly how we coach and whether there are benefits of different styles and approaches.
A simple search on-line will bring up all the different styles of coaching out there and not just within the sporting world but indeed business and life coaching… I am only 31 so will not be discussing any life experiences but with having coached for 12 years within differing levels of rugby and within the IRFU Ulster Branch I have seen a variety of coaching styles.
The bog standard response to the question of coaching styles is that there are three out there, the Autocratic, the Democratic and the Laissez faire styles. If you were to attend most coach education courses within all sports you will come across these specific approaches. Put simply:
• The Autocratic – The coach centred approach and a “do as I say” approach to coaching a session. You run the show and will tell the players exactly what you want, what structure they will play, how they will do certain skills and pretty much anything to do in the sport they play.
• The Democratic – A more player centred approach, with the coach explaining what they would like and then asking the players in their charge what additions they may like to add. If the coach agrees with the input then it is added to the sessions.
• The Laissez faire – This is the laid back approach the coach will let the session run itself with the players dictating how the training goes with minimal input to the session, a kind of “throw the ball in and let them play” attitude.
At this point most coach education courses would ask you to think what style you adopt or in what situations would each approach be suited to. Before I would leave you with any question of coaching styles to mull over I would like to add some meat to these bones and divulge some deeper research into the Leadership/Coach debate.
We as players, remember the coaches we really liked and those we really didn’t, albeit for differing reasons, a player goes through his sporting career being coached by different people and sometimes will settle at a club with a coach they like, or may even move to the club that that coach was moving too. In my 23yrs of playing rugby I have had many coaches I like, although there are two which come to mind who were completely different in their coaching styles, but yet equally respected by both myself and my team-mates. One was more of an Autocratic coach whilst the other would have been more of a Democratic one, although both coaches at times showed they could easily move into another style. This leads me to my next thought…. Is it the coaching style we like? Or is it the person behind the style? As in, is it actually the behaviour of the coach that we truly like?
As a sports scientist I feel it better to state an opinion when I have looked at scientific studies in a specific field and the good thing for whoever reads this is that I will not be retelling the studies, which would probably have you sleeping, but stating my own thoughts on sporting matters based on the findings of those studies.
So that being said back to the thought of whether it is the behaviour behind the style… There has been research conducted into this area, which has found that whilst the autocratic and democratic styles display the behaviour of the coach, it is the substance that the coach brings to a team, as well as his style that is most important. When researching what made good leaders in sport three extra strands where added:
• A Training and Instructing strand – reflecting how the coach goes about improving the performance of an athlete.
• A Social Support strand – reflecting the extent a coach would be involved in ensuring the needs of their players were satisfied.
• A Rewarding (positive feedback) strand – A factor which is crucial in maintaining the motivation of teams and players.
So it could be taken that you could use any type of style as long as the substance you bring to your team is good enough for the players and that they see a benefit to them. In fact when reading through other research it was thought that male athletes would in fact like an Autocratic coach as long as he was supportive whereas female athletes differed on this opinion, which would open up another line of discussion maybe one for another day regarding the differences in coaching men and women in sport.
Whilst much of the research on coaching styles seems to be contradictory, there is one thing that remains constant and that is the preferred behaviour of the coach/leader is dictated by the members of the group/team and something that all coaches should be wary of. It is also thought that different styles would be suited for different levels of sport (grass-roots to elite or youth to senior), which is reflected in the IRFU’s Long term Player Development Model guiding coaches on how they should approach coaching the different age grades and stages of player development.
So this brings me back to the original thought and question… Is there a place for every coach? We see examples of autocratic coaches in everyday life and in true story Hollywood films like “Grid Iron Gang” and “Remember the Titans” where it is the coach’s way or “no play”. Granted in the “Grid Iron Gang” having a democratic approach to juvenile detention inmates is probably not a good idea. American sports movies are full of examples where these types of coaches have success but not always have the support of the team in the end, like in “Varsity Blues”. I wonder if, in this autocratic environment, had those teams lost the first few games of the season, would they still have accepted the long season of listening to the coach yell at them? Or be prepared to do another pre-season of what many players term as “beasting”?
Society is changing and how we treat players, which may once have been acceptable in the past, is now becoming scrutinised, does this mean many of us as coaches need to change our coaching style? I try to make it a habit to reflect on my own coaching after every session I take and have seen that my own approach and style has changed hugely over the last number of years as I have coached differing levels and indeed genders. I have worked in all sections of rugby in Ulster, Mini-rugby, Club’s youth sections, Schools (high school and Grammar), FE College, University rugby, Ulster representative and also Senior League Men’s rugby and there is a different approach for all sections.
Autocratic coaches could not function well in Club youth sections as you rely on the players wanting to turn up for training and if they are not leaving each night with a fun experience then the numbers will drop and youth teams may disband. This is similar to women’s rugby, FE colleges and some Grammar or High Schools who may not be as strong as opposition teams and run the risk of losing each week. Players will take a coach who yells and dictates at them if they are winning week in week out however a coach who acts like this could lose his/her appeal if the results are not going their way.
As coaches we must be flexible and open to changing our own styles to get the best out of our teams. It was once said to me that a coach needs to have a strategy suited to the team members they are working with and not to his/her own ideal strategy. In some cases you can always train a team to the way you want to play but if you are in a coaching role which is offering you financial assistance then results are the important factor and you may not have the time to adapt your team.
So in summary what is my advice? I am not going to try and tell you to become something you are not…. But be aware of some of the evidence out there in the sporting environment. You can be the autocratic, shouting and forceful coach as long as you are able to provide the support and improvements that your players are seeking as well as ensuring you give them positive feedback when they do something right. Therefore if you are confident and believe yourself to have top experiences in the sport then this may be an approach you will use. Ideally if you work in School boy rugby this approach may well be beneficial but do ensure that the substance you bring is also at a high level.
For longevity in a club, I would recommend the democratic approach to coaching even if you believe yourself to know more than the players do. Players like to know that their opinion is valued and if they believe that they have an input into either the way the team plays or how the training is structured then they will also take responsibility if things go wrong. This can be achievable in the school set-up as well; all that is needed is to take one or two of the more respected players in the year group and discussing some of your thoughts with them and also to be able to gauge what the thoughts and feelings of the players are. As long as the players know there are firm boundaries and that whilst they have an input the final decision lies with you then this could be beneficial in ensuring a harmony within the squad. True this may only really work with U15’s and above but there is evidence out there that shows this has been a success.
So I believe there is a level and place for every coach but I do also believe that we as coaches need to be able to adapt ourselves until we find our team and players that suit our style… All we need to contend with then is the Senior Officials in the club…. But that is another story!
