What makes a good coach? What makes a good manager, these days? What differentiates a good coach or manger, from a good one in days gone past, if anything does at all?
Recently, I’ve been reading a book called ‘Hockey, a Philosophical Game’, by Andreu Enrich. Here he writes about how the quest for control destroys the sports coach, because one cannot control every aspect of an ever changing and evolving hubbub of activity that is a competitive match, or team environment. Instead he emphasises that coaches should attempt to influence situations and thus have a much healthier and constructive approach to the role. Enrich describes the ability to influence a player, team, or situation as being a more long-term method for success than control, not only to reduce stress and anxiety, but to improve relationships amongst others and improve outcomes.
This got me thinking about some of the coaches and mangers that I grew up admiring in the world of sports. These were straight talking men, from no nonsense backgrounds, who’s personal identity was wrapped up in how they put their own will and perspective onto a group of players. A sports coach was expected to have authority over his (and at the time it was predominately a man in charge) dominion. Any kind of sway from this standard would be a check against the manager’s self image and sense of doing the job properly. It would have a negative impact on his ego. In football, Sir Alex Ferguson and Brian Clough were both known to work with a firm hand. Sir Alex was quoted by the Guardian as saying,
“You can’t ever lose control – not when you are dealing with 30 top professionals who are all millionaires. If they misbehave, we fine them, but we keep it indoors. And if anyone steps out of my control, that’s them dead.”
Famously, when Brian Clough was asked what happens when one of his players might come to him with a critique of his management, his response was,
“Well, I ask him, which way he thinks it should be done. We get down to it and then we talk about it for twenty minutes and then we decide I was right.”
Does this method of coaching work today? Do players respond to this sort of management today, in the way they did in the 1970’s, ’80’s and ’90’s…?
This attitude did seem to work, as both of these football managers won numerous trophies, including English league titles, and more than one European Cup each. Alex Ferguson even took his national team of Scotland to the 1986 World Cup. A tournament that neither Cloughie nor Fergie saw as players. This self deterministic mindset helped them both achieve success as managers in their own right, as well as having given opportunities to have good careers to many players who played under them. Both coaches, however, fell out with those who challenged them, having negative impacts on those who the managers had the opportunity to guide and improve. Swings and roundabouts, some might say. People aren’t always going to get along. Some players will want different things to and from their bosses and vice versa. Sport is, or at the very least has been, a high octane work environment where people habitually think in black and white and struggle with grey areas that can be argued in either direction.
However, as we move further into the twentieth century and work place standards improve should we expect sports to follow this professional enlightenment? The football fans reading this might remember that the English FA were recently proven (in a legal sense) to have used awfully poor work place practices when dealing with several complaints from players. It was based around claims of racism and then ostracism. This was the case involving Eniola Aluko, and other cases including Drew Spence, Anita Asante and Lianne Sanderson (all of whom were English players of African, and/or Caribbean heritage) being pushed aside by Mark Sampson, after their assertion against his authority due to his inappropriate behaviour towards them. The FA looked to blame everybody apart from themselves and Mark Sampson, before they were successfully legally challenged. I put it to the reader that these players probably wouldn’t have gotten the result and latterly the apologies that they did get, in decades gone past and I still think that they have been given a bum deal (my personal opinion, based on my reading of things so far). The potential for careers to be cut short, tabloid speculation and psychological stress induced by a variety of social factors can give those in positions lacking authority a number of hurdles to clear before receiving fair treatment.
The question that I am posing here is should sports coaches and managers be less autocratic, whilst still looking to influence individuals and broader groups. What does the modern coach look like? How much control should be given to one person, when dealing with the all too short careers of athletes? How much should we be empowering the players themselves and how does this work within a group dynamic when people within the same team want to go in different directions?
Lets start by looking at the meaning of the words that we are talking about. If we take the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus that my mother gave me upon starting secondary school we can get a clearer idea of what we mean.
Control
- Power to give orders or restrain
- Means of restraining or regulating
- Standard of comparison for checking results of an experiment
Influence
- Effect a person or thing has on another
- Moral power, ascendancy
- Person or thing with this
Empower
- Authorise, enable
These definitions are important when reflecting on how to improve an individual athlete, or a group of players and a team in general. Now, before I give my personal opinion, I should probably state that my coaching career has predominately focused on developmental youth teams. When I have coached adult sides, it has been reserve teams and/or social groups. They haven’t been at the elite level of competition. However, I do feel that a good coach should be focused on the empowerment of the players on the pitch, through his or her experience, influence and guidance.
This is not to say that control has no place at all in the tool box of a sports coach. Control can be used to get a rogue player back on track. If an individual is making decisions that is detrimental to the wider group then they might need a firm nudge in a healthier or more productive direction. It can also be used in the short term, before trust is earned on both sides of a relationship, although this has its pitfalls and variables. A controlled test or experiment can also produce objective results over the course of a season that can help guide the staff, administrators and the players towards better learning outcomes. Control of style of play, tactics and strategy will probably have a better impact on results, than a committee who all pull in different directions.
The actual coaching of a player or a team should be far more of an exercise in empowerment. Once the match, game or event starts, then there is very little that a coach can do. Yes, there are adaptations that can be made, especially in invasion sports, such as hockey, football and rugby, for example. However, most of the coaching and management is done in preparation on the training field and video analysis rooms. Players should be helped to solve problems for themselves. This can be done, technically (can you beat the defender), tactically (how can we work together to get past a defensive block), or psychologically (I think I can, I know I can…). All of this things come under the gentler and more enriching approach of an influential coach, rather than a controlling one. Although it might take longer, the building of relationships is essential here, but as Andreu Enrich tells us, it can produce better, healthier results.
