“The unexamined life is not worth living”
– Plato
Many coaches will, at some point, have applied Plato to themselves. To their abilities as a coach. Some will look quickly and be satisfied with what they see. Others will constantly be evaluating and reevaluating, either with growth and improvement in mind or purely through insecurity. Those who believe that the scorecard on Sunday morning decides how good they are will experience a roller coaster of examination.
Turning Plato’s statement inward is typical, generally helpful and can lead to great leaps forward. However, sometimes we find ourselves in the position where that statement is turned outward. Others examine us, a situation most have become accustomed to in our culture of tests. Worse, sometimes we have to examine others.
In the last year I have found myself in various positions of examination. The job seeker, the test passer, the hirer, the firer. Bemusingly, some at the same time but with differing associations. The question roaming from one day to another, changing from “am I good enough” to “are they good enough”?
Before answering either question another must be asked.
Good enough for what?
Not all coaches are not built the same. Not all coaching positions are the same. The coach who works fantastically at under 8 in grass roots football may not be able to adapt to under 16 at Academy level. It may be that their personality isn’t strong enough to handle the hormonal shifts in teenagers but encourages and enables the innocents.
In the position of job seeker there are two instances that immediately come to mind as illuminating. Two companies advertising for the same type of position. The practical sessions I am invited to deliver are in similar environments, neither tells me the age group I will coach. They turn out to be very close in age. The same session is delivered for both. For one company, it is more than good enough. For the other, they are not so happy and ask me to do it again. Eventually they decide it is not good enough.
The position was merely that of a casual coach going into schools. Both advertising for FA Level 2 coaches with Youth Module 1 desirable. Although the company who decided that it was not good enough advertised at that level, they tested at a far higher level. A few weeks previously I had completed my Youth Module 3/Youth Award assessment. The assessment is not easy and as such you are given two sessions in which to get a tick in every box. For the session that was deemed in the not good enough category the checklist that was being worked off was as in depth as the Youth Award. the difference being they expect it all to be ticked in one session. This is keeping in mind the role that was advertised and the desired qualifications. The earlier question becomes relevant, good enough for what?
More recently I was invited in by an academy to deliver a session. I worked with their under 12s and thoroughly enjoyed the session. It was my impression that the players did as well. The session was coached in a particular style, one that felt true to my own beliefs. One of letting the players play, not battering them with information and allowing freedom of expression. Many times people fall into the trap of delivering what they think people want to see (I can’t count the number of times that applies to me). Yet, if the observer did not agree with those beliefs or that style then I would be deemed not good enough. Similarly, just yesterday I delivered a dribbling session that an observer could dismiss as a mess. The session was designed to harness chaos, make players seek space, be inventive with the ball and get used to frenetic movement around them. Yet, from a certain perspective, from an authoritarian point of view, that would not be good enough.
Should someone deliver a similar session before my eyes it would fit with what we are looking for at my grass roots club. As a hirer there are certain key elements that are looked for, many of them going beyond the session criteria. There have been times where we have been so short that at that particular moment, just being there and being willing equates to good enough. On the occasions we can afford to apply the required criteria it is often the conversations after the session that provide more information than the session itself. What is the coaches attitude? What is his belief? How does he want to play? Is winning his primary concern? Then we can look at the session. Were the players engaged? Did they have a ball each at some stage? Where they allowed to experiment? For us, at our grass roots level, that would be deemed good enough.
The whole process is subjective. Depending on a multitude of factors. We have had a coach who kept the players happy, kept the parents happy but his sessions and attitude did not fit with our philosophy. Was he good enough? Clearly, what is good enough for one, will not be good enough for all. As illustrated earlier, a coach who intervenes regularly to drill his or her players might be exactly what an elite group of under 21 players, but would be a disaster with a group of under 8s coaching in the same manner. Flipping that on it’s head, the session that an under 8s coach puts on with the under 21 players might be enjoyable but could be lacking in the technical and tactical detail they need. Those who are deciding on the good enough question need to be crystal clear on the who for question.
In The Little Book of Talent, Daniel Coyle offers up five ways to pick a high quality teacher or coach. Five characteristics or traits to consider developing if looking to hang in the good enough bracket.
1) Avoid someone who reminds you of a courteous waiter.
“This is the kind of person who… says things like “Don’t worry, no problem, we can take care of that later.” This is a good person to have as your waiter in a restaurant, but a terrible person to have as your teacher.”
2) Seek someone who scares you a little.
“Look for someone who:
Watches you closely.
Is action oriented.
Is honest, sometimes unnervingly so”.
3) Seek someone who gives short clear directions.
4) Seek someone who loves teaching fundamentals.
5) Other things being equal, pick the older person.
“Teaching is like any other talent: It takes time to grow. Great teachers are first and foremost learners, who improve their skills with each passing year.”
For Daniel Coyle these factors help to decide what equates to good enough. Do those points apply across the board? Difficult to say. Not everyone responds in the same way. Some might react well to the kindness of the waiter. Those five factors are good enough for him. I have my own set of fundamentals that equate to good enough.
– A love of the game.
– An understanding of the game.
– Continually looking to gain more knowledge
– Reliability/time keeping
– Use of appropriate language/appropriate manner.
– Philosophy – Modern thinking (constructive play)
– Positional rotation – Equal opportunities.
– Experimental freedom for players.
– Developing individual
The last point, developing individuals, is the most important point. Everyone says it, not everyone does it. Nor do they really know how to do it. Some are unwilling to change in order to do it. Coaches are just like the players they are working with. None are finished. None are complete. The term I have been using through out, “good enough” is indicative of that. Good enough in that moment. They may be more than good enough in moments to come. A flexible coach with the desire to learn and an ego that allows them to be wrong could be the most desirable characteristic of all.
Of course, that is only what is good enough from my perspective…..
Ref – Daniel Coyle – The Little Book of Talent – http://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Book-Talent-Daniel-Coyle/dp/1847946798