Coaches should know everything, right? And shouldn’t the players do what the coach wants without question? No, I disagree. I think that the players should know more than the coach and that they should be making the decisions. Here’s why……
http://rossrugby.co.za
The traditional way of teaching and coaching has usually been for the teacher and coach to know everything and the student or player shuts up, accepts what he/she has been taught or told to do and then gets rated on the execution of that task. This is called the ‘Sage on the stage’ approach and is generally the only way many students and players have ever been taught for this is the only way we really know how to convey knowledge to the next generation. But is this really the best way to ensure the students and players learn and become smarter than before? Are we really engaging the youth to think for themselves in the expectation of becoming smarter than the teacher? I don’t think that the sage on the stage approach is the best way to coach our players, but would rather the guide on the side, become the dominant way to teach and coach in the future.
So what is the guide on the side approach? Simply put the teacher or coach transitions from the all knowledgeable, always right ‘sage ‘who dictates knowledge, to a ‘guide’ who instead of dictating, aims to facilitate the learning process. This facilitation approach will not be very popular with the many generations of teachers and coaches who were taught with the ‘sage on the stage’ approach and who deemed it to be the only way students learn. But, if we really think of it, did that dictatorial teacher or coach really inspire us to learn more about the subject or sport and did you really understand the intricacies of the subject matter or the subtle tactics needed to win matches many years down the line? The answer I am sure will be no. True knowledge is not transferred by parrot fashion, true learning is transferred when the student is actively engaged, participating in the learning process and ultimately really enjoys what he/she is learning. Sure the ‘Sage on the stage’ approach gets results and parents actively seek out these teachers or coaches who get these results, but in the end are we going for results at a young age or are we aiming to develop the student or athlete to excel for many years into the future?
This facilitation approach has begun to take root with all the modern technology suddenly available to teachers and coaches, with classroom lessons being put onto the internet and game footage readily available for players to access. This ‘new’ approach has taken the world by storm in recent years and I believe we are lagging behind. I believe we still hold onto the old ideal of what a teacher or coach should be. I think we still expect the educationalist to be the one who possesses all the knowledge, that they will have all the answers and they are expected to get the results otherwise they are deemed a failure or not good enough. This result orientated atmosphere and the belief that the educationalist should always be right is harming the students and players learning ability and ultimately their performance. I believe that the facilitation approach is the best way of ensuring better results for each individual in the future.
So how does this facilitation approach work in the coaching environment? You may be asking yourself, does he really believe the players should run the team and make the decisions? No. That is not what I am saying, what I am saying is that I believe the players should be made aware of the intricacies of the game and the ‘WHY’ of what the coach wants to achieve, instead of just accepting things and being expected to robotically replicate the coaches desires. I think the players should be encouraged to express their views on playing style, game plans as well as training plans. Yes, you heard me right, players should have a voice as they are the ones that are actually on the field trying to win the games and need the knowledge to make the right decisions when they are needed. Too often coaches bemoan the lack of decision making on the field, but do very little coaching on the matter. This clearly does not make sense.
I believe that when you empower players and students you are opening yourself up to new possibilities that can take your team to a higher performance level than you or the players could have ever expected. The coaches are not always right and should not be expected to be so, nor are the players a bunch of clueless imbeciles waiting to be filled with knowledge. The only major problem with this type of approach is that the coach has to be able to accept when he is wrong and admit that he/she does not know something and that a player could in fact know more. This is not an embarrassing situation to be in and if encountered the player should be praised because when that happens, a thirst for even more knowledge develops in each individual. I believe that if this approach is well managed, players will be able to improve and develop at a far higher pace than had they been told what to do instead of being encouraged to think for themselves. When an individual and ultimately an entire team have a real thirst to discover and learn as much as the coach or even more, then you have successfully encouraged real learning and true development.
By adopting some simple changes to the way you coach, I believe coaches will ensure that a massive thirst for knowledge will occur in each player which will ultimately develop better players in the long term. This approach may take more time to reap the rewards and may not be universally accepted by parents who expect results as the only indicator of success, but ultimately isn’t the job of a coach to prepare players for the long run and not just for the time they had them under their wing? If players do not leave your care with more knowledge than before, for the next coach to develop, are you really coaching or are you just demonstrating how well you make players listen and enact what you want?
In the next blog I will discuss the ‘flipped coaching technique’ something of which I am beginning to use with my own sides and am very excited at the prospect of using this ‘guide on the side’ approach. Something I think may take coaching by storm.
Do you agree with me on this or have I got it wrong? Does the coach still need to know everything or can players have a voice? Let me know your thoughts!
@ grootblousmile:
Correct, he does not have an SA passport, just confirmed with his agent – so government won’t allow him to play.
strange that no-one mentioned the assistant coaches thus far, hehehe
tricky dick muir and gary gold sou nou al lankal in hul m**r gestuur gewees het!! 😉
60 @ Loosehead:
Bresler of the Sharks could do as well
57 @ Loosehead:
After they stabbed my team in the back I will NEVER support ANY of their teams or structures again.
64 @ Scrumdown:
SARU of course!
63 @ grootblousmile:Isn’t he a 5?
62 @ Ashley:The coach chose his assistants and the style that he wants his team to play.
64 @ Scrumdown:not even eveyones 2nd favorite team the VRYSTAAAAAAAAAAAT?
@ Loosehead:
Really? Jacobie Adriaanse has 13 Super Rugby caps, Malherbe over 20 (WP Nel close to 40 I believe) with WP Nel signing for a European club recently.
Malherbe was part of Meyer’s group in the England series, knows the environment better than those two.
And them being ‘better’ than Frans is a subjective opinion.
And I am not understanding the experience thing.
First you say don’t pick Malherbe because he is not experienced enough but then you want to pick Hendrik Roodt who has a combined Super Rugby caps total of 8 caps? To join Juandre Kruger who stands at 6 Bok caps or something?
How many sides do you want your bread buttered?
hehehe, thought i’d just try to heat up the conversation!! 😉
@ Ashley:
They were the only ones available on such short notice.
69 @ Morné: Both, just like Meyer.
69 @ Morné:I said that Malherbe was not GOOD enough.
It seems as if Steven Sykes has signed with the Kings. TonyM should be happy.
Thanks for the response Morne.
Some responses for your consideration:
“Tell me, what coach shares intricacies of professional coaching which does not only take years to master and perfect, but evolves constantly with individuals who accuse him of a bias before he has even played his first test match, and calls for his head after he loses his first?”
If you read my post again you’ll see that I never asked HM to share intricacies of professional coaching with anyone. However, what any coach should keep in mind is that the average fan is a full stakeholder in the Bok “corporate entity” (sorry broer, I couldn’t find a better phrase…) and as such some honest communication would not be out of place.
“That his game tactics is not the much published ‘kick-chase’ obsession the media and supporters loves highlighting as Australia & Argentina kicks more than they do or the fact that the AB’s topped the stats as the team that kicks the most out of all test nations?”
You are either accidently or deliberately fudging the issue here by insinuating that all kicks fall under the “kick-chase” category. We both know that that is not the case. If that was true an argument could be made that the team that kicks the most is the most successful. In which case, let’s kick as much or more than the Kiwis do!
“That the best way to introduce young, inexperienced talent into any setup, let alone test rugby, is best done in combination, or within combinations of experienced players?”
I agree 100% and I described that as a risk in my post (see my staatmakers reference).
What is it you want him to explain exactly?
Look, he really doesn’t have to explain anything to anyone if he doesn’t want to but I believe that fans will be more patient if he can unpack that suitcase of his that is marked “winning rugby” and state clearly how it differs from what we’ve seen since 2004 when the philosophy of “playing without the ball” was transparently aired for the first time.
Do you believe that the Kiwi’s rely on the Gary Owen-and-chase as their primary attack option?
@ Loosehead:
Then that is just a subjective opinion.
@ Morné:As is all opinion.
You should be a politician as you answer very few questions.
morné @ 71
the reason i mentioned it is that i read somewhere that meyer likes to surround him with people that he knows and trust. nothing wrong with that. my problem is that i read somewhere that he chose them because they would buy into his gameplan … i’m not sure whether that was his own words or just something i read in an article. if its true … does that make his (especially bulls coaching staff) ja-broers? whilst on that topic .. what happened to pdv (the scrum coach) and rassie?
68 @ Loosehead:
ESPECIALLY not Free State or WP.
They also went back on their written word to stand by the current Super Rugby franchises.
Hehehehe. Wife (Cheetahs) gets quite p1ssed off when I slag the “forked tongue” minnions of the SARU cowards.
79 @ Scrumdown:YOU are off my Christmas card list!
@ fender:
Bok supporters are as much stakeholders in SA or Bok rugby as I am a stakeholder in MTN for having a mobile phone contract with them. I know fans don’t want to hear it, some refuse to believe it, but that’s how it is.
More pertinent, the other points.
Watch the Bok game again from last weekend. Australia tried 5 little grubber/chip kicks – 1 worked (where they regained possession) and I believe a try resulted from it (Higginbotham). You could here the Aussie commentators frustration with what was an obvious, pre-planned tactic.
The point is all teams kick, rugby is dependent on territorial advantage – but kicks become useless as a tactic if not executed accurately and that is the main problem with the Boks, as was the case with the Aussies where 1 out of 5 that work with others not resulting in gain of territory or regaining possession not being good enough.
Ironically, Boks had the better kicking game against Aus, much more accurate than against Argentina in fact.
Is it the wrong approach? Not in my mind. Is the execution of it poor? Compared to how well we did it in 2009, damn right it is poor but that can improve and it has from the Argentine game.
Have you seen how many times the AB’s kicked from their own half last weekend?
The Boks execution in many areas are currently poor, kicks being one of them but funnily enough, not my biggest worry.
The Boks are losing the battle because we get bullied in the tackled area or rucks. Fix that, and everything else will fall into place.
@ Loosehead:
Nope, I am obviously just not giving you the answers you like.
I am not sure Frans is the best choice, I said that, but I am also not sure WP or Jacobie are better options as none of our tightheads dominated in Super Rugby – and in that sense I believe Meyer is in a much better position than us to make that call.
81 @ Morné:are you suggesting that player like Flo or Brussouw be picked?
82 @ Morné:Ok, so commit yourself to what is currently wrong, and what should be done to fix it.
@ Loosehead:
Our problems in this area is not limited to stealing or slowing opposition ball down, it is mainly protecting or recycling our own ball quicker and effectively where our biggest problem lies. Boks simply don’t clean rucks effectively, we do not flood the breakdown point accurately and produce pretty shitty ball for our backs who are 90% of the time static and under pressure.
We need to re-think our approach and selections in our pack collectively in this regard because it is not working at all.
80 @ Loosehead:
Boohoo!
@ Scrumdown:
Written word??
Really??
85 @ Morné:
Scrum halves who stand around the base of the ruck gesticulating to the referee about some perceived infringement instead of clearing the damn ball doesn’t help get quick ball either.
Bondisio for the Lions on Saturday was a super example of quick crisp service. I think that even Matt-the brat-Pearce and Bob-the real builder-Skinstad even commented on it at the time.
The argument goes round and round in circles, with the Reverend GBS sitting on his thrown telling all and sundry they haven’t got a clue. So be it. Fans are seen as completely without knowledge for the game of rugby, and trust me, I sit firmly atop that pile. But in my time in following the sport, I have found that more times than not, that fans are seldom wrong in the long run.
Yes we will win matches with this style of rugby, yes the players will get more experienced, and yes the coaching will improve. But in 10 years time when you look at the stats, as Superbul has done with the previous 10, nothing will have changed. The fickle supporter will forgive and forget when we win a match, celebrate until dawn with a ‘dop n chop’, the hacks will change their tune again, and the next week we will be back to snorting the new American military anti-suicide nasal spray again (yes, it is a real product), slating and berating coach, captain, time zones and the dog. We’re fanatical, its what we do.
But, GBS, it’s taken a while for you to find an ally in Morne. You are two very astute rugby brains, and I salute you both. You can knock us down with your jeering from the balcony, but remember, it’s ultimately the fan that pays the bills, and that includes yours. Your comment to Bean1 yesterday was very pertinent, but for every GBS, who gets his kicks from purists rugby, I will find you a thousand who want to see entertaining rugby too (and by the way, we love the purity too).
Now we may come across as being dumb, fickle short sighted and not very knowledgable on the games intricacies, but tell me then, why do we all admire the All Blacks style of play? Why do us thick ou’s go on about the fact that we have the un-nurtured talent to play the game, and why do we hold the likes of Graeme Henry in such high regard without ever supporting the All Blacks? Because, quite simply, the fan has been been right all along, and seen that it is possible to watch entertaining rugby and winning rugby at the same time, with a bit of purity thrown in for good measure.
If we want this sport to grow in the way that the IRB and SANZAR wants it too, people like you are going to have to come down off thrown, pull your collective heads out of the sand and see what the fan really wants. If you don’t, you are going to see fans leaving in droves. It is happening already.
So, yes, we may be a bit slow on the uptake, but I doubt we’re as stupid as you think, hehehe
87 @ BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan:
Letter signed by ALL 5 Super Rugby franchises and presented to SARU before the start of the SR competition that the Kings inclusion should not be at the detriment of any of the current participants.
SARU agreed in writing.
Hence expect a court case.
Users Online
Total 138 users including 0 member, 138 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,197,413 Page Impressions
_