Traditional Coaching Methods Need to be Challenged

A coach is supposed to have all of the knowledge, while the player has everything to learn. With that in mind, it is the coach's responsibility to share everything that he/she knows and provide instructional feedback to every repetition. This approach completely disregards how people, let alone children, learn. It also neglects the most important reason that children play the game - because it's fun.

Imagine spending your day at work in the office with someone correcting you every time you mistype or don't get the sale. Everyone would agree yet we subject players to it in every sport. Players line up, perform an action such as shooting, and coaches are there to tell players precisely what went wrong. Otherwise, they're not coaching, right? Wrong. Research tells us that all of us perform the same action differently. As a matter of fact, research tells us that none of us will ever repeat the same exact action twice. We'll never shoot the ball the same way twice.

With that in mind, why should so much time be spent breaking down shooting technique to a mechanical level? If it's the outcome of each action that truly dictates performance, why shift the focus away from that to simply ensure that all of the players in our care strike the ball in the same way? 

Instead of discussing what research evidence shows us is the best way for players to acquire skill, today's focus is on why coaching hasn't changed in the ways that nearly every other industry has. Here are just a few reasons why coaching often looks like the picture that we described.

• Coaches end up coaching similarly to how we were coached growing up because that's how they know it to look.
• Coaches find it easier to coach in environments that are black and white. Miss a cone in a dribbling exercise? Something must have been wrong, meaning it's now time to teach.
• Coaches are afraid to adapt because there is pressure or fear tied to doing things in a different way than parents expect.
• Coaches mimic top coaches that have had competitive success.

While it's understandable and expected to take certain things away from past experience, nothing will ever change for the better if coaches are solely reliant on how they experienced coaching in the past. Similarly, the pressure to be teaching constantly, whether from the coach themselves, parents, or leadership lends itself to coaches designing sessions that have very little relevance to the game as a whole.

All of this brings me to my final point. Whether it be due to imposter syndrome or the very well intended desire to learn from the best professionals, this can also be detrimental to players. At any given training complex, you'll see a whole host of coaches with session plans copied from the likes of Pep Guardiola and Jurgen Klopp. The fact that coaches have access to this level of information now a days is amazing, but it is not always applied appropriately. Running nine year olds through the paces of a Guardiola session in the exact same size space with the same constraints as his best Barcelona or Manchester City teams will lead to a frustrated coach and players. The coach will be upset that his players can't perform to the likes of Rodri and Sergio Busquets while the players miss out on any joy because of the frustrated and negative interventions by the coach.

The argument for learning from the best is an easy one. Success leaves clues after all, right? While there are definitely things that can be taken away and applied from winning and successful environments, if all coaches are coaching in a similar fashion, how much can we truly learn. Are the coaches that win successful because of their methods or because the overwhelming majority of coaches are doing similar things? 

It's time that we question traditional coaching methods, even though many of us had great experiences and playing careers. Was that due to our coach's methods or was that because ultimately, regardless of how great or poor coaching standards were at the time, someone will always rise to the top?