Warning

JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 783

Thursday, 07 April 2016 13:58

Coaching: Is ‘Old School’ A Form of Bullying?

By | Sports

Recently, there has been an intensive debate in the coaching profession concerning the treatment of athletes. Coaching styles are under the microscope, and part of the argument as administrators, coaches, psychologists, parents, and the athletes themselves try to agree on which coaching characteristics best fit the profession, or situation. ‘Old school’ coaching philosophy dictates that the athlete should be able to adjust to any coaching style to function to the expectations of their mentor. Failure to do so is blamed on the athlete, and is considered a form of weakness on the part of that individual. Often, the athlete will quit the sport to avoid confrontation with the coach.  This scenario is defeating the purpose of coaching - a coach's main focus should be to help the athlete grow as a player and as a person. 

 

A coaching philosophy is the signature of that coach’s style and consists of a mixture of the coach’s personal beliefs, goals, objectives, and standards. Most coaches know in their mind what their philosophies consist of, but ask them to convey this information, some might find it difficult to accomplish. An uneducated coach may respond with “my philosophy is to win!” This coach has no direction. Winning is great and promotes short-term job security, perhaps, but coaches have a higher calling than just winning. The chosen philosophy is a direct reflection of the style the coach employs. What can result from this choice is that the coach takes losing as a personal insult to their fractured ego.  That can be the beginning of a negative environment with conflict developing between the coach and his / her team, which can also trickle down to the individual athlete. The result is that the fun is gone for the athlete!

 

So the questions are: How do modern coaches differ from coaches of the past? Do they differ at all? What can coaches do to reach their athletes and promote optimum performance? How can a coach earn respect from athletes without resorting to negative responses and punishments? Which coaching style or styles do athletes respond best to?

 

I was known from being a boisterous coach – and at times I have been misunderstood by some people in the stands. Very seldom would I raise my voice to my players, as individuals, because I did not want to embarrass them. If I yelled out at all it would be related to team strategy. I admit that I was not very easy on referees and there were times, after a game, I regretted my demeanor. 

 

But never did I punish my teams for losing, or players for making mistakes. When that occurred, what I did in practices was focus on correcting what needed to corrected from the previous game, win or lose, my goal then was to prepare the team for our next contest. 

 

I learned throughout my career that kids or athletes do not make mistakes, or lose, on purpose. I was far from perfect, but my players’ well being was always a concern of mine, and teaching them fundamentals was usually a big part of my focus.  I felt I couldn't blame players for something they had no knowledge, or skill to perform. My main job, as a coach, was to share my knowledge with them, and help them perform to the best of their abilities. Hopefully they had fun doing so.  I can honestly say that as a coach of all the sports I have coached, that I never bullied my players, their well-being was at the top of my priority list.

 

 

Let me use this outline with comparative characteristics of the two philosophies of coaching: Old School vs. New School. This comes from an article written and submitted by: W. Glenn Reese, Candidate for Masters Degree, USSA, under the guidance of Dr. Sally J. Ford, Chair of Sports Coaching, USSA.

 

Coaches have stated, "I use the ‘old school’ style of coaching." Do they really know what that means? When the term ‘old school coach’ is used, the following characteristics come to mind:

 

  • Punish first, converse later
  • Atmosphere of fear of failure for the athlete
  • Immediate short-term respect
  • Knowledge of technical skills, but not tactical
  • Insisting on undivided attention when speaking
  • Intimidation of those who speak against the coach’s decisions
  • Demeaning motivation
  • Nonexistent relationships with the athletes and assistant coaches
  • Loss of an athlete’s attention due to negativity
  • Athletes quit due to poor treatment

 

When an old school coach goes too far, the consequences can be disastrous, and becomes a form of bullying.

 

Most successful new school coaches tend to be cooperative style coaches. Most athletes today want coaches who are open to their ideas and value them as people. Cooperative coaching allows for this empowerment of the athlete, while keeping the overall power in the hands of the coach. A prevalent trait of the new school coach is the thirst for knowledge. A new school coach is more open to change and adaptation than the old school coach. This does not mean that the new school coach is “soft.” This simply means that the new school coach is not as domineering. A new school coach seeks to earn the respect of his/her athletes by demonstrating the knowledge they need to be successful. “A characteristic of effective coaches at all levels is continued ongoing learning and reflection. Virtually every portrait of great coaches shows them to be active learners, who engage in constant reflection,” (Gilbert and Jackson, 2004).

 

Characteristics of a new school coach might be:

 

  • Positive relationship with athletes and other coaches
  • Stern but not offensive
  • Fresh ideas through open lines of communication
  • Increased participation due to coaching style
  • Increased tactical knowledge of athletes
  • Appreciation shown from athletes/community
  • Gives and receives advice
  • Leads by example
  • Encourages initiatives of team leaders
  • Exhibits continued knowledge of the sport
  • Has opportunities for advancement into administration

Not too long ago, I wrote a column relating to coaches who overreact as their style. Lately, it seems that there has been more controversy on how coaches treat athletes. The pros and cons are no different than they were 50 years ago. The “pro” aspect of being coached by a person who is overly critical of athletes can evolve as a form of motivation by the athlete to prove the coach wrong, but this is a double negative. Some people might say, “deal with the fact that you have an ‘in-your-face’ coach, so, ‘suck it up!’” The con is obvious – a growing dislike for the coach and his/her style of being mean spirited using condescending tactics that eventually becomes a total turn off for the athletes, and this feeling of disdain for the coach arises daily. 

What do I think? 

 

I truthfully don't see a lot of success with the ‘Old school’ philosophy – it is basically non-productive. I know that there are some ‘Old School’ coaches who believe what they do is some form of reverse psychology. The proven fact is that the majority of the time, the simple truth in most situations is that form of psychological science just doesn't work. The New school coach knows that communication needs to be positive, no matter the sport, and it needs to be a two way street. Yelling or screaming at someone is derogatory - it just reinforces negativism, and eventual disdain. 

 

Effective communication is about listening to the other side; in fact it's one of the most humane aspects in all relationships, no matter the circumstance: athletically, or in every day life.

 

Read 4765 times

Blotter

  • New York State Police The New York State Police announced that it issued 5,576 tickets during this year’s St. Patrick’s Day enforcement initiative. The campaign began on Friday, March 15, and continued until Sunday, March 17. During the campaign, funded by the Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee, State Police utilized sobriety checkpoints, additional DWI patrols, and underage drinking and sales to minors detail. State Police also ticketed distracted drivers who use handheld electronic devices. State Troopers arrested 132 people for DWI and investigated 199 crashes, which resulted in 25 people being injured and no fatalities. As part of the enforcement, Troopers also…

Property Transactions

  • BALLSTON Heather DiCaprio sold property at 473 Garrett Rd to Justine Levine for $288,000 Sharon Willman sold property at 99 Jenkins Rd to Charles Lemley for $165,000 CORINTH George Montena sold property at 422 Oak St to Stephen James for $142,250 Mark Makler sold property at 313 Oak St to Sabrina Sinagra for $195,000 GREENFIELD Landlord Services of Upstate New York sold property at 1935 NYS Rt 9N to Cochise Properties LLC for $210,000 MALTA  Linda LaBarge sold property at 35 Snowberry Rd to Qu Haozheng for $270,000 Dennis Mitchell sold property at 60 Village Circle North to BGRS Relocation…
  • NYPA
  • Saratoga County Chamber
  • BBB Accredited Business
  • Discover Saratoga
  • Saratoga Springs Downtown Business Association