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!
Perspective:
Ostrich Meyer – Sage on the Stage
Gary Kirsten – Guide on the Side.
@ Just For Kicks:
Bwahaha. Very apt.
An ostrich kicks, a lock headbuds for 2 weeks.
Had we had the guide on the side approach, I think we may have won against Aus on Sat. Goosen and Lambie came on full of running, but no one else knew how to adapt to them.
Well yes and no. I think the answer is somewhere in between of what your suggesting.
IMO a coach must do the following:
– Develop a game plan in which all players buy into.
– Ensure that all players have the skill to do their job in the game plan.
– He must a man manager. He must know his players an must be able to see when a player is not performing.
The idea of thinking on the field, in the heat of the moment doesn’t work. All players fall back to muscle memory and it takes a long time to build muscle memory. IMO, for SA to be consistently number one, all super rugby franchises must play similar game plans. For any coach, to only have a few weeks with the players and to change their muscle memory to play different than for his franchise, is going to be very tough.
Heyneke is the right man to do this. If we can just get all the provincial coaches to work towards a more similar style of play,we will always be number one.
5 @ leon:
With all due respect, it’s never going to happen that all SR franchises play the same game plan / style of play.
It would be Rugby suicide for any franchise to buy into that. Not only would the likes of NZ know exactly how to counter the SA side, but their SR sides would know the recipe to beating every SA SR side.
Stamp Kar Rugby is not going to win any tournaments in the next few years. Not The Rugby Championship, and definetly not the Rugby World Cup.
If executed correctly it’ll beat the likes of England, Scotland, Wales etc MOST of the time, but the Rugby innovators like NZ and Australia will unlock it (for the most part) week after week.
Until SARU puts down some REAL grass roots devlopment and coaching that can be continued through to Senior level, SA Rugby will always be in the top 6, but rarely in the top 2 for any continued length of time.
Brute force and ignorance just don’t cut it anymore.
6 @ Scrumdown:It looks to me as if NZ know exactly how to counter the SA side already – in fact they play to such a regimented style that I should think most of the rest of the world knows what they are going to do before they do it!
7 @ bean1:
My point exactly.
The physically less imposing sides don’t always have the wherewithall to counter it, but sides like the All Blacks and Wallabies seem to subdue the SA physicallity and then just use skill and guile to win the matches.
Sad really.
What makes a great player stand apart from the rest, is the ability to think under pressure. You cant teach that to someone, but you can help bring it out.
@ Scrumdown:
Well, everybody knows how nz is playing, everybody knows how the stormers are playing, and I don’t see any team having a recipe to beat them consistently.
@ Just For Kicks:
I disagree. All athletes revert to muscle memory under pressure. a Great athlete is someone who have trained different option for each situation and play the right option at the right time.
@ leon:No problem, we will agree to disagree. In my summation, I think of guys like Dan Carter, Jonny Wilkinson, Gary Linekar, Michael Owen, Michael Jordan, Pele, to name but a few. All to me have supreme talent, but also have the ‘X’ factor. In my mind, thats not muscle memory, but the ability to sum up a situation, make, and implement a plan of attack in the flick of a switch. Thats what makes a great player to me.
@ Just For Kicks:
Cool. BTW, I really liked your article. Got me thinking a bit.
jfk
nice article boet. as ive said on numerous occassion, i’m a huge fan of jim greenwood and read and re-read his book “think rugby” on numerous occassions. i think the 1st edition of this book was released in the early 80’s. despite all the rule changes, technology and everything else that have changed the face of rugby since then, each and every principle in that book could be applied to today’s game. the reason for this is that greenwood in his book is doing exactly what you’re asking for in this article ie. empowering players to work things/problems out for themselves
stupid example:
in saturday’s game between nz/arg they at one stage showed a wider view of the playing field. on that occassion one ab player was running back with the ball (after it was kicked by the argies). what was interesting about that shot, was what the support players (still way out in front of the runner) was doing. every single one of them getting ready not just to support the ball carrier, but to give him different options.
..
our players on the contrary: guy come running from the back, ONE or on some occasions TWO players will fall back, not to support him or give him (attacking) options, but to make sure theyre onside when he “sool” the leather off the ball!!
skop hom valie, dalkies vang hulle mis!!
Thanks for the praise, but I only reposted that article from Ross’ site (a very good and insightful website), so I can’t take the credit for it. I found it very informative and well written, so I reposted it. Please also note, I have given the web address at the top of the article, and thus given the website the credit!
Been a huge fan of this type of coaching but there is a very fine line from one extreme to the next.
In its simplest form a teacher (think school, college, Varsity) teaches students because he or she does know more. The environment is hardly every dynamic or ever-changing where the principles, content or formulas being taught have long since been tested and proven (to a certain extent in theoretical teachings of course). In other words, the environment is static, results already known which now only needs to be taught and explained to the student.
Coaching is something different altogether. Coaching someone to become better at their job involves firstly creating an environment conducive for change (comfortable environment which stimulates students/players ability to process information positively = creating an environment of trust), and then secondly using various tools or skills to help the student/player challenge himself or herself to improve in various aspects.
Coaching is more a management process (of skills) than it is a teaching process (teaching them the skills).
IN rugby specifically the coach needs to create the environment (structure) in which players feel comfortable. This will include your chain of command structures (leadership) as well as the collective vision (read game plan/strategy/goals, etc).
Once you succeed in successfully creating this environment your job is about 60% done.
From there the coach will use tools in which he not only encourages players, but also challenge them as individuals, and as a team. Failures in these environments of any kind is then not seen as negative, but rather situations from which your learn on how not to do something again (eg learning from mistakes). The failures are also not individual, but collective so when any one player makes a mistake each player feels ‘guilty’ for not supporting that player well enough to have prevented it.
Players most importantly learn to self-asses, and through this will use team mates, coaches and other experts as sounding boards to actively analyse what went wrong, identifying themselves why it went wrong, and ‘magically’ actually find the solution on how not to do it wrong in the future themselves!
It also allows coaches to make changes (in approach, selections etc) with much greater ease, as everyone knows it is for the collective, not the individual.
In short, to apply a ‘facilitator’ type of coaching approach you have to build it around a rigid structure. Or in other words, allow players freedom within a said structure.
We often try to replace one approach with the other, and that is a huge mistake.
17 @ Morné:
Gits Gawie…. I thought you were properly the moer in with us here at R-T, you have not been here for so long!
@ grootblousmile:
Nah was never the moer in with anyone. Just did not find my way around blogs that often anymore but always kept reading.
19 @ Morné:
OK… good then…
You also bitching and moaning with Heyneke Meyer?
You also want him sacked sooner rather than later?
You see light in the tunnel?
@ grootblousmile:
Nah – Sacking Heyneke is nothing short of fucking stupid.
Excuse the French but there is not better way to describe it.
IMO Heyneke can only truly be judged this time next year.
Of course like many I am disappointed in the small things, some selections, some of the commitment and the general mindset, but nothing close to suggest he should be sacked.
I have all the faith in the world Heyneke will turn it around. He is many things, but he is not stupid – and he is a damn fine coach. I think currently he might be lacking faith in his own ability a bit because of the pressures of the job.
If there is one thing I would tell Heyneke or ask him is if he is currently himself – I am positive his answer will be no.
For my money, he must relax, look at things logically and trust his own ability – he must start enjoying himself again in other words. From that everything else will come.
21 @ Morné:
Ah, another enlightened individual… who mostly feels like I do…
Good to know Morné!
When the selections for bok coach were being bandied about I put forward that there would only be 3 realistic options for Bok coach.
Gert Smal who has been doing good things with Ireland and has been part of the Bok setup before.
Alistair Coetzee who was the Bok backline coach and has won coach of the year.
Heinecke Meyer who supposedly lost out to Pieter De Villiers at the last minute previously.
I don’t rate AC, never have and don’t think WP will win the Super Rugby title with him at the helm.
I was a fan of Smal, liked the way his team handled the Boks in past tests. he has learned a thing or 2, but HM would be fine too. At the time i pegged HM as a very good manager of systems and people, who may be better served as a DOR type of person than an on-field coach. I still maintain that this is where he excels and that he won’t bring much more to the party than any of his predecessors did, in fact he may bring less as some, like PDV had a certain “maverick” to them.
I don’t peg HM as a man with a great deal of “out of the box” type of thinking and this has been borne out in his current tenure. To me he is showing that he is simply going with what he knows. The thing is, Heynecke is correct in saying that we shouldn’t look at plan B if we can’t even execute plan A correctly. This is to say that plan A may actually be the right one (in his mind) but we cannot judge as they cannot pull it off yet. So when he says that they need more coaching that makes sense if you understand where he is coming from.
The error in his thinking is that the rugby field is a fluid situation demanding a dynamic approach to the game, something that he seems against allowing the players to do. This is where the problem comes out. Against softer teams you can get away with not executing plan A perfectly and still win, but against teams that are sharper and more dynamic and at the same time can front up to us physically we struggle. This was perfectly illustrated not just against Australia on Saturday but 2 weeks before that in Argentina. They could well have won that game and did it by bringing something different and at the same time matching us upfront.
What is clear is that if HM persists with his version of insanity (doing the same thing each time and expecting a different result) will bring us a lot of angst and disappointment.
Do I think that HM is still the right man? Yes, as much as he ever was, BUT he needs to realise that the game plan of forward dominance that he polished so successfully at the Bulls worked primarily because he had several of the best players in the world in their respective positions to use, something that he no longer has under these Boks. The question is, can he work with these players as well as he did with the greats like Gurthro, Matflied, Botha, Rossouw, FDP, et al?
23 @ BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan:
I could have sworn I read this exact thing on thr No Quick Fix thread….. hehehe
@ grootblousmile:
You did. I have a stutter, but I thought that thread was dead and I hate being ignored!!!
21 @ Morné:
22
@ grootblousmile:
So must we all be happy with the brand of rugby being played? In 6 tests have the Springboks progressed? Can we not protest against the results?
Or must we have sympathy with HM because he is not feeling himself (in a very Catholic way)? Must we accept this style of rugby untill this time next year?
HM had better sort his crap out and sort it out pdq.
Again, would PDV have been given the same grace?
@ Loosehead:
I am yet to see someone who has ‘accepted’ these performances as okay or good. Everybody acknowledges it is not up to standard and not good enough.
Some however would like to apply some perspective.
Perspective that much stronger, more settled, more experienced Bok sides have lost in Australia and New Zealand in the last 10 years.
Perspective that this is not even close to Meyer’s ideal starting XV and although injuries are part of rugby, it still disrupts any team.
Perspective that Meyer at this point, right now, has only spent 3 weeks with his squad outside of preparing for a test with his opposing coaches having had years with theirs.
Perspective that when you start out with a new team, with a new coach, you will make mistakes from time to time, mistakes that will become less the more settled you become and that at test level, one mistake can cost you a result (as was the case in point last weekend).
It is not about excuses, or making them, it is about applying some perspective to a situation, but in my experience SA supporters have real difficulty doing that.
@ Loosehead:
Oh and PDV was not afforded the same grace in 2008 – but I do remember the Boks getting it together rather spectacularly in 2009.
27 @ Morné: Hansen is in a similar situation.
28 @ Morné: Almost exactly my point.
Hello all.
I am in agreement with most of you, except those who want Heyneke sacked.
BUT I have a huge problem with the assistants Ricardo Laubscher (backline), Johan van Graan (forwards) and John McFarlane (defence); and for good measure let me throw in Louis Koen (kicking coach) as well.
What international coach of sound mind would pick these palookas as assitants, I ask?
And that’s all I have to say about that. I will continue reading your comments though, my blogging is severely restricted at the moment due to pressures of work….maybe just as well, or I would have been swearing to high heavens again with this kuk rugby we are being served by the Springboks at the moment!
@ maljan_vaaljan_dieboksupporter!:
Spot on Vaaljan!!!
Listening to the ref shouting ‘stay, stay, stay!’ to our players on the replay last night I said exactly the same thing to the wife, as Morne kicked those ‘up-and-unders’ from 10 meters behind the game line, leaving his chasers in no-man’s land……eishhh!
Now, as an example (and there are many,) everyone is blaming Frans Fteyn, but wtf else can you do with a hesitant, clueless flyhalf deep in the pocket on your inside and a stuttering Jean on your outside?
Put Lambie or the Goose there, with a flyer like Jordaan on # 13, and you will see a different, confident Frans Steyn coming to the fore.
Users Online
Total 200 users including 0 member, 200 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,490,913 Page Impressions
_