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!
@ Loosehead:
Hansen is in no way similar to Meyer.
He has coached at test level before, 2002 to 2004 Wales – took them to the RWC in 2003.
He was appointed as AB assistant coach in 2004 under Henry. He has been with this squad of players, and involved at international level for a decade now, 8 of those years with the All Blacks.
Out of the All Black team that won the RWC final in 2011, Hansen has lost two players; Brad Thorne and Stephen Donald. (And recently SBW)
Out of that same 22 only 2 players are out with injury currently, Richard Kahui & Ali Williams.
How is this in any way similar to Meyer?
Frans Malherbe jetting his way to New Zealand as we speak, to cover for Jannie du Plessis & Pat Cilliers, who are both currently under an injury cloud
31 @ Morné:
HM has been assistant coach to the Boks
HM has coached the Bulls to a S15 win
HM has coached the Bulls to many CC finals
HM has coached internationally
HM has been DOR at the Bulls
Plenty of experience there.
Ok, so perhaps I am a little off the mark when comparing the different squads.However Meyer did know the situation when he took the job.
Also, I am not calling for HM to be replaced. I am calling for him to adapt his way of thinking to the modern era and the players available to him.And do so PDQ!
@ Loosehead:
HM assisted the Boks over a decade ago before he became a SR coach!
Deans is enough evidence a great Super Rugby coach will not be an immediate success at test level – all together a completely different setup.
Coaching a club team in another country does not mean you are a coach with international (test) experience.
This is new ground for Meyer, in every sense of the word.
South African supporters are expecting Meyer in his rookie season with close to 50% rookie players to perform better in a competition (Rugby Championship old 3N) where the Boks with experienced coaches and experienced squads in the past ended stone last too many times to mention with victories as rare as hens teeth in Australasia? On what principle exactly?
I have seen Meyer accomplish some pretty amazing things in the past but I am yet to see him turn water into wine.
Knowing the situation and trying to fix the situation are two very different things. Our most experienced Bok side exit the RWC in the quarters last year, against Australia.
34 @ Morné:ok, but then why appoint him if he is so out of touch with modern rugby?
@ Loosehead:
And who says he is out of touch with modern rugby?
Better yet, who else?
Morne, I agree that Rome was not built in a day and yes, we should allow Bob the Bok Builder time to complete the building. At this stage I’m not even sure that the foundation is in place let alone the stained glass windows that most Bokfans are calling for.
However, Bob the BokBuilder has a problem. The only way the fans will allow him time to build is if he shares his building plan with us in an open and transparent way. By limiting discussion about the exact plan to “winning rugby” he is digging a hole for himself and not the foundation of the building.
He needs to state categorically what he is building towards and needs to be brave enough to state that he believes that our previous plan (an almost reliance on kick-and-hope-they-make-mistakes) is not what he has in mind.
If he explains the plan, it will allow for more people to buy into the plan and the building process. It will be tricky and he runs the risk of allienating some hereto Bok-staatmakers in the teambuilding process, but the pressure is building.
Do I believe Heynecke can do it? In the immortal words of Bob the Builder – yes he can!
OK, waas my toebroodjie – ek’s nou moeg gebou….
36 @ Morné: Have you not watched the Springboks since he took over?
fender wrote:
The builder in question is building with straw, clay, riempies and cattle dung when the the trend setters are using bricks, cement and stainless steel.
@ Morné:
Plus HM was the assistant coach for the Stormers, which is probably where he picked up his skill.
That makes him acceptable in my book.
Morne, what is your opinion on the style of rugby that has been played so far by the Boks under HM? Also what is your opinion on the squads selected by him so far?
fender @ 37
lol
@ fender:
Right, share his plan with supporters in a transparent way.
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?
You will notice I am painting SA supporters with a very big brush here, but given the opinions and comments I read everyday on websites, blogs, social media and listen to on our most successful rugby magazine show like SuperRugby on KykNet you will forgive me for the generalization.
What do you want him to share?
His philosophy that there is only winning rugby and losing rugby?
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?
That 80% of all top nations game plans and tactics are the same (reliant on field position, possession and first phase dominance) with 20% being the execution of those areas or factors where he admits they currently fall short?
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?
What is it you want him to explain exactly?
@ Loosehead:
Not only have I watched them in 2012, I have watched them religiously since 1992 and starting writing about them in 2005.
@ Loosehead:
I believe the Boks style of play is pretty similar to most international teams. I believe their execution however is very poor currently. I think some selections could be better in key positions, but currently we have quite a number of injuries in those positions and we are down to numbers 3 to 5 down the list in many of those.
Let me ask you this question;
Do you think WP’s current ‘style’ of playing is any different to the style they played in Super Rugby as the Stormers?
43 @ Morné:and you are happy with the current style and results?
44 @ Morné:not really. They are just executing it better.
@ Loosehead:
Show me a Bok supporter happy with losing and I will show you a RWC final won on merit.
Like you said, they (WP) are just executing it better – so to will the Bok results change if they do the same.
So is the question what Heyneke is currently building being right or wrong, or why we cannot execute it as we should and if it is the latter, why is that?
Then we can start a proper rugby debate.
@ Morné: What is your opinion on HM calling Malherbe into the squad to cover at tighthead? Does this fit the profile of “we need experienced players because of all of our injuries”?
Also what is your opinion of putting Bakkies on standby to cover for Etzebeth?
@ Morné:Ok, so why are WP executing it better when they have the same coaching staff, but a different team?
@ Loosehead:
Firstly Malherbe – we have had a real problem at tighthead for years in SA. I am not convinced he’s the best, but I know CJ is injured. I also don’t know what the situation on overseas based players are? Are they fit? Are they available? Who else do we have in SA that has more experience?
Bakkies – crisis cover. We seem to have many #5 locks in SA but no real traditional #4’s. Who do we have in SA considering Juandre is only in his 6th or something test?
@ Loosehead:
Combination of things imo. Better players in crucial positions and in WP’s specific case scrummie, better balance in combinations.
Agument, counter argument. Accusation, counter accusation.
Quite entertaining reading today.
GO NZ for Saturday.
@ Scrumdown:
And maybe even a argument with an “r”.
@ Morné:
Malherbe, is not the answer, nor is CJ. A quick call to Mujati [although I seem to remember him saying that he isn’t interested in playing for the Boks anymore], WP Nel would quickly sort that out. Personally I would take the Lions tighthead.
Recalling Bakkies is like recalling Matfield, FDP or Smit.
Find a local player, there are plenty around who are quality.
By the way guys and gals… before I leave for Daggafontein (purely on business… hehehe)….
Joshua Strauss has signed for Glasgow Warriors in Scotland and will move there till May 2015.
I received a Mail from the Lions PR people with the official announcement, Josh leaves almost immediately.
@ Loosehead:
Mujati is not interested, although his agent says he is available.
Do you suggest WP or Jacobie because they are better scrummagers? Because it can’t be on experience can it?
And who are these locks locally you refer to?
52 @ Scrumdown:I will be supporting the Boks. [I might not watch the game, but will support them]
56 @ Morné:
Pismier…. I leave this in your capable hands… glad to have another with a sense of reason here so that I don’t have to argue the point over and over again, and appear to be squarely ingekruip up Heyneke’s backside.
Please let these okes see reason, my friend, they are a bit slow on the uptake…. hehehe
Oh, about Mujati… I don’t think he even qualifies to play for the Bokke anymore, he is ex Zimbabwean with UK residency and NO SA RESIDENCY permit whatsoever anymore.
56 @ Morné: they are both more experienced and better scrummages that Malherbe.
Roodt from the Lions or the guy that the Bulls just poached. Bakkies is the past.
Users Online
Total 41 users including 0 member, 41 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,494,152 Page Impressions
_