Non-negotiables for coaches — from the players

coach or bus?

I have written previously about the under-13 squads I am working with this year.

As part of their introduction to the squad, we have them discuss and agree on “non-negotiables” — agreed actions, behaviours, attitudes within the squad that simply will not be debated — for themselves, for their interactions with team mates.

And also for what they expect from their coaches.

We (the coaches) didn’t get a say (these are the players expectations of us), but we will have to own them, as far as we can.

If we are to aspire to being more than Shane Warne’s bus!

Coach non-negotiables

  • Give constructive, honest and tough feedback
  • Challenge your game
  • Progressive Coaching (coach people with a vision of the future)
  • To always be approachable
  • To remain positive
  • Adaptability

A lot of the players have prior experience of other development and performance pathways. Some might have been engaged by more progressive educational approaches in school — something beyond “teaching to the exam”.

But the list of coach non-negotiables looks really rather well thought-through.

What matters most to the players — what we coach, or how we coach?

In an unscientific follow-up conversation, the coach “attitudes” (honest & tough feedback; approachable; positive) seemed to rank more highly than actual coaching behaviours (challenge; progression).

Difficult to tell if this is because the coaching knowledge (what to coach; how to coach for improvement) is just assumed to be there, or if the relative importance of coach attitudes and behaviours relates to the players’ previous experience with other coaches.

Comments

4 responses to “Non-negotiables for coaches — from the players”

  1. cfauske Avatar
    cfauske

    The biggest culture change we made at the university rugby club when I started coaching was the in-season Monday meeting when we (all the club athletes and all the coaching staff) first discussed what the weekend had taught us about what was and was not working during coaching sessions and why. Coaches were allowed to ask for clarification or ask questions about matters that had not been brought up, but not to explain or defend our decisions. Then we would meet with the captans and discuss coaching plans for the coming week. Out of season, we had bi-weekly team meetings where players told us what they thought was happening during coaching sessions and, again, we had to listen but could not defend or explain our actions. There various benefits were significant. It took us a bit of time to get used to it as coaches (and it took some players schooled in American football, in particular, a depressingly long time to get on board with the idea they had a role to play), but we went for D3 to D1 in three years and stayed there. I wasn’t always sure it was what we were coaching that was the difference as much as how we were coaching but, of course, there was no control group, so…

    Like

    1. Andrew Beaven Avatar

      I’m not sure I’d be brave enough to listen but not to explain or defend my coaching practice! But I could certainly imagine the benefits of allowing the players such agency in their learning. Indeed, I could believe that this agency was as important (maybe more) than the what or the how of your coaching.
      But I am no sports psych!
      Could I share this conversation with a coaching colleague who does have a sports psychology qualification?

      Like

      1. cfauske Avatar
        cfauske

        Please feel free to share.

        Worth stressing, no one was allowed to mention the score or specific plays. There was other time set aside for that.

        Chris

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Andrew Beaven Avatar

        Thanks
        I’ll let you know what she thinks.

        Like

Leave a reply to cfauske Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.