I share your fears about professional development from first level. It is basic human nature. If your first experience of anything is too difficult, too challenging and not relevant to your needs, you will not try it again. If on the other hand we aim to make the first coaching education experience the best, most rewarding, most enjoyable and most relevant experience possible, we will have them breaking down the doors for more!!!

WG

When I started out in coaching many years ago, the training was very practically based, with the emphasis more on “what to coach” rather than “how to coach”. Since then, in an eagerness to develop the skills of coaches we’ve seen a strong shift of emphasis to the “how to coach” in the majority of sports. That may have been necesary at the time but I fear we may have gone too far. Here in the UK the debates are as fiece as ever about the right balance between these two elements.

Beyond the danger you mention of putting off lots of wannabe coaches with all the “ologies”, there’s a further risk. Those who qualify at the first level of coaching are not likely to progress any further or be interested in more CPD, if their experience in gaining the necessary award has not been great.

Thanks again for a stimulating article.

I am a big fan of sports science but…………only when it is relevant and appropriate to the level of coach and athlete we are working with.

What good are lactate analysers, heart rate monitors, GPS tracking systems and nutritional supplements if the athletes arrive late for training, execute basic skills poorly, don’t give 100% effort in their practices and are not engaged with the coach or the program????

Get the basics right first – then let’s do all the clever stuff.

Thanks again,

WG

Love the article – I am involved in coaching education in soccer and currently re-writing the community coaching courses for the Canadian Soccer Association – bringing the courses into line with our Long Term Player Development. What you suggest just re-inforces what we are trying to do – write content that is applicable and relavant to our cliental – the parent coach – far too often these manuals are written in a language for experienced coaches and bare little relevance to those who need the resource.

Don’t know how many times I have gone through this with sporting organisations trying to develop coach education programs:

Step 1 – Clearly identify your athlete development pathway and the real needs of the athletes at each step in pathway then….

Step 2 – Create the coach education pathway to run parallel and complimentary to the athlete development pathway.

This is not rocket science and it should make common sense to do it that way but……….

Thanks again,

WG

Thanks for the insightful response.

All change is personal – and change comes from learning. So we have to teach coaches what they need to / want to learn, make it personal and relevant, so they will use it to change and enhance the performance of their athletes and themselves.

I think this is the challenge for all coach education programs – move from mass production, “one size fits all” type coach education programs to creating tailored, unique, personalised education, training and development opportunities to meet the needs of individual coaches.

Great comment mate – thanks for sharing.

WG

I think we need both the art and the science of coaching don’t we.

We need to coach coaches to coach and we need some level of sports science to ensure that important aspects of programming and performance are measured, quantified and objectively evaluated.

So the art and the science of coaching – working together in harmony is a great combination. Your Brazilian English is much better than my Australian Portuguese my friend. Great work.

WG

As you might expect I have a lot of problems with University courses for coaches as they currently stand in most places – and for the same reasons you point out.

Nothing against sports scientists – I am one after all – but if we are claiming that a course will produce coaches, then surely the vast majority of the course should be about coaching, teaching, learning etc and 20-25% about sports science, sports medicine, injury management etc.

It is like creating a medical degree program but making 75% about running the business of a medical practice and 25% about curing illness, preventing illness, surgical techniques etc.

We want coaches – let’s train coaches. We want sports scientists – let’s train sports scientists.

Thanks again,

WG

Thanks for the comment.

In regard on line coach education, I think using it in isolation to coach coaches is doomed to fail. Using it as one part of an integrated approach to coaching coaches – using a combination of web based content, video, audio, phone, email, innovative assessment tasks etc might work well.

In the end it is about people and from my experience people teach people: programs do not teach people, laptops do not teach people, web sites do not teach people: people teach people.

WG

To me there are no Junior Coaches (unless they/you want to be called “Junior”).

There are Developmental Coaches (coaches who are concerned with, focus upon, developing basic skills, and thereby self-esteem).

Currently I am in contact with an overseas association, and I find so often(with many groups and coaches I have met)that they want to start at the top; elite/advanced examples are vital, but if you want to build a program, be it national or local, you have to develop the base. One-off clinics with no regular follow-up are not the answer; throwing money at the problem is not the answer .. excellent teaching of basic skills and patient progression is a step in the right direction, and this, of course requires appropriate coach education.

Coaches of elite athletes and their practices are not necessarily the appropriate examples.

Basic coach education should deal with basic skills, and applaud acquisition of those skills.

Perhaps the greatest coach I have had the privelege of working with made the following comment: “Few significant changes in technique take place after the mid-adolscent years” ..

Developmental Coaches need advice, example, and shared resources directed towards teaching basic form/technique elements correctly and precisely, right from the start.

Coaches of elite athletes want athletes “delivered” to them with such skills in place.

The better Developmental Caoches are assisted, the better will be the product to be refined at aa advanced level; and, instead of waiting (hoping)all you life for a potential Olympic medalist, Developmental Coaches can enjoy their association with a multitude
of self-esteem enhanced young people.

Coaching Courses should help Developmental Coaches to help athletes.