By Lawrence Fine
This is a subject that I have
rarely seen addressed but which I also
consider to be of extreme importance. Many
teams have either assistant coaches or
co-coaches who end up playing the role of
cone-fetcher or, even worse, merely stands
around and has no input at all. This is a
tragically wasted opportunity for players to
learn from different perspectives. Even at
higher levels (which for now I will consider
to be college soccer), from what I can see,
most assistant coaches end up being "gofers"
and "yes men" (or women).
For whatever reason, many
assistant coaches think the head coach wants
to hear affirmations about their decisions
rather than hearing an honest opinion from a
differing viewpoint. Even worse are head
coaches who really don’t want to here
another opinion and instead become angered
by the disagreement. By stifling any type of
true exchange of ideas, the head coach loses
out, the assistant loses out and, most
importantly, the team loses out.
How can this be avoided?
First, create an environment of open
communication. Without this, nothing else
will work. I strongly recommend that a head
coach and assistant coach meet before each
training session to discuss what will take
place during that session. Note that I did
not say the head coach tells the assistant
coach what is planned. This is a process
that should be done together. By taking both
coaches’ views into consideration, the
assistant coach will sense some ownership of
the practice. This also will allow either
coach to be able to run a drill or set up
for the next drill. Without this important
step, it is difficult to believe that any
two coaches can coexist successfully.
Often I see a head coach and
an assistant stand together through most of
a training session. That’s a pretty good
indicator that one of them is not being
utilized properly. One of the advantages of
having two coaches is that the team can
benefit from the observation of two sets of
eyes instead of one. This advantage is
somewhat negated if those eyes are observing
from the same angle.
The director of one of the
largest camps in the country talks about the
grenade theory. Simply explained, coaches
should be spread out so that if a grenade
were tossed onto the field, it would only
effect one coach. When the coaches must
speak, they should get together, have their
discussion, then separate. If the coaches
have met beforehand and discussed the
training session, they should be able to get
by with minimal communication that distracts
their attention from the players.
In order for coaches to work
together, there must be truly open
communication. Too often, I have spoken to
two members of a coaching staff where one
thinks the communication is excellent while
the other thinks it’s nonexistent. How can
this be? Sometimes it’s because the head
coach doesn’t want to hear different
opinions, so the assistant coach gives only
the feedback he or she thinks the head coach
wants to hear. Other times, it’s because the
assistant coach thinks the head coach wants
affirmation while in reality he or she wants
an honest opinion.
Most of the time, the head
coach is responsible for creating an
environment for open communication. This
isn’t always easy to do. If the coaches
can’t be honest with themselves and
communicate openly, how can they expect the
players to communicate with the coaches? One
of the most-asked questions I get via email
is from coaches asking how they can get
their players to communicate better. Is it
surprising that players can’t communicate
effectively when, in reality, many coaches
can’t communicate properly?
During games, assistant
coaches should take a more subservient role.
It doesn’t help if the head coach is saying
one thing and the assistant coach is saying
something else. During games, there should
be two sets of eyes but only one mouth. It’s
important that the players hear only one
voice. At halftime, coaches should meet and
discuss anything should be brought to the
attention of the players, then one of them
(usually the head coach) should speak to the
team. Again, the emphasis is on one voice
but two sets of eyes.
If coaches were to spend more
time working on being able to coach
together, they would find themselves much
more effective in the long run.
Lawrence Fine
http://www.finesoccer.com/
