A baseball practice with 12 players and three coaches was held last Sunday night in a high school hitting barn. After about ½ hour, it became apparent to the coaches that 4 or 5 of the players did not have much interest in the drills the coaches had planned for the training session because they were giving little effort to the drills and were a distraction to the other players.
Unfortunately, the reaction of the coaches was the time-honored tradition of making the entire team run “poles” for the next half-hour. The result was the entire team was too exhausted to give much effort to the hitting drills for the remainder of the practice and the players were angry with the coaches.
The players who originally were not giving their best effort to the drills were angry because the coaches had chosen drills they viewed as not helpful to their hitting flaws or the coaches were not teaching them in a way for them to do the drills successfully. The players who were giving their best effort initially were angry for the same reasons, as well as, of course, for being disciplined for the bad behavior of the other players.
Was making the team run the most effective discipline to achieve the desired result of getting the team to give their best effort for that practice, as well as, in the future and to teach them life lessons?
John Wooden said he rarely had discipline problems because he spent 85% of his time teaching to make the members of his team better athletes and better players and only 15% of his time on praise and discipline.
He knew that master teachers who were also good role models became respected coaches.
When things go wrong, coaches must first look in the mirror with honest intent. Was our practice plan sound with appropriate player need assessment, drill choice, drill design, and player engagement? Did the teaching methodology effectively use all of the learning modalities for improving players in the entire ability spectrum?
Did the coaches attempt to motivate the entire team by praising and rewarding the players who were acting appropriately instead of calling out the players who were not, i.e., did they motivate by inspiration not intimidation?
Most importantly, did the coaches remember that anger is always about the person who is angry and never about the people at whom the anger is directed?
If coaches want to earn the respect of their players, the coaches must: (1) connect with their players on a personal level so the players feel understood and supported; (2) use what they know about each individual team member as people to help them learn to be better people, athletes, and players; and (3) be role models to their players in everything they say and do.
So when the planned training session began going sideways and when “looking in the mirror” the coaches realized the primary reasons for it doing so was their own fault, what could they have done?
First, they could have taken the players aside, individually or as a group, and asked them why they were acting inappropriately? Individually, if the coaches had developed the proper personal connection to the player, he may have disclosed reasons outside of the sport, at home or at schools, which were causing him to act out personal anxiety or stress. The coaches could then explain to the player that this was not a reason to be uncooperative, but the coaches’ empathy may be enough to get the player to lock in.
As a group, the players may have disclosed reasons why they thought other drills would be better for them or why the ones chosen were not being taught to them in the best manner or at all. If this was true, the coaches could teach the players a valuable life lesson by admitting the coaches bore some of the responsibility for things going poorly too.
Second, the coaches could have had competitions at each station with significant rewards for respecting the process and giving their best effort such as extra swings at the station or being team captains for the end of practice game-sim.
Third, the coaches could have pulled the players who were acting inappropriately out of practice for a period of time to watch the players who were acting appropriately and then assimilate them back into practice individually with players who were giving their best effort. If this did not work, they could pull them out of the practice permanently or send them home.
Players must learn that they must give their best effort even when they do not feel their best or when they do not agree with the current approach being used. They must also learn that being accountable yourself means holding your teammates accountable.
However, coaches must work to be better than merely defaulting to making them run as an easy punishment for a problem caused by us. Doing so may accomplish nothing more than running the coaches away from the respect of their players.
Unfortunately, the reaction of the coaches was the time-honored tradition of making the entire team run “poles” for the next half-hour. The result was the entire team was too exhausted to give much effort to the hitting drills for the remainder of the practice and the players were angry with the coaches.
The players who originally were not giving their best effort to the drills were angry because the coaches had chosen drills they viewed as not helpful to their hitting flaws or the coaches were not teaching them in a way for them to do the drills successfully. The players who were giving their best effort initially were angry for the same reasons, as well as, of course, for being disciplined for the bad behavior of the other players.
Was making the team run the most effective discipline to achieve the desired result of getting the team to give their best effort for that practice, as well as, in the future and to teach them life lessons?
John Wooden said he rarely had discipline problems because he spent 85% of his time teaching to make the members of his team better athletes and better players and only 15% of his time on praise and discipline.
He knew that master teachers who were also good role models became respected coaches.
When things go wrong, coaches must first look in the mirror with honest intent. Was our practice plan sound with appropriate player need assessment, drill choice, drill design, and player engagement? Did the teaching methodology effectively use all of the learning modalities for improving players in the entire ability spectrum?
Did the coaches attempt to motivate the entire team by praising and rewarding the players who were acting appropriately instead of calling out the players who were not, i.e., did they motivate by inspiration not intimidation?
Most importantly, did the coaches remember that anger is always about the person who is angry and never about the people at whom the anger is directed?
If coaches want to earn the respect of their players, the coaches must: (1) connect with their players on a personal level so the players feel understood and supported; (2) use what they know about each individual team member as people to help them learn to be better people, athletes, and players; and (3) be role models to their players in everything they say and do.
So when the planned training session began going sideways and when “looking in the mirror” the coaches realized the primary reasons for it doing so was their own fault, what could they have done?
First, they could have taken the players aside, individually or as a group, and asked them why they were acting inappropriately? Individually, if the coaches had developed the proper personal connection to the player, he may have disclosed reasons outside of the sport, at home or at schools, which were causing him to act out personal anxiety or stress. The coaches could then explain to the player that this was not a reason to be uncooperative, but the coaches’ empathy may be enough to get the player to lock in.
As a group, the players may have disclosed reasons why they thought other drills would be better for them or why the ones chosen were not being taught to them in the best manner or at all. If this was true, the coaches could teach the players a valuable life lesson by admitting the coaches bore some of the responsibility for things going poorly too.
Second, the coaches could have had competitions at each station with significant rewards for respecting the process and giving their best effort such as extra swings at the station or being team captains for the end of practice game-sim.
Third, the coaches could have pulled the players who were acting inappropriately out of practice for a period of time to watch the players who were acting appropriately and then assimilate them back into practice individually with players who were giving their best effort. If this did not work, they could pull them out of the practice permanently or send them home.
Players must learn that they must give their best effort even when they do not feel their best or when they do not agree with the current approach being used. They must also learn that being accountable yourself means holding your teammates accountable.
However, coaches must work to be better than merely defaulting to making them run as an easy punishment for a problem caused by us. Doing so may accomplish nothing more than running the coaches away from the respect of their players.
RSS Feed