A Player’s Coach
What do players really want from their coaches?
Many fans and media believe this generation requires player-friendly coaching, which generally is undefined, although often insinuating softer, less-demanding coaching behaviors. Many create a fallacy, arguing that anything less than borderline verbal abuse and bullying is soft, easy coaching. If coaches are not ranting, raving, and running on the court in the middle of the game, they are too easy on players and not invested enough in winning. Adults assume players just want the easy road with no consequences or expectations, but how many ask the players? What do players want from a coach?
I re-visited an old article (below) because several former players are struggling with their coaches. None of the problems has to do with a coach being too hard, mean, yelling, or any of the other behaviors debated publicly. Instead, their primary issues are the same as those I wrote about over 15 years ago, including a lack of consistency and communication.
Many look at playing time as the singular issue and implore players to be tougher, accept their roles, get better, and more. Playing time often is the symptom, not the cause. We see a player not receiving playing time, and assume any and all problems are due to unhappiness about their status, but more often than not, the displeasure stems from other coaching behaviors. Players are not displeased with their role specifically, but the appearance of favoritism, lying, false promises, poor communication, and lack of consistency.
Last summer, as agents and other programs contacted a player, offering him money he was not receiving at his current school, his coach promised a starting position, the captaincy, and more to convince him not to transfer. After several conversations, he decided to remain at his school because he felt valued and was excited about the prospect of starting and playing more than he had as a freshman. Of course, the coach apparently made these promises to multiple players, including incoming transfers, and now he has barely played. More frustrating than the apparent deception is the refusal to provide an explanation for the lack of playing time. How should a player react to DNP-CDs (Did not play — coach’s decision) when assistant coaches are telling a player he was the best player at practices? Does practice performance not matter at all now?
Another player’s coach told her she needed to be the team’s best shooter to earn more playing time, then benched her when she did not make enough three-pointers, despite possessing the second-best shooting percentage on the team. After the conversation, the coach moved her to a position that receives few shot attempts in their system. How is a lack of three-point shooting volume the player’s fault when the coach does not put the player in a position to shoot more?
Another player was benched after starting several games with no explanation or communication from anyone on the staff. Playing time may be the catalyst, but the problem is the underlying behaviors, the lack of communication, lack of consistency, and feelings that the player has no control over earning playing time.
These players do not want to complain; they want to understand. They want to do well. They want to help their teams. What do you do as a player when you are praised in practice, but never play in games? How do you react when you are benched for not making enough three-pointers, while receiving fewer attempts? What do you do when minutes disappear overnight with no explanation? This is not about accepting a role, work ethic, toughness, or any of the accusations people commonly toss around. It is wanting an explanation, wanting to be treated with respect as a person and a member of the team. Should we not expect coaches to meet this minimum?
The three biggest complaints from players (D1, D2, D3, JC; males and females; starters and reserves; winning teams and losing teams) can be summarized as: (1) Lack of discipline; (2) lack of consistency; and (3) lack of communication.
Discipline
The perception is players want the easy road, but numerous players have complained about too many days off, the lack of practice intensity, the lack of defensive focus, the lack of accountability, and similar issues. This subset of players may differ from the average player, but they show up on off-days to work out on their own. They want harder workouts, whether in the offseason, at practice, in the weight room, or conditioning. They enjoy open-gym type workouts and pick-up games, but expect something more. They want to work. They want to be coached. Just playing is not enough for them to have fun – they want to improve, they want to accomplish their goals, they want to win. They feel the days off or easy workouts or lack of discipline is cheating them.
Consistency
That desire to be coached is affected by communication and consistency. Many players complain about their coach’s lack of consistency. One example is the coach who preaches about the importance of nutrition, then buys postgame pizzas or eats a pre-game meal at McDonald’s. Shouldn’t you insure the team meals on road trips are as healthy as possible when you frequently lecture players about eating healthier? I understand not everyone has a robust budget, and there are time constraints, but why do coaches expect student-athletes to manage the cost and time of healthier eating when they cannot budget time and money to eat healthier? Why are the expectations higher for student-athletes than for their full-time coaching staffs?
Players complain about coaches who say one thing and do another. A coach tells a player to shoot when open, but substitutes immediately when the player misses. Where is the consistency? The player follows the coach’s directions, but ends up on the bench. Players did not miss intentionally. The shot was not a bad shot. They follow their coach’s directions, but gets benched anyway. How do you shoot confidently when you know you have one shot and you may sit out the rest of the half if you miss? Even worse, what happens when only one or two players are substituted for missing, while other players take and miss worse shots with impunity?
Consistency between players troubles players. Nobody likes to be substituted for a mistake, but it is more problematic when only some players are substituted, while others play without repercussions. Some players earn greater leniency, and some players have a history of good to great shooting percentages. Every player is different, and every context is different. However, the different behaviors toward players demonstrate the coach’s beliefs about the players, and players notice. Of course the player who is allowed multiple mistakes will play more confidently than the player who is substituted immediately.
Players notice when coaches contradict themselves. A coach introduces a new play or press or zone, but changes the rotations or slides or whatever the next day without acknowledging the change. Coaches can (and should) change their minds based on observations and additional data. Maybe after watching the practice film, the coach decided the team’s personnel dictates a change to their zone defense or press. That is coaching. However, players lose confidence in their coaches when they do not acknowledge the change and act as though they taught it this way originally. Acknowledge the change or players will question the coach’s competence because of the discrepancy, as the players do not know whether to follow the original directions or the new directions. Which day did their coach make a mistake? They do not know. Players do not expect perfection from their coaches, but they do expect some consistency.
Communication
Finally, communication builds on consistency. How should a player react to playing 25 minutes per game, then not appearing in the next game without an explanation? That is consistency, but even more so, poor communication. How are players supposed to react and perform with wild variances in playing time with no communication from the staff? Was it personnel driven? Was it performance-based? Do the player do something wrong unknowingly? What does the player have to do to regain playing time? With no explanation, they have no way to know and sit on the bench and ruminate on the unfairness.
Players mention the lack of consistency with their schedules or schedules changing frequently at the whims of coaches with little regard for players’ schedules. Some environments do not allow for consistent schedules, as facilities are overbooked with too many competing interests. Some changes are out of the coach’s control. However, many coaches change schedules to accommodate their own plans rather than maintaining a consistent schedule or making changes with players’ input. I complained to my bosses last season because other coaches could not plan ahead; our schedule changed almost daily with midday texts about practice time or location changes or players being pulled out of practice to play with a different team. There was no consistency, no planning, and very poor communication. Some of it was beyond the club’s control, as we used school facilities and other sports used the same facilities, but many problems were self-inflicted because of poor organization and planning.
Another issue related to communication is singling out specific players I knew of players transferring because coaches used a derogatory nickname for the player for an entire season rather than his actual name. This is bullying. Nicknames based on players’ appearances generally do not endear coaches to their players.
Other communication issues are more subtle. Some coaches seem afraid to talk to their players, whether the conversation is about players skipping class, not playing hard enough, not following directions, playing time (see above), or whatever, which reflects on the coach’s lack of discipline. What kind of relationship is there between coaches and players when coaches are afraid to talk to players? Our season probably changed last year when I heard a player was unhappy with his playing time, I spoke with him, we disagreed, I watched more film, and I sent examples of the shots and mistakes leading to my decision to play him less. He listened, adjusted his game, and was the MVP of the finals. Management was ready to cut him when made aware of his unhappiness, but instead we spoke, and his game took off because he was willing to listen and adjust in order to earn more playing time. He met and exceeded my expectations for him. I did not lower expectations to be easier or try to make him happy, but I did have an honest conversation, showed him respect as a person and player, and followed through by playing him more when he met the expectations.
Player’s View
Different personalities manage to coach successfully. There appears to be no standard “player’s coach”. Is the label something to strive for or avoid? Few people seem to ask players for their viewpoint.
Previously, I wrote about attending John Speraw’s practices when he was the head coach at U.C. Irvine. He is a player’s coach in my estimation, but I have never heard anyone describe him as soft or easy as he won five NCAA national championships. Instead, I feel his appreciation for sports psychology and respect for the emotional and mental side of the game made him a player’s coach.
He asked the players about what they liked to hear when they made a mistake at one of the practices. The players offered a variety of answers from something positive to something to make them mad. The positive responses — things they liked to hear — varied greatly, as everyone is different, but the negative responses — things they disliked — were more consistent. They disliked general comments such as “Let’s go!” or “Come on!”, and they disliked when coaches stated the obvious, such as “That was the wrong pass.”
A key skill is understanding these differences and avoiding the disliked comments that frustrate players who are frustrated already because of the mistake. Individualizing the positive comments or the things players want to hear requires understanding each player. Some players respond to yelling; some respond to humor. Some respond to a look with no words needing to be said. Perceiving the difference between players and situations differentiates the best coaches. The intuitive feel for the player and their needs in that specific moment can elevate or potentially destroy a player.
This feel is the art of coaching, as there is no single answer. There is no one way to communicate or behave in a certain situation, and the number of potential situations and personalities is too large to attempt to learn the appropriate response for each one. Coaches need the emotional intelligence for the situation, but they also need the relationship with the player, which develops day after day. These are the characteristics of a player’s coach. It has nothing to do with easy or soft, style of play, yelling or not yelling, and everything to do with the relationships, intuition, and appreciation for individuals and situations.
Great post, Brian. 👏👏👏