Coaches - your expectations

[FellTop]

I have read a lot of comments recently about what a coach should be doing, or what coaching generally should achieve. I have seen comments like 'with proper coaching', 'that is the coaches job', usually in relation to individual players performance or development.

I have also seen a lot of comments as to why Dodds should not be the main assistant. Similarly folk generally taking an instant liking to Le Bris, almost before a ball was rolled onto the training pitch, or that he speaks really well.

Got me thinking as to what folk really think a coaching team should be judged on, and how folk think they should operate. What is it you want coaches to be doing? How do you want them to do it?

I am not being an arse by asking this, just genuinely interested in how folk see the inner workings of a coaching team and what success looks like.

 

[TopCat.]

I have read a lot of comments recently about what a coach should be doing, or what coaching generally should achieve. I have seen comments like 'with proper coaching', 'that is the coaches job', usually in relation to individual players performance or development.

I have also seen a lot of comments as to why Dodds should not be the main assistant. Similarly folk generally taking an instant liking to Le Bris, almost before a ball was rolled onto the training pitch, or that he speaks really well.

Got me thinking as to what folk really think a coaching team should be judged on, and how folk think they should operate. What is it you want coaches to be doing? How do you want them to do it?

I am not being an arse by asking this, just genuinely interested in how folk see the inner workings of a coaching team and what success looks like.

Tactics and general team shape in and out of position. How we play out from the back, where my right wingers stands/runs when my left back has the ball and vice versa
Set pieces - positioning and responsibilities defending and attacking
Fitness naturally
Individual training on skills and patterns of play - for example coaching Ba what do do when in possession on the right wing with 2 players in front of him.
Developing (or encouraging players to develop) partnerships all over the pitch. Again, when Ba has the ball and is tempted to dribble into the defender, I'd have Hume backing him up and Jobe/Browne coming short to offer an option. Stuff like that

 

[ROKER PARK]

I have read a lot of comments recently about what a coach should be doing, or what coaching generally should achieve. I have seen comments like 'with proper coaching', 'that is the coaches job', usually in relation to individual players performance or development.

I have also seen a lot of comments as to why Dodds should not be the main assistant. Similarly folk generally taking an instant liking to Le Bris, almost before a ball was rolled onto the training pitch, or that he speaks really well.

Got me thinking as to what folk really think a coaching team should be judged on, and how folk think they should operate. What is it you want coaches to be doing? How do you want them to do it?

I am not being an arse by asking this, just genuinely interested in how folk see the inner workings of a coaching team and what success looks like.

It's subjective isn't it but I prefer to see a coach having an impact from the touchline - talking to individuals or groups if there is a break. I used to want to see emotion and a bit of fiery passion but can live without that if I can see someone clearly wanting to manage the game. I don't relate to the ones who don't think they have any influence once the players have crossed the white line.

 

[OldNewtown]

A coach that can nullify the opposition's threat whilst causing them loads of problems would be a good start.
Obviously it would be nice to enhance the abilities of our players.
The difference between a good coach and a brilliant coach can be like night and day however its not always down to just one person. Perhaps we need to consider the attributes of a coaching team.
Or put it another way, I'm only a poor bloody supporter and i really haven't got a clue.

 

[marcusblackcat]

I hope it gets my in laws to and around Lake Garda as I paid for

Oh, not that type of coach

 

[Milton Nunez's Thong]

It's subjective isn't it but I prefer to see a coach having an impact from the touchline - talking to individuals or groups if there is a break. I used to want to see emotion and a bit of fiery passion but can live without that if I can see someone clearly wanting to manage the game. I don't relate to the ones who don't think they have any influence once the players have crossed the white line.

It's interesting that so many hate the idea of Dodds doing exactly that though.

 

[FellTop]

It's subjective isn't it but I prefer to see a coach having an impact from the touchline - talking to individuals or groups if there is a break. I used to want to see emotion and a bit of fiery passion but can live without that if I can see someone clearly wanting to manage the game. I don't relate to the ones who don't think they have any influence once the players have crossed the white line.

It is a really interesting question this one. It is one we spend quite a bit of time on when I was doing one of my coaching qualifications. The idea of how much do you show, versus how much do you let them work out for themselves. For me it really depends on the level / age of player. If you are stood on the touchline of a 9 year old game telling them what to do every 2 minutes you are failing them. If you are sat cross legged while your professional side is getting opened up down the left time and again you are failing them. Then again, some coaches, such as Klopp are far too animated on the touchline to the point of being a distraction. It is a very tricky balance to strike. Personally I was always stood in the technical area and offered input when there was a break in play that allowed it. I never tried to shout to my right back at the top of my voice, if he could hear it so could their left winger...

One of the great things I have seen RLB do so far is the leaderahip group. These lada will have allowance to make on field decisions and refinements. They will act as a part of the coaching team when the game is on, in terms of in game tactical tweaks or getting individuals to do their job better.

 

[FellTop]

A coach that can nullify the opposition's threat whilst causing them loads of problems would be a good start.
Obviously it would be nice to enhance the abilities of our players.
The difference between a good coach and a brilliant coach can be like night and day however its not always down to just one person. Perhaps we need to consider the attributes of a coaching team.
Or put it another way, I'm only a poor bloody supporter and i really haven't got a clue.

It has always been about a team of coaches mate. Only now that team is getting bigger all the time. I am sat in my study looking at the old teams of the 70s and Arthur Cox is one side and Bob the other.

Imagine now with squads of 30 players just one or two trying to do everything a coach needs to do. It would be impossible. Ideally if you are running an adult session of 20 outfield players you would be looking at minimum 4 coaches to make that work. Those are just the football coaches. Fitness coaches are elsewhere, your goalie coach is elsewhere and your analysts are doing what they do off the pitch. Massive team effort these days to put 11 men onto a pitch ready to play. Yet the head coach is the man in the spotlight. Toughest job in football, ref apart.

 

[ROKER PARK]

It's interesting that so many hate the idea of Dodds doing exactly that though.

Didn't really notice him doing anything. Apologies to him if he did.

 

[FellTop]

Tactics and general team shape in and out of position. How we play out from the back, where my right wingers stands/runs when my left back has the ball and vice versa
Set pieces - positioning and responsibilities defending and attacking
Fitness naturally
Individual training on skills and patterns of play - for example coaching Ba what do do when in possession on the right wing with 2 players in front of him.
Developing (or encouraging players to develop) partnerships all over the pitch. Again, when Ba has the ball and is tempted to dribble into the defender, I'd have Hume backing him up and Jobe/Browne coming short to offer an option. Stuff like that

Coaching individual players in an adult environment is a subtle thing in my experience. There is so little time for coaches during a season to spend on individuals. What works well is showing them by taking their place for 1 or 2 phases of play. Another I have seen work really well is to give them videos of other players and how they do it. Analysts put together some great videos for this purpose in one club I used to know.

There is also the case though the higher you go the more you need to work out for yourself. As a coach, if I see an 18 year old in an academy repeat the same thing that isnt working time and again I am questioning their footballing intelligence. I look at 1 or 2 of our players and see this, for example choice of pass or dribble, or choice of killer pass of progression pass. One or two make the same wrong choice to regularly for me, and I doubt very much they havent had top end coaching for at least 8 years showing what good looks like in those situations.

 

[WorkyTicketFTM]

A general coach to me would essentially be someone who helps run the training sessions efficiently and gives the players pointers to keep them on track with tactics, formation, traits etc. Most successful managers have good assistant managers who organise the training sessions and the coaches adhere to the instructions given and make sure the players are following suit, or at least that’s the impression I was always under.

 

[FellTop]

A general coach to me would essentially be someone who helps run the training sessions efficiently and gives the players pointers to keep them on track with tactics, formation, traits etc. Most successful managers have good assistant managers who organise the training sessions and the coaches adhere to the instructions given and make sure the players are following suit, or at least that’s the impression I was always under.

That was the kind of model Fergie had. Every 2 or 3 years he changed his assistant. Allardyce to an extent with Sammy Lee.

Personally I think it is a wider team effort now. RLB as head coach (not mgr) will be on the training pitch 90% of the time. He will have Dodds and Proctor playing specific roles in each session. My money would be on Dodds focussing on individuals in each session, either planned or pro-active. He will be the guy going to Ba, for example, asking for better here and there. He will be the guy who sees a player who isnt himself and having a quiet word or query. Proctor will have a role as well but dont know enough about his skill set.

Ideally we bring in 1 or 2 more who RLB can ask to take on certain roles. Eg, defence v attack sessions. I was always the defence coach and would be giving tiny details to players about delay or win the ball. How best to delay, angles and points of reference etc. These are tiny details but imagine 1 or 2 coaches trying to get them all across, very difficult.

 

[Daz]

I have read a lot of comments recently about what a coach should be doing, or what coaching generally should achieve. I have seen comments like 'with proper coaching', 'that is the coaches job', usually in relation to individual players performance or development.

I have also seen a lot of comments as to why Dodds should not be the main assistant. Similarly folk generally taking an instant liking to Le Bris, almost before a ball was rolled onto the training pitch, or that he speaks really well.

Got me thinking as to what folk really think a coaching team should be judged on, and how folk think they should operate. What is it you want coaches to be doing? How do you want them to do it?

I am not being an arse by asking this, just genuinely interested in how folk see the inner workings of a coaching team and what success looks like.

As long as RLB is the one picking the team and setting up the tactics I have absolutely no issue with who the coaches are.

 

[WorkyTicketFTM]

That was the kind of model Fergie had. Every 2 or 3 years he changed his assistant. Allardyce to an extent with Sammy Lee.

Personally I think it is a wider team effort now. RLB as head coach (not mgr) will be on the training pitch 90% of the time. He will have Dodds and Proctor playing specific roles in each session. My money would be on Dodds focussing on individuals in each session, either planned or pro-active. He will be the guy going to Ba, for example, asking for better here and there. He will be the guy who sees a player who isnt himself and having a quiet word or query. Proctor will have a role as well but dont know enough about his skill set.

Ideally we bring in 1 or 2 more who RLB can ask to take on certain roles. Eg, defence v attack sessions. I was always the defence coach and would be giving tiny details to players about delay or win the ball. How best to delay, angles and points of reference etc. These are tiny details but imagine 1 or 2 coaches trying to get them all across, very difficult.

Aye that’s a good point I agree with that. I always just assumed managers took assistants with them because they could implement their methods quickly and hit the ground running. They’ll have an understand of how one another work, what their sessions look like etc. Getting coaches to kind of implement that would be the easy part.

What about coaches who study the opposition do we have anything like that? Maybe talk to the players about who they’re up against and what their weaknesses are etc?

 

[SourPatch2]

Aye that’s a good point I agree with that. I always just assumed managers took assistants with them because they could implement their methods quickly and hit the ground running. They’ll have an understand of how one another work, what their sessions look like etc. Getting coaches to kind of implement that would be the easy part.

What about coaches who study the opposition do we have anything like that? Maybe talk to the players about who they’re up against and what their weaknesses are etc?

We have a few analysts, both performance focused and opposition focused.

 

[Scout73]

Aye that’s a good point I agree with that. I always just assumed managers took assistants with them because they could implement their methods quickly and hit the ground running. They’ll have an understand of how one another work, what their sessions look like etc. Getting coaches to kind of implement that would be the easy part.

What about coaches who study the opposition do we have anything like that? Maybe talk to the players about who they’re up against and what their weaknesses are etc?

That last part is normally done by the scouting or analysts that the club will employ. Theyll go through the threats, strengths n weaknesses of the opponents with the team or the coaching stuff

 

[Smug in Boots]

I'll be totally honest, I have no expectations or any real interest ...

... that's not what being a supporter is about for me.

I'm not knocking anyone who is interested btw.

It's evident, from forums like this, that many people see the club from the perspective of their own working environment and experience. I often see people often criticising the business side of the club when it's obvious they're in some kind of management role for example. It just looks daft to me because you can't compare a massive football operation, like SAFC, with a plant hire company in Washington.

I've played football to a good level, and could spend my time analysing the coaches etc, but I really couldn't care less because it's entirely out of my control and it's almost all guesswork that could be totally wrong. I can applaud, cheer, groan, etc, at the game so have some kind of effect but that's as far as it goes for me.

My signature probably sums it up.

 

[Pure River Slut]

Shape and organisation including changes within games to adapt to opposition play or stages of the game
Player development including decision making and confidence
Set pieces
Pace of the game/fluidity
Clear philosophy and player cohesion
Discipline
Shared leadership