Tough is a bad quality in meat, maths and luck. But in coaching, it is often represented as a positive characteristic - and often associated with success. Especially in environments where success equals finishing the game with more points than the opposition. But at what cost?
What do "tough" coaches do? They shout a lot. They are intolerant of error, and of views other than their own. They are autocratic and don't welcome debate or criticism. They are convinced of the route to success, and don't encourage any departure from this. They are risk averse, and therefore are suspicious of creativity. They demand a lot from their players, and believe that treating them harshly gets the best out of them. And they love to win. Winning is the ultimate expression of the effectiveness of "tough" coaching: a justification for tears and bullying along the way. "If it's under W for Won, nobody asks you how."
The world is curiously tolerant of "tough" coaches. They shout at children. They inspire fear, a dread of mistakes, they castigate error publicly and maintain a scowling pitch side presence that undermines the joy of sport. In most other environments, this type of behaviour would attract public outrage and censure, but when conducted in the pursuit of competitive success, the world is confused about its justification. And it happens in some schools and clubs every week.
It is perfectly possible that this type of coaching a increases the chances of victory in youth sport. As Jim Thompson says, "If all we are concerned about is winning in the short term, it may actually be smarter to train players to be automatons...but if we want players to think, we can start by expecting them to do so on a regular basis." But there is little place for player creativity in teacher centred coaching. It undermines the concept of coach as all knowing and all powerful, and introduces the hateful possibility that player experimentation might lead to error - or even unimaginable defeat.
So what are the unintended consequences of this type of behaviour in sport?
The pursuit of short term competitive gain is at the cost of medium term player development. Coach dependency, risk aversion and fear of making mistakes create the least fertile environment for player development. And stifle the creativity and self expression that are at the heart of the joy of sport.
The desire to win is usually accompanied by a strong tendency to over utilise the strongest players, and offer little game time to the less able or late developers. It's apparently one of those "tough" lessons about life. However, even the best players also attract criticism when their performance is imperfect - or the game is lost - and in this environment there is potential negative impact on the self esteem of players of all abilities
Aggressive coaching leads to player disengagement. The highest dropout rate in American youth sports is at the age of 10! And the biggest factor cited is "I don't like the coach shouting at me."
Prescriptive coaching is the opposite of independent learning, which has come to dominate how schools feel pupils learn best. There is curiously little transfer of thinking that the approaches that are favoured in the classroom may also be those that are most effective on the games fields. The educational possibilities of sport delivered in this way are limited:
"Many people are mostly passive about their self development. They go to school where teachers tell them what they are supposed to learn. They turn on TV which encourages them not to make any decisions. And ... they join athletic teams where the coach is constantly telling them what to do" (Jim Thompson)
"Tough" coaching does little to help players develop desirable personal characteristics. The encouragement to learn persistence, support in dealing with disappointment and the development of delayed gratification are subordinated before an approach dominated by the primacy of technique and team organisation. The irony of the approach of "tough" coaches is that their approach does little to encourage the development of mental toughness and resilience in their players
Coach centred touchline behaviour can bring out the worst in parent spectators. Inevitably, the coach is a role model on the touchline. If he sets an example of constant shouting at players, this will be picked up by other spectators and establish an atmosphere where criticism - of players, officials and opponents - is tolerated. This can lead to a dominance of maladaptive attitudes and a sour match environment. And a closely contested game in these circumstances leaves the losing players in tears, the coaches and parents looking for someone to blame (usually the referee) and sport as the loser
So what can schools do? They can take responsibility for the approach of their coaches, and control not just the technical content of the sessions, but their underlying approach, and pastoral tone. They can clarify just how important they regard competitive success, and what the organisation is - and is not - prepared to tolerate in order to achieve it. They can set success criteria for sport that include developing character and self esteem as well as encouraging experimentation and creativity. And they can establish a culture in which coach education goes beyond the technical, and the role of the Director of Sport is in quality controlling the performance and approach of all coaches, in all sports and at all levels.
