Are geniuses born or created? What about natural goalscorers? We’ve all seen a player who just has that knack. Inzaghi was just given the gift of always being in the right place to score. Messi has god-given talent. Beckham always had that knack for hitting the top corner from a free kick. Let’s look at other sports. Ray Allen had a god-given jump shot. Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant were born clutch. Tom Brady is a natural winner. It’s my belief that the thought process mentioned above is a seriously flawed notion that many people may hold. And understand, what I’m going to say below goes against many of the nice quotes you’ll read from most top athletes who describe their abilities. This article will inevitably ruffle some feathers because many who hold the traditional view of “natural talent” can’t conceive of the fact that another Messi can be developed. The narrative used to be that there would never be another footballer to come close to Pele’s ability. Then the narrative became Pele and Maradonna. Soon it became “No one will touch the ability of Pele, Maradonna, or Zidane.” Today we have to add Messi to the list, which for all intents and purposes, only had room for one name decades ago. Believing in the idea of “natural talent” that we’re born with, and can’t work towards, is catastrophic for any of us to believe because of the message it transmits at the younger levels of development. Whenever most athletes describe their own feats or the ability of another “worldly” superstar, usually the talk of natural ability, god given talent, or a knack for scoring (or defending, or coming up in the clutch, etc) always comes into play. While my profession sees me involved with soccer, I do like to study coaches and athletes in different sports, and one of my favorite athletes to study is Ray Allen. See, Ray Allen, for many, has a god-given jump shot. That idea itself was presented to Ray one night, and his response is something I’ll never forget. When a reporter asked Allen to describe his god-given ability to shoot three-point shots, here’s what he had to say: An insult. God could care less whether I can shoot a jump shot. I’ve argued with a lot of people in my life. When people say God blessed me with a beautiful jump shot, it really pisses me off. I tell those people, ‘Don’t undermine the work I’ve put in every day. Not some days. Every day. First, let’s look at why I believe natural ability is a myth at the highest levels, and then let’s look at how believing in the myth has catastrophic consequences at the youth level. Something important to understand first. People are born with certain “limits” or “opportunities,” to an extent. A man who will only ever grow to 4’5 may not be able to play in the NBA. Likewise, a person who will grow to 6’8 may not make a good jockey. There are some things we are born with, no one can doubt that. There are certain physical features we can’t change. But the ability to score goals, or know how to get past defenders with ease, or even save shots at will, is not something we’re born with. It is something that is worked on constantly, year by year. Everyone who describes Messi talks about his natural talent. Inzaghi says that “No one is born with the talent that Lionel Messi has.” Gerard Pique describes Messi as more “naturally talented” than another world class player, Cristiano Ronaldo. Interestingly enough, Messi has a different take. When he describes how he came to be the greatest player in the world, here’s what he had to say: You have to fight to reach your dream. You have to sacrifice and work hard for it. I always thought I wanted to play professionally, and I always knew that to do that I’d have to make a lot of sacrifices. I made sacrifices by leaving Argentina, leaving my family to start a new life. I changed my friends, my people. Everything. But everything I did, I did for football, to achieve my dream. Perhaps Messi isn’t a good example, because it’s inconceivable for many that it’s possible for a player to reach that level. Let us then look at the idea of a natural goalscorer. A Thierry Henry, or a Pippo Inzaghi. Gabriel Batistuta is another good example, among many others. In most cases, whenever we discuss a goalscorer, we always hear of their “knack for being in the right area to score the rebound” or their “natural ability to finish under pressure.” Players like Batistuta even talk about the fact that they were just born with a knack for scoring, simple as that.
Let’s take Thierry Henry as I’m biased. How many goals do you think Thierry Henry has scored during practice? Go back even further, how many goals did he score when he was growing up playing with his friends day in and day out. Thousands of goals would be a conservative estimate! I don’t believe I’m wrong in saying that Thierry Henry has scored hundreds of goals in almost any conceivable scenario whether in training, matches, or just games in the park. The quote from Aristotle is correct in that “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” Thierry Henry was not born a goalscorer. Thierry Henry became a natural goalscorer through thousands of hours of practice. With the amount of concentrated practice he put in, scoring became instinctual, and it inevitably became second nature. We often see players who are the finished product, but what we don’t see is the thousands of hours it took to become that finished product. As Messi once said, “It took me 17 years and 114 days to become an overnight success.” Read that again and let that sink in. Another good example is David Beckham. Everyone lauds David Beckham’s ability to play a beautiful ball across the field, among other things. Who can forget Beckham’s goal from midfield against Wimbledon? This, most assumed, was just another reason that Beckham was from a different planet, born with a magic foot that could put the ball anywhere he wanted. The miracle becomes much more boring to some when you hear Beckham’s teammates talk about how he spent hours upon hours practicing that exact shot. Is there such a thing as a natural goalscorer? Sure, but it should be renamed to the thousands of hours spent training natural goalscorer. I guess that doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as nicely. When players spend thousands of hours honing their skills, certain things become instinctive and natural to them. Habits are created through automation, through structured training and also environments where street play or free play is allowed. Barcelona is a great example of a club who work on choreography with their movements. Are Xavi and Iniesta just natural pass-and-move masters? Of course not. They spent countless hours at training, from the academy to the first team, where hundreds of scenarios were choreographed. Perhaps even more importantly, they spent thousands of hours playing and practicing on their own. This allowed for them to be able to read the game instinctively(read: after thousands of hours spent training and playing) and play at a speed that people thought impossible to recreate. The best players are creatures of habit. But they aren’t born with that habit. By training and accounting for every possible scenario, the application in the games looks effortless. It couldn’t be farther from the truth. When athletes are at a loss for words as to how they scored the fantastic goal, or threaded the pass through the defense, talk inevitably turns to a knack for passing or finishing but that’s simply because its instinctive to them. Remember, instinctive in this case is something intensively worked on. It’s very tough for people, especially with the traditional fixed mindset, to think that it’s possible for other people to become a top, top player. I’ll forgive you if I can’t change your opinion, but I can’t forgive you if you spread the same ideas towards the youth. Carol Dweck is someone I recommend everyone get familiar with. Famous for her critical work on mindset and attitude, Dweck will help explain here how believing in “the natural goalscorer” is detrimental to youth development on the whole. When I say natural goalscorer, it can be substituted for any action or position within the game. For our purposes though, we’ll stick to the popular “natural goalscorer” notion. I won’t do Dweck proper justice, but I’ll do my best. I suggest you read up on her work, especially her brilliant book entitled Mindset. One of Dr. Dweck’s most famous experiments involved fifth grade students. In the scenario, the students were all given several problems to solve, and after the children finished solving the problems, the teacher praised the students. Half of the group was told that “You must be smart at these problems” while the other half was told “You must have worked hard at these problems.” The entire group was then presented with another set of problems, but this time they were given a choice. They could choose from an easier problem set where success was all but assured, or a challenging problem set where there was no guarantee for success. So what happened? The group that was praised for intelligence mostly chose the easier problem set, whereas the group that was praised for effort mostly chose the harder problem set. Those who based their success on their “natural intelligence” were afraid that if they weren’t able to succeed with the new challenge, they would be seen as not intelligent anymore. Those praised on effort came in with an understanding that hard work could translate into tangible results, therefore they wanted the tougher challenge so they could work as hard as possible on the new problems. The children were then given another problem set, this time more challenging than the first. The group praised for their intelligence quickly lost confidence in their ability, and perhaps more important, their enjoyment of the activity as they began to struggle with the problems. They had been praised on success based on their inherent intelligence. Therefore if succeeding meant they were intelligent, struggling had the opposite effect on them. Struggling, for these children, meant they were not smart at all. The group praised for their effort, on the whole, remained confident and eager throughout this new problem. Hopefully you’re still keeping with this story, and beginning to see the light-bulb flash in your own head. Two scenarios left for the class that are important to talk about. When the class was given the same problem set as from the beginning of the class, the “intelligence” group actually received lower scores than they had when they first went through. Their confidence was lost because of the stumbling and struggling they encountered when they were challenged. The “effort” group saw their scores mostly increase! Finally, when the students were asked to anonymously report their scores, almost forty percent of the “intelligence” group lied about their scores. Around ten percent of the “effort” group lied about their scores. Wow. Growth Mindset or Fixed Mindset. Which one are you? I remember the first time I read Dweck and immediately my attention turned to the language used with children and adults not only in the classroom but also on the field. Imagine now that you have a ten year old boy or girl who loves soccer. They play as a striker, and thanks to the fact that they’ve played since the age of four or five, they’ve become relatively good given the competition they face. They have found success at the eight, nine, and ten year old levels. They’re constantly praised for being a “natural goalscorer.” “They know how to score goals with ease, and they’re always in the right place at the right time.” “They’re important for their team because since they’re the best, the team will win.” Now the child turns eleven, and because of the teams success they are promoted into a higher division with a higher quality of play and competition. What happens now when the child doesn’t score three goals a game each game? Is he a fraud? Has he lost his “natural ability?” Of course not, this is simply called life and it’s an important challenge presented to the child for the betterment of his playing ability. But the psychological implications are catastrophic, as the child now begins to dislike the game, because they’re struggling. They begin to dislike practice because they assume that scoring goals should come easily after one practice session, because that’s what always happened. They may even, to borrow a popular word in today’s world of youth development, burn out. All because of our choice of language. You might think Messi was born with his ability, but please, don’t tell that to your child. Let’s praise effort, always. Praise hard work, praise a positive attitude and a desire to compete, and above all praise your child’s ability to try their best. Explain to them that if they want to get better they need to play on their own, practice on their own, and that one training session a week for one hour will not turn them into world-beaters. A coach is there to provide some important aspects of development within the context of the team and the game, but just as important is the countless hours of free play that are necessary for the child to understand that success is a long journey. Practice is important with the coach, because in many cases they are there to teach skills and ideas that the young player may not be able to find on their own. But the practice outside the practice field is where Messi became Messi. Just as important, the environment that Messi found himself in at a young age was also critical for his development. That, however, is a topic that deserves its own article! Muhammad Ali is one of my favorite athletes to study. Here was a man that many think was born for boxing, yet that story couldn’t be further from the truth. Ali was not spotted originally as a “natural boxer.” He didn’t have the build of the preconceived notions of a champion boxer, nor did he have a “champions fists.” Ali was identified as a scrappy man who was a hard working scrambler. For those with a fixed mindset, potential is easy to judge. You can examine the ability of a young soccer player or boxer and then forecast his future from that. If you have “talent” now then you’ll be talented later. But the reality is that potential and talent identification are much more difficult. A child with talent now may not reach the peaks expected of him or her. Likewise, a young boy might show up without any “natural” boxing ability. With hard work, determination, and a will to improve and compete, he might just go on to become the greatest boxer in the history of the sport. Cassius Clay was born into this world. Muhammad Ali was developed and worked on through thousands of hours. That’s the difference. @pcammarata Follow us on Facebook – The Coaching Journey
29 Comments
A question for all higher level coaches to consider. I have a player who's 16, but he can only play for 20 minutes a game. He's small and can't run, thanks to his asthma. Virtually no strength or power thanks to his size, and he obviously can't last long in the matches with his health problems. Not an athlete at all. Interested in taking a look at him at a college showcase or one of his club games? Even better, would an academy bother giving him a second thought if his status was brought up to them? I recently had the pleasure of attending and learning at the NSCAA Director of Coaching course, and we were presented with a small fill-in-the-blank puzzle near the beginning of the course. Let's take that scenario listed above and put it in its proper place: At 16, we could play ____ for only 20 minutes a game. He couldn’t run. He was a little one. Had asthma. No Strength. No power. No athleticism…No endurance. ‘You’ve got a bleeding dwarf,’ I remember somebody said to Brian Kidd (then the youth team coach). ‘You will eat your words,’ said Kidd. If _____ had been at a lesser club, they would have got rid of him and he would probably not be in the game now. We stuck with _____, a wonderful technician. How many caps did he get? Sixty-six. Know the player yet? United fans should have gotten this one right away, as it's Paul Scholes. An argument that comes into debate every month or so is the "best athlete" debate within U.S. Soccer. The idea is as follows: The United States sees its best athletes go on to play American football, basketball, and even hockey or baseball, which means that the "athletes" left over end up with soccer. Because of this, development is stunted and the U.S. National team suffers. If our best athletes, such as Lebron James or Odell Beckham Jr(a recent popular one) played soccer, then we would inevitably become a consistent powerhouse within the world's game. Here's a tangible example of the argument. https://twitter.com/BrittMcHenry/status/544225841266561024 It's one of those arguments that seems to make sense for those on the outside. What's worrying is that some on the inside also promote this belief, and the repercussions it has within the game are frightening. Before we delve into that issue, let's do some investigative research. Who is the world class athlete in these two photos? They're both world class athletes. When we enter into this debate, we have to understand that the idea of an athlete has a thousand different meanings. Perhaps if you want to see a pure athlete, then only watch the Olympics. However, when discussing athletes, it must be relative to the game in which it's played. Lebron James is an athlete, no question about it, but that is within the basketball world. Who could argue that Andres Iniesta is not a world class athlete? Let's keep the debate soccer specific. Who among the following two is a world class athlete? If you saw either at the beach, who would the average observer assume to be a world class athlete? Perhaps Dom Dwyer is “more athletic” than Iniesta, but is there even a question as to who the better player(by a couple thousand miles) is? Here ultimately is the issue. The idea that we don’t have our best athletes playing soccer is flawed because to be successful, we need to promote technicians with the ball, not athletes. We need to promote players comfortable in possession, who understand that moving one yard away into a pocket of space is better than running miles on end during a match. This isn’t to say that a world-class player can’t be fit. Ronaldo is one of the most fit sportsmen in the world but he began his own development by working on his technical ability over thousands of hours. He began to hit the gym with his well-known work ethic only later on when he was in the academy full time.
In the 2014 World Cup, the United States Men’s National Team ran the most collective distance among any team at the tournament. 77.17 miles PER GAME. How could anyone argue that we don’t produce athletes at the highest level. Whenever I talk to S&C Coaches, physios, or even average folk in different parts of the world, the U.S. National Team is lauded for having great athletes. But the issue is always brought up that while we have the athletes, very rarely do we produce the technicians. Michael Bradley covered the most distance among any player in the Group Stages, and yet how was his performance seen by many? The “Better Athlete” argument is dangerous because of it’s reach into youth development within the country and it can have repercussions that take decades to fix. Go back to the Paul Scholes scenario above and tell me how many college coaches, even after seeing him play at 16, would have actively recruited him. How many players do we know that are disregarded by the college system for “Multi-Sport” athletes that are faster and stronger, which for some coaches translates into better. Here’s what happens from the lower level to the highest. The argument is brought up that the U.S. would be dominant if its best athletes were playing soccer. Clubs around the country now have their tryouts, let’s say at Under-8. Because of the age-cutoff date, players who are in many cases 11 months older, larger, stronger, and faster are seen as far superior than smaller players who may be technically just as gifted (if not better) than the older, larger U8’s. What happens now? The athletes are put onto the best teams, and in many cases this means they are given the best coach and better resources. Fast-forward eight to nine years later, and the self-fulfilling prophecy now sees these athletic players being recruited into the college game. They’re able to withstand the rigors of the college game, like distance run required by their coaches with their “tactics” or the strong defenders they’ll face. They play three months out of the year “competitively” but are always given a great winter, summer, and seasonal work-out plan. Athletes are born and bred in the system, and they now graduate from college and enter the MLS and go on to play for the National Team. That’s where we’re at currently. Does every college disregard technicians for athletes? No. However could we honestly say that the scenario above is not the norm for 75-85 percent of the country? The better athlete myth takes soccer and thinks its a matter of “bigger, stronger faster.” It reduces training from younger ages to a matter of running rather than a matter of constant work on the ball. Imagine where Ferenc Puskas would have fit (no pun intended) into this brave new world we’ve created for ourselves. The argument doesn’t begin to look at things such as technical ability or the ability to read the game. The game, ultimately, is dictated by those who can control the ball and make it do whatever they want. The game is not dictated by those who are great at running sprints at the end of practice. What can we do to help? Don’t allow the argument to grow. I saw a session recently for U11 girls, and with five minutes left, the coach ended the game and had the girls kick the balls away to the side. Standing toe to toe on the end-line, they then proceeded to run sprints for the remaining five minutes. Understand that at the one or two sessions a week, that five minutes of sprints will not ultimately shape their future fitness development. However, could spending those extra five minutes, maybe at the beginning or practice, with an intense “touch” workout on the ball help both areas? I think so. We have to continually educate and warn people of the pitfalls of the grandiose claim that if Lebron James played soccer we would have won a world cup. We have to ensure that the focus in this country shifts(and in some areas, it is already) to working on fundamental technical development before we worry about a 2-mile time. It’s an issue that won’t go away overnight, but with constant discussion of the idea, and constant rebuttal with proper reasoning and comparisons, we can make good progress. The best players grew up with a ball at their feet and in many cases, a wall or street to ply their trade. Let’s make sure that the future generation doesn’t grow-up with a stopwatch and a barbell. @pcammarata Follow us on Facebook- The Coaching Journey Not too long ago, I remember hearing a coach proudly discuss how Pep Guardiola would have failed his USSF A License (a proposition that no doubt is the reason for his hair loss) because he always carries his training notes with him during his sessions, generally looking them over during the session itself. At the time, I laughed it off thinking how crazy it sounded, but it kept nagging at me. There was something deeper in that statement, indicative of a larger problem that for some time I couldn’t, or didn’t, want to put a finger on. Perhaps that bold claim about one of the best coaches in the world was an indication in the current perception, whether real or not, of the state of coaching education within the U.S. and even abroad.
This was not an easy article to write for the very reason that what I’m about to discuss is not a black and white issue. We will look at perceptions of both the USSF, NSCAA, and everything in between. What I offer are real stories, experiences, and personal perceptions shared by myself and many coaches that I’ve met on various license and diploma courses. You may read this and find yourself completely agreeing with how each organization is presented. You may also read this and find the opposite is true, that you’ve had a much different experience to what is presented. For both parties, share your story and enhance the discussion, but my main point is simple: There are some major problems with how coaching education in the United States is offered, executed, and perceived by coaches throughout the country. I remember my first coaching course like it was yesterday.When I had decided on coaching as a career, my next step was to begin getting my coaching badges. I located the Eastern NY State Soccer website and found the E course. I registered for it, had some pre-course nerves, and felt like the day wouldn’t come soon enough! The course was held over two weekends, with the first weekend primarily focused on the instructor offering class-room theory discussions as well as field sessions to help give us ideas as well as a foundation for us to build upon for our testing phase. One of the problems I noticed right away was that there was one instructor for a group of 25 or so coaches. This created problems of its own, such as the fact that only two coaches were able to run a practice session before our testing phase, or the logistical nightmare of one instructor having to assess 25 sessions over the course of one and a half days. The day of final testing, an additional instructor was assigned to our course to assist with assessments, cutting the large group in half, but the good news ended there. The instructor had a face that screamed he had better things to do, and his glum demeanor was not helped by the fact that he didn’t utter a single word to the new group of coaches who were now going to have to perform for him rather than the instructor we had gotten to know, and thus feel more comfortable around. The environment he created just by his demeanor and unspoken attitude was one that kept us tense and on-edge, and thinking back now I’m still stunned at how he carried himself as a staff instructor. I was a nervous wreck but got through it, having learned some great things during the course. Now this is a huge point to make before we start to highlight some of the problems, and that is that any coaching course, whether the NSCAA Level 1 or the USSF A license, is a place where you can pick something up. Whether it’s from the coaches also participating in the course or the staff instructors, I’ve always managed to pick something up, even if it’s things I warn myself I shouldn’t do. Having acquired my E license, I wanted more coaching education and on a selfish level, I wanted something better for my resume. Not a good outlook but you’ll excuse my way of thinking a couple of years ago when I first started this journey. I soon discovered the NSCAA and saw that they were hosting a High School Diploma course at the High School I went to as a student. I signed up, expecting a similar environment to my E license, and prepared myself for the upcoming weekend course. I couldn’t have been more surprised. The environment created by the instructors was incredible and it was a place where we were encouraged to think on our feet and think for ourselves. Sessions and lectures were presented to us, but it was not presented in the sense of “this is what’s right, now repeat after me.” Rather, it was presented to give us ideas and help us find our own groove, help us find things we liked and we could extrapolate on with our own coaching journey. After the High School diploma course, I wanted to do another NSCAA course. In January 2014 I took the National Diploma and felt the same way as I had at my first NSCAA coaching course. I was in a place where everyone wanted to learn, improve, and most importantly, help each other. Instructors learned from coaches taking the course, and coaches learned some invaluable things from the instructors. Now, a couple things should be explained. There are obvious differences between the NSCAA and the USSF, the most obvious of which is the fact that the USSF is designated by FIFA to hand out coaching licenses. The NSCAA cannot offer licenses, but instead offer coaching diplomas and this helps explain why both organizations go about things the way they do. I often tell people that I view the NSCAA as driver’s ed, whereas the USSF is the road test. You go through drivers ed, you learn, you practice, you improve, and eventually you are ready for the road test. Everyone’s a nervous wreck before their road test, but you can’t get your drivers license without it. I’ll fast-forward the story by saying that I fast-tracked myself through the NSCAA Courses(for better or for worse), and in January 2015 I completed the Premier Diploma. I was always challenged in the NSCAA courses, in a good way, but it was the general opinion of almost everyone involved that the NSCAA was a much more relaxed organization about passing then the USSF. It’s understandable, as the NSCAA is there to educate and improve coaches, whereas the Federation is there to ensure coaches are worthy of the license they are going for. One troubling point of conversation was always constant in any discussion, however, when comparing both organizations. The environment. While taking my premier, many of the coaches participating in the course were there for their A License renewal. They had received their A License and every four years have to do various things to get 8 CEU’s to ensure their A License doesn’t expire. Conversation almost always turned to comparing both organizations. One coach told me a story from his A License, where instructors in the hotel wouldn’t return his hello and instead opted for ignoring him as they walked on by. Another discussed that on his B License, the staff instructor had the coaches line themselves in age order, and him being the youngest was then routinely picked out throughout the week as not belonging with coaches who had decades of experience as compared to him. Competition amongst the coaches participating in the course was another common trend, a far cry from the NSCAA social’s that are a popular event at any of the residency courses. One of the major talking points was the idea that sessions had to be regurgitated, done in the same fashion as presented to the coaches on the licensing courses. Prove that you knew what the federation wanted, not that you knew how to think, adapt, and coach on your feet in a constantly changing environment. One organization had the feel of a place where all were welcome, all were students and teachers at the same time, and all would improve if they applied themselves. The other organization had an elitist feel where people were so worried about failure that robots were created to ensure a smooth assessment. Where would you want to go? Once again, understand that you may have had a completely different experience. You might have found the NSCAA to be too lax and the USSF courses to be just the right mixture of serious, competitive, and challenging. I myself have been able to experience additional USSF instructors that were on NSCAA courses. One of the USSF instructors instructed me during my Advanced National diploma. He constantly engaged me, had me always thinking on how to constantly improve everything I was doing, and I was left with an incredible respect for his ability as a coach and an educator. What I present, however, is the majority of opinions and stories from the countless number of coaches I know who have gone all the way through both organizations, and with far more experience in each organization than myself. Like it or not, most believe in the idea of perception being reality, and the perception currently of USSF Coaching Education is not a positive one. Where are we failing, and what needs to change? If you start with your E License and go down all the way to your A License, you will have spent $6,620(Using E and D License prices from Eastern NY State). That includes cost of residence at the C, B, and A. It does not however include travel to and from the courses, some of which can be a flight or two away. It also does not include the subsequent cost of renewing an A License. $10,000 is a good enough estimate for our purposes. $10,000 is an enormous amount of money. Colleges are now mandating B licenses in most cases, Academies demand B due to Federation policy, and with the recent change in waiver policy, the NSCAA is no longer a way to skip some of the lower licenses and get onto the B License straight away. That’s an enormous investment over time for people who want to get into the game, to improve their own ability, but are met with this huge wall in the way keeping them out. Some argue that most coaches don’t need an A license for what they plan on doing, but I think that’s a nice way of covering up a much larger problem. Not every coach is reimbursed by his school, or team, for coaching courses and not every coach can afford expenses like this depending on their family situation. Many of us constantly complain that players are slipping through the cracks because of our pay to play model, but how many coaches are slipping through the same cracks? We are literally pricing people out of the possibility of attaining higher licenses, which in turn affords them more coaching opportunities. I know a lot of excellent coaches who have been so daunted by the process and the price of higher certification that they have found a club or a school to work for, gotten into a groove, and settled, stunting their own self-development. The old-school mentality of repeating what you see is another prevalent problem within the coaching schools. There is a fear amongst coaches, many times for good reason, that if things are done different to how the instructor presented, then they’ll fail. Disagreeing with instructors is seen as a fatal error, and creativity for coaches is thus stifled. There’s a great story that has been going around for a while now that tells of an older Dutch coach taking a USSF course and having a disagreement with the goalkeeper instructor. The instructor was annoyed, exasperated, and finally cracked, asking the coach if he had ever played the position before to have such an incorrect opinion. There was some quiet murmurings and some hushed laughter amongst the group, but it was directed at the instructor. The Dutch gentleman was a man by the name of Jan van Beveren, a former Dutch national team goalkeeper, famous for his feud with Johan Cruyff which ended his international career prematurely. Are coaches so focused, or perhaps nervous, on passing the course that their own self-development is stifled because they simply repeat what they’re shown? It’s a problem that has certainly improved over time, and certainly things aren’t as draconian as many claim they were years ago, but the problem still remains to a certain degree. Presented above are my experiences, amongst other coaches, with coaching education. Listed above are two major problems I find with the current state of coaching education with the USSF. There are inevitably more issues, but for purposes of keeping this into a short story rather than a novel, I will offer those two issues. As I mentioned before, this was not an easy piece to write because inevitably some may have had completely different experiences. Because of that, help the discussion, enhance the debate, and discuss your experiences on here and some of the issues or perhaps positive things you have seen or foresee. After all, just like coaching courses, I’m here to challenge and be challenged. I hope you’ll join me and do the same. @pcammarata Follow us on Facebook – The Coaching Journey On Twitter: @TheCoachJourney This is a topic which, for some reason, some find controversial. I don't have a clue why, personally, but I suppose when you see a model that works well in over two hundred countries, you tend to think of that as a good case study. That being said, don't say I didn't warn you.
|