Set the line of discipline
Back to the cognitive stage
Awareness of time and effort
Sunday’s performance was below par, the cohesion that had been developed on the first two training sessions hadn’t seemed to have worked resulting in a defeat, after the game we spoke about the space we allowed the opposition to exploit and the inability to defend as a team, allowed the opposition to create more chances. I was informed by one or two of the parents that their sons had been partying on the night before, defying the specific instructions I had given them to have an early night, as a coach you cant always keep an eye on your players individually, once the training session has finished, they are able to do what they wish. If they are committed to their team, they would have followed my guidance.
Today’s session started with drawing the line of discipline for the players to realise my thoughts of what happened on Sunday. I emphasized the importance of empathy and understanding the impact their behaviour had on the other team members, they let their team mates down and more importantly themselves. I was confident in my ability when disciplining the team, my points clearly stated what I wanted them to stop doing, (Martens, 2004) the players responded not only to the points made but to the change of tone in my voice, I eliminated differential treatment refraining from singling people out, although when I was talking it was clear they knew who they were. This supports Marten’s Findings in the early 21st century that leaders install values. Similar results were found by Holbrook (Holbrook, 1979) working on how respect may be gained, I refrained from singling people out and made sure I treated all players the same. The process of telling the players what to do becomes tedious and restricts them from gaining the experience of making the decisions for them. Being a strong disciplinarian gains the respect of the players (Sabock, 1973), although it can have a downside as some players tend to switch off when a disciplinarian approach is carried out, however I felt it was important to give the players an indication of how angry I was, however it was important to remain calm and under control (Martens, 2004) emphasizing the dedication that I have to them, making it clear what I expect from them in return, this seems to contradict the statement made by Sabock (Sabock, 1973) that dedication earns the respect of the coaches performers.
There were cones set 10 yards apart from each other, the players were put into pairs with one ball between two facing each other, the players were instructed to pass the ball between themselves to their partner. I decided use a more direct instructional approach I gave the players 5 minutes to pass the ball with the inside of the foot to their partners using both feet one after another using the inside of the foot generates a more accurate pass, with coaching points such as communication and moving to meet the ball the players were given a target for every pass that did not meet their partners feet, 10 push ups were added , this meant if one player made a mistake it would have an effect on their team mates and they would be letting them down. This caused a high locus of causality as the players concentrated on the task. This was then progressed, the cones were marked at twenty yards apart from each other, again the same instructions applied, some of the players made comments during the drill that it was becoming tedious, but showed the determination to not let the team down, in the end of the drill 50 push ups were handed to every member of the team as 5 mistakes were made in the whole of the ten minutes. The direct instructional approach to this drill is usually used for beginners characteristics, this drill is used for players at the cognitive stage of learning, the players showed an autonomous display when passing the ball to their partner, however this could have been the result of the players self pacing this drill as the concept was not about the quantity of passes it was about the accuracy which meant this drill was exposed to a number of closed skills as there was a distinct beginning and end to the skill. The weight of the pass varied from player to player changing the response requirements from one response to the next response they had to make (Gentile, 1975).
In the debrief, I compared that drill to the attitude of a selected number of the squad relating to Sunday’s performance, the concept was that one mistake does not just have an effect on you but results in your team mates suffering as a consequence of this mistake, even at under 17 level of junior football appropriate behaviour is expected to achieve goals , it is interesting to note that Siedentop working in the early nineties also defied appropriate behaviour as consistent, positive behaviour aimed at achieving goals set (Siedentop, 1991). Included in debrief, I asked the players what their perceptions were relating back to that drill, they commented on the fact they did not want to let their team mates down and felt pressurised to perform for their team mates and understood the correlation between this drill and Sunday past even though the drill was tedious, this relates with team cohesion as if this is being achieved a feeling of an individuals sense of belonging to that group will be highly motivated in order to achieve their goal (Turman, 2003). My response to that was until they were willing to co-operate with my guidance the concept of using more advanced drill would be used in sessions, I explained that the chance of deciding for themselves had been spoiled by their attitude and until they gain the respect and trust of myself the direct instruction approach would continue, I left that up to them to decide.
The session was progressed to a game of keep ball, the intention was to add open skills to the session, bringing the players out of their comfort zone in order to react to their environment, here the players effort was too a high standard, This supports Triplett’s Social facilitation that the introduction of an opponent serves to liberate latent energy not usually available in order to compete to win (Triplett, 1898). This drill also related back to the four category classification where the required response of the players changed from one response to the next (Gentile et al, 1975), the concept of the drill was again like before if the ball went out of the area, the team who gave that ball away would result in there being 10 push ups added to their tally at the end of the drill. I added coaching points to the drill, points such as communication, support, movement, awareness and reactions, all components of keeping possession successfully in football (Reilly et al, 2003).
The following Sundays match was specifically arranged for the same time, in the debrief I explained the reasoning , I wanted the players to prove me wrong and be dedicated to team, if they wanted to play to their full potential a good nights sleep and the prevention of alcohol would be required, I emphasized they had all week to party or go out with their friends, and that if their football was important to them they would do everything possible to prepare them selves appropriately for their game, I explained that I had their best interests at mind as Krzyzewski stated in 2001 that it is a coaches responsibility to prepare the individual for their needs in order to perform effectively to their situations (Krzyzewski, 2001).
Gentile, (1975) Cited in: Samela, J.H, (1982). New Paths of Sport Learning and Excellence. University of Michigan. P15.
Holbrook & Barr (1979) Respect May be gained. [online]
Krzyzewski, M., (2001) Five-Point Play: Duke's Journey to the 2001 National Championship
Martens, R, (2004). Successful Coaching.
Reilly, T.A, Williams, M. (2003). Science and Soccer. Routledge Publishings. Liverpool.
Sabock, R.J, (1973) The Coach. The University of Michigan
Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education. Mountain View, Mayfield Publishing Co.
Triplett, (1898). Cited in: Hagger, M. Chatzisarantis, N. (2005). The Social Physiology of Exercise and Sport. Mcgraw-Hill International. P176
Turman, (2003). Cited in: Hagger, M. Chatzisarantis, N. (2005). The Social Physiology of Exercise and Sport. Mcgraw-Hill International. P172
No comments:
Post a Comment