What is a great coach?
- Thread starter jazzpt55
- Start date
John Wooden, Bill Walsh, Chuck Noll are a few to be considered as great coaches in my book. There are not many "great" coaches in my opinion.
The closest most get to great is good. And a select few are very good. And even smaller few can in time be considered "great."
Here are just a few characteristics of a great coach.
1.Does more with less for a longer period of time, and is totally accountable.
2.A good judge of talent and is there when players need them. Motivates,inspires peak potential.
3.Makes players better people and better players.(Great player development)
4.Puts together the right starting line ups and rotations.(Does not panic or play favorites)
5.Able to game plan for different opponents, and will adjust when necessary.
6.Always plays to win, not scared, or not to lose.
7.Good coach under pressure no matter how large the game.
8.Keeps the coaching ego in check and does what's best for the player's growth and team success.
9.Good with x"s and o's but flexible when need be.(Empowers the players and loves floor leadership)
10.Stays focused on the goal line, not easily distracted.
Bonus 11. Is not an excuse maker, will put their own neck on the line and admit when they make poor decisions.( A calculated risk taker).
12. Doesn't force players into the system instead considers the talent, skill, and maturity of each player and overall group of players. Puts players in (specific) lanes they can excel. Considers the players, and makes the system fit around the group. (P)&(C) Paytc, 2015
You don't coach a girls team exactly like you would a boys team. Or a 3rd grade team like a high school team.Or even two high school girl teams the same. All teams are different. Consider your group and their IQ,skill, strength, and ability before just throwing them into the system.
When developing young players be encouraging and patient with the process.
Obviously I could add a few things considering each circumstance individually and the continued evolution of the game but........
Hopefully that sheds some light on many coaches who are coaching in the dark.
Paytc
The closest most get to great is good. And a select few are very good. And even smaller few can in time be considered "great."
Here are just a few characteristics of a great coach.
1.Does more with less for a longer period of time, and is totally accountable.
2.A good judge of talent and is there when players need them. Motivates,inspires peak potential.
3.Makes players better people and better players.(Great player development)
4.Puts together the right starting line ups and rotations.(Does not panic or play favorites)
5.Able to game plan for different opponents, and will adjust when necessary.
6.Always plays to win, not scared, or not to lose.
7.Good coach under pressure no matter how large the game.
8.Keeps the coaching ego in check and does what's best for the player's growth and team success.
9.Good with x"s and o's but flexible when need be.(Empowers the players and loves floor leadership)
10.Stays focused on the goal line, not easily distracted.
Bonus 11. Is not an excuse maker, will put their own neck on the line and admit when they make poor decisions.( A calculated risk taker).
12. Doesn't force players into the system instead considers the talent, skill, and maturity of each player and overall group of players. Puts players in (specific) lanes they can excel. Considers the players, and makes the system fit around the group. (P)&(C) Paytc, 2015
You don't coach a girls team exactly like you would a boys team. Or a 3rd grade team like a high school team.Or even two high school girl teams the same. All teams are different. Consider your group and their IQ,skill, strength, and ability before just throwing them into the system.
When developing young players be encouraging and patient with the process.
Obviously I could add a few things considering each circumstance individually and the continued evolution of the game but........
Hopefully that sheds some light on many coaches who are coaching in the dark.
Paytc
Last edited:
Bobby Knight I think was a great coach took a mediocre team and made them champion. Bill Walsh and I'm not a 49er fan either.
I think Paytc made a good list, and detailed the expertise and personal qualities needed. I don't think Bobby Knight qualifies, for example. He fails because of his bullying, anger and narcissism. The end doesn't justify the means.
I would also add that a great coach needs to be courageous with deep held values.
I think "great" varies from High School to College to the pros. John Wooden was a great college coach. His athletes spoke highly of him, he attracted major talent and he won a lot. He also fought for justice for his players. He was a leader, not just as a coach but throughout his life. Phil Jackson was a great pro coach. He had the conviction to use Dennis Rodman in a unique line up and found ways to win, and won a ring on average every other year. He attempted to understand how each of his guys thought.
One way I judge a good coach is to look at their transition year. Wooden, for example, took a losing UCLA team and the next year took it to a winning record. Many of the same guys, a different outcome.
I would also add that a great coach needs to be courageous with deep held values.
I think "great" varies from High School to College to the pros. John Wooden was a great college coach. His athletes spoke highly of him, he attracted major talent and he won a lot. He also fought for justice for his players. He was a leader, not just as a coach but throughout his life. Phil Jackson was a great pro coach. He had the conviction to use Dennis Rodman in a unique line up and found ways to win, and won a ring on average every other year. He attempted to understand how each of his guys thought.
One way I judge a good coach is to look at their transition year. Wooden, for example, took a losing UCLA team and the next year took it to a winning record. Many of the same guys, a different outcome.
One point: "Great" coaches very rarely stay at the high school level, so expecting "great" coaches at this level is unrealistic. A better way, I think, would be a relative rating ... in other words, what coaches would you want your daughter to play for?
So I'm pretty sure jazzpt would say he wouldn't want his daughter to play for Sue Phillips or Kelly Sopak, and that's his choice. The next question, then, would be who would be on his (or anyone's) list?
So I'm pretty sure jazzpt would say he wouldn't want his daughter to play for Sue Phillips or Kelly Sopak, and that's his choice. The next question, then, would be who would be on his (or anyone's) list?
Thanks for the thumbs up Infofreak ! We're all just trying to help make sense of it all. Ultimately it is a responsibility of those with knowledge and experience to empower the young folks who can in time make even greater improvements.
And your right, you have to take a different approach when coaching at various levels. We can't expect high school kids to have the experience, IQ, skill, and strength, college and professional players have.
I have to occasionally remind some coaches that I work with that kids do the same thing when learning basketball as they do in the class room.
They will say they get it or understand even when they don't because they fear speaking up when they have uncertainty. That is why demonstration with verbal instruction many times is more effective than verbal instruction alone. I encourage players to watch other high school teams, college and pro teams as well. And I usually notice a positive spike in performance after young kids watch older and more experienced players play.
Last edited:
I hadn't thought about the importance of demonstration but I certainly agree, as I agree with the observation about a kids uncertainty sometimes causing hiding. I also extend the demonstration idea to coaches. I know that I watch and read about coaching methods and it helps me be more discerning. So true also about kids watching older players. Let's not forget the importance of playground play. Something being lost with this current suburban generation when there is less unstructured, unsupervised playground sports.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the girls' game and the boys' game in high school is that girls very, very rarely play pickup basketball. Their experience comes in practices and games, and with structured practices involving drills and plays, it's hard for many girls to develop that mystical thing called a "basketball IQ." Guys learn in a Darwinian way in pickup; if you play dumb, you lose, and then you sit.
That's what I vastly prefer open gyms to spring or summer leagues, and I love three-on-three because everyone has to handle the ball. In five-on-five, a girl can play for 30 minutes, touch the ball twice and never shoot because she's been taught to let the good players have the ball. That's great for winning but not so great for player development.
That's what I vastly prefer open gyms to spring or summer leagues, and I love three-on-three because everyone has to handle the ball. In five-on-five, a girl can play for 30 minutes, touch the ball twice and never shoot because she's been taught to let the good players have the ball. That's great for winning but not so great for player development.
Agreed that girls are more structured (forced to be?). Some of the best female players I've seen from a lot of sports come from sports families with boys. They do play with their brothers where they are challenged and taught through seeing. It helps to have a hoop outside the house. We had to take ours down because of our HOA rules. We fought that rule for as long as we could because the hoop brought boys and girls to the house for hours.
my daughter was primarily a visual and kinetic learner (see, then do) but completely uninterested in being a spectator at a sporting event. it helps if the coach, or assistant(s) can demonstrate the skill being taught. if there is time, I'd support mini-three-on-three tournaments at practice, helps if your roster is 12. 3-on-3 also develops screen and roll, give and go, screening out for rebounds, switching (not much zone in 3-on-3), help defense, lots of half court fundamentals.
Last edited:
I was thinking about that the other day in the context of watching a coach who has just switched from the boys' side to the girls' side. A high school boys' team is a distillation of the survivors of hundreds of boys playing for thousands of hours. At girls' tryouts you will have a significant number of kids who have never played at all outside team practices and games, and maybe even kids who have never played at all period. A great coach on the girls' side needs to have considerable experience/ability developing and integrating players with a tremendously broad spectrum of preparation.
The following tribute story, is about a NW man (Frosty Westering) with great coaching Characteristics and Qualities from NCAA D-III and NAIA Pacific Lutheran University. Under Westering, Pacific Lutheran won four national titles (three NAIA titles and one NCAA Division III title).
His career mark of 305–96–7 is a National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) record for most coaching wins, and he ranks ninth in wins among all college football coaches.
…...a great read
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/44702352/
Jazzpt55,
I'm the first to admit I don't know everything about everything. But usually when I speak on something I don't come from a hater point of view or try to pretend I know it all. That said like the homie Mayweather.... I'm undefeated. Many have stepped up only to find out they've taken on far more than they expected. I stay cool under fire, like Montana, you'll never see me sweat. That's right.... I take em all on and never get mad. Similar to LL, Ali, and Mike, I'm B.A.D. ! (Smile)
Last edited:
Good points info freak. Yes coaches like players can and must always keep learning. I have searched a life time to find one person who was a know it all and failed miserable in that search. Sure we all know a few "think they know it alls", but I agree with the saying... "the biggest room in the world is the room for improvement."
All coaches, parents, children, grand parents, uncles, politicians, law enforcement, governments, religious, and educational institutions, etc... have room to learn and improve. That coaching ego and those with power trips many times mis use their power and authority. In my book players and coaches deserve respect, not just coaches.
Last edited:
A lot of good posts in this thread. Just to add a thought---Learning and improvement is very important and that necessitates the possession the quality of humility. To learn we need to recognize our own limitations. You can not begin to learn unless you first recognize and acknowledge what you don't know.
Well said Willtalk. Humility up and down the line, from player to coach to parent. I remember watching a Stanford game years ago when Molly Goodenbauer was their point guard. What a revelation. She ran the floor and gave 110% and you could see she was about team and not about ego. That team went far for a lot of reasons, but having an unselfish point guard made a huge difference.
just to add to your thought about recognizing limitations, a good/maturing player recognizes what others do better than she or he and how they themselves contribute most to the team. That is the essence team work.
just to add to your thought about recognizing limitations, a good/maturing player recognizes what others do better than she or he and how they themselves contribute most to the team. That is the essence team work.
Similar threads
