Author: Vernon Gambetta
Advice to Young Coaches & Old Coaches Also
Last week I had the opportunity to spend two days with my friend, mentor and professional colleague Dr Joe Vigil at our USATF Coaching Education meeting at the Olympic training center in Chula Vista. Joe is 83 years old and just as passionate & enthusiastic as he was when I first met him over thirty years ago. He gets up at 4:00 Am every morning and does two hours of professional development reading. He is one of the most accomplished coaches in the world and is still hungry to learn! When I spend time with Joe I come away inspired and full of ideas. We both share a passion for coaching and teaching and a concern for some of the things we see happening in coaching today. The following is some advice gleaned from my conversations with Joe and from my experience. Hopefully it will be food thought as each of you moves forward in your careers. Enjoy the journey – Take some time along the way to stop and smell the roses. Have a life – Find a balance between your coaching and the rest of your life. Be yourself and always be true to yourself. Take risks, make mistakes & learn from them. Listen more than you talk. No shades of gray regarding drugs, either black or white. Find the smartest person in the room & hang out with them. Know your stuff, but more important is to show your stuff on the field, court, track or pool. Ultimately is not how much you know it is how you coach, how you put it all into practice. Ask smart questions & be sure to listen to the answers. Never lose sight of the fact it is always about people and relationships. It’s not about you it is all about the athlete. Be prepared to pay your dues, you don’t enlist the army as a general. Find someone to help you and mentor you Stay humble Coaching is profession, treat it as such and be professional in all areas. If you are in it for the money or the fame, forget coaching and go to Las Vegas or Silicon Valley. Don't follow people & personalities, follow principals and progressions.
That Time of Year
Next week most collegiate and high school fall sports begin practice. Conventional wisdom dictates that these sports start with a “training Camp” usually eight to ten days of two or three times a day practices. Supposedly the purpose is to get ready for the upcoming season. Frankly this is a vestige of times past when there were no off-season programs and the players had to get in shape (Not that you can get in shape in two weeks anyway). In reality what happened then and still happens today is that over the course of this training camp fatigue accumulates and the risk of injury increases. In addition the fatigue from this period carries over into the first competitions thus compromising game performance. To compound the problem it is typical to start the training with testing to determine the player’s fitness for the game (I say that somewhat facetiously). If the player fails the test then they are made to do so-called remedial work (AKA punishment) until they pass the test. They are also expected to practice thus compounding the problem of fatigue. By the time they are “in shape” the season is one third over. Here is an example from a major DI school in Field Hockey (This is more the norm than the exception) Endurance testing; 1st day run 300 yds. in a 25 yd. distance in 1.07 ,rest 3 minutes repeat 2 more times (Must pass all 3 times), 2nd day run a mile in 6.30 rest 3 minutes repeat 2 more times (pass all 3 times). If they do not pass all the runs in the allotted time they go into remedial training, this includes the goalies. Lets stop and think about all of this. First: It is imperative to have a strong comprehensive off-season training program that encompasses all elements of fitness to play. Second: Testing sends a powerful message. Make the test reflect the demands of the game so the players train for the game not the test. Third: The purpose of this training is specific preparation for the up coming season. Therefore the players should go into the season technically proficient, tactically sharp, fresh and ready to play. There are many good viable solutions to this and it all starts with planning and understanding the demands of the sport. The goal here is to teach and coach to prepare to play not to punish and develop toughness. Fall championships are won in the winter and spring, not now.
Great Advice & Food for Thought
Some wise words of wisdom and some real food for thought from Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz: “Grow with discipline. Balance intuition with rigor. Innovate around the core. Don’t embrace status quo. Find new ways to see. Never expect a silver bullet. Get your hands dirty. Listen with empathy and overcommunicate with transparency. Tell your story, refusing to let others define you. Use authentic experiences to inspire. Stick to your values, they are your foundation. Hold people accountable but give them the tools to succeed. Make the tough choices; it’s how you execute that counts. Be decisive in times of crisis. Be nimble. Find truth in trials and lessons in mistakes. Be responsible for what you see, hear, and do. Believe.”
USA Track & Field Coaching Education – An Overview (Part Three)
This is Part Three of the original article that appeared in the IAAF Technical Journal that was published under the title "Coaches Education – a perspective," New Studies In Athletics, Vol. 6 # 4,1991, pp. 7-11 Can you teach someone to coach? Coaching is definitely an art. It is a feel for saying and doing the right thing at the right time. I question if this can be taught. On the other hand the technical aspects can be taught and coaching skills can be improved in this manner. Communication skills, leadership skills, and psychological skills all can be enhanced through education. All of this is dependent on the desire of the coach to want to be better. Just because a coach attends a course and passes a test is no guarantee of that individual’s ability to coach. This is another reason that the focus should be on education rather certification. Is there a different approach? Yes there are as many approaches as there are countries that have programs. The key is does that system meet the needs of the athletics coaching community in that country. I feel that a slower more methodical approach would have beneficial to our program. I think it is necessary to have a paid professional staff to institute a national level program. More time should have been taken to assess the needs of the coaches at all levels of the sport. Also more time should have been spent on exploring methods to bring the information to those who need it the most. As in many other countries the geographical size of the country posed many problems. The foremost problem was one of basic logistics of assigning instructors and scheduling schools in the correct areas. There were also regional differences that should have been considered when designing a program for a country the size of the United States. In certain areas the club programs are stronger and have more influence than the interscholastic programs. Curriculum adjustments to account for this would have been helpful. The fact that the program had minimum funding did not make the process any easier. Fortunately due to attendance fees the program was able to support itself at a very minimal level. This continues to be problem. Basically the size and level of the program should be determined by the funding. This may not necessarily be the ideal but it will allow for a level of excellence rather than a watered down program. Coaching education must be an integral part of the total national development program. The career of the coach transcends the career of the elite international class athlete. One good coach produces a ripple effect. That coach will produce many good athletes, but along the way there will be many athletes who will go into coaching. It is trite to say, but coach’s begat coaches. Coaches are the foundation of a system. A small investment in coaching education is a true long-term investment in quality development of a national program. Realities of the modern coaching dictate that the coach cannot keep up with the volume of information necessary to stay current in all areas due to the information and knowledge explosion. In the US the coach must be a generalist out of necessity. This is especially true for those coaches working at the beginning stages of the development process. As the athlete rises through the system the coach must become increasingly more specialized to meet the changing needs of the athlete. At no stage of the total coaching process should the athlete be limited in his or her development by a deficiency on the part of the coach. This requires that as the athlete achieves the elite level of performance that the coach becomes the leader of a team of experts with one goal in mind, to make the athlete better. This requires task identification – What does a coach have to do relative to the development level of the athletes he is working with. What can be done to make the job easier and the coach more efficient in performance? This logically leads to the areas of evaluation and accountability. Is the material that is being taught being understood and used? Is the coaching education program actually changing coaching behavior and improving the standard of coaching? What are they actually learning in the program? Is the theory being transferred into practice? Are the teaching and learning models that are being used valid? All of these questions demand answers to insure that coaching education is viable. A program that produces coaches that are not effective is not of value to the national system. A measure of the success of coaches going through the program is how many athletes they have involved in their programs. What have they done to promote the sport in their respective area, such as hosting competitions, clinics, or workshops? In summary the coach has to be the center or focus of the development process for that process to have any long-term success. All nations, regardless of development level, could profit from the new IAAF program. The international scope of the program lends a perspective unavailable to any individual nation. The development of a standardized international curriculum leading to an IAAF Diploma is a positive step. Nations can build upon it to suit their individual needs using the IAAF program as a standard. The coach is an essential spoke in the wheel of development regardless of the development level of the country. The role of the coach relative to underdeveloped, emerging, and developed countries differs but the knowledge base necessary for success is the same in all situations. The development of the TAC Coaching Education program has been a tremendous experience for all those involved. We have all gained a better insight into the coaching process. Hopefully this brief overview of the experience will prove beneficial to others beginning their own program.
USA Track & Field Coaching Education – An Overview (Part Two)
Part Two of the article that appeared in the IAAF Technical Journal it was published under the title "Coaches Education – a perspective," New Studies In Athletics, Vol. 6 # 4,1991, pp. 7-11 The curriculum is composed of two basic components: sport science and event specific. The goal in each area was to teach fundamental principles that the coaches could immediately apply. It was designed so that coach with little or no background in sport science or coaching could understand the material. Evaluation at level I consisted of a multiple choice, open book, take home exam. To meet the needs of the athletic community as it has been traditionally structured in the US the program was structured into levels. The three levels are: Level I – Focus on coaches who are working with club, junior high school, and high school age athletes. Provides broad base of knowledge in all events with an emphases on teaching basic skills and fundamental understanding of sport science. Level II – Focuses on coaches who are working with national caliber athletes – Specialization in an event group. Provides in depth coverage of sport science. Level III – Focuses on coaches who are working with elite athletes at the national and international level with specialization in an individual event. Provides in depth understanding of the sports science aspects of that particular event. The levels are intended to be hierarchical in that one would be built upon the other in a continually expanding knowledge base. There was much discussion as to the distinction between the levels. It has not always been clear where one stops and the other begins. I am sure this will be a continuing debate which will occur everywhere that there are levels. They were designed to meet the needs of the coaches at all levels of the sport. One controversial aspect of the levels was the "Grandfather" issue. There were those people in the sport who had coached a number of years and by the nature of their knowledge and experience felt that they deserved certification beyond Level I. With our fundamental philosophy of including everyone in the program a policy was developed that was good for the program and those individuals. They were asked to attend a Level I school to gain an understanding of the terminology and the process. Then they applied to the level they felt their knowledge and experience dictated. Very few people have elected to exercise this option once they realized the additional knowledge they could gain by going through the program in it's entirety. At this point, Level I and II are fully operational. Level III is in the final planning and development stages. In retrospect there was possibly too much of a hurry to proceed to Level II. Therefore the committee is taking more time to develop Level III. Without question the focus should be on Level I where there is the greatest need and the necessity for the greatest number of coaches. One of the primary issues that has arisen is that of certification versus education. When the program was in its developmental stages the focus was on certification. It quickly became apparent that this had too many negative connotations. Education shed a more positive light and this became the major thrust of the program. Hopefully the program is just the start of an educational experience for the coach, one that he or she will be motivated to continue for self improvement on their own outside the courses.
USA Track & Field Coaching Education – An Overview (Part One)
A couple of weeks ago when going through some old computer files I came across an article I wrote on the USA Track & Field (Then known as TAC) Coaching Education program. This weekend I will be going to the USOTC in Chula Vista for some planning meetings on the coaching education program. As I have gotten back involved over the last eighteen months I have become increasingly aware of how few people know the history and origins of the program. The programs started with a meeting at the 1981 TAC Convention in Reno. A group of us felt that we needed to start a coaching education program. An ad hoc sub-committee of the men’s and women’s development committees was formed. I was chair of the committee; the other members were Joe Vigil, Gary Winckler and Al Baeta. We were charged with coming back with a specific proposal to be presented at the next convention. I presented the proposal and it was accepted after much vocal opposition from a group of coaches who viewed it as a threat to their power within the organization. I became the first Chairman of the program and the other members and organizers’ were Gary Winckler and Joe Vigil. The budget we were allocated was $3,000! Somehow we were able to pull it off. We trained out first group of instructors in December of 1983. At that time we also defined and refined the Level I curriculum. The first schools were offered in January of 1984. The first Level II School was offered in December 1986. Today it represents one of the most successful programs within USA Track & Field. It certainly has its faults and it’s strengths. I have chosen to get back involved in an advisory capacity to help move the program forward in a positive direction and to hold to the ideals of the founders of the program. To give a complete overview here is the article that appeared in the IAAF Technical Journal it was published under the title "Coaches Education – a perspective," New Studies In Athletics, Vol. 6 # 4,1991, pp. 7-11: I am writing this from the perspective of my experience with the development of the TAC coaching education program in the United States. The US was one of the last major athletics nations to adopt a coaching education program in 1984. I will draw comparisons and conclusions for the development of coaching education in athletics throughout the world. This should not be interpreted as an attempt to portray the TAC program as a model for others to follow. Instead it is an attempt to share on our experience to help others to develop their own programs. There are common problems and solutions that transcend language, political ideology, religious beliefs and the athletic developmental level of the country. We must focus on these commonalities in order to improve the quality of coaching worldwide. Historical Perspective The TAC program evolved out of a perceived need of a small group of coaches and the encouragement of national coaching coordinator, Berny Wagner, in Dec 1980. For many years the US had a relatively unchallenged position of leadership in the international arena. This domination was the result of several factors: The educational system in the US provided coaches and facilities for the development of athletes. There was and continues to be a large, healthy talent pool. The country was not devastated by war and famine. There were educated coaches from the beginning of an athlete's career. There was excellent competition at all development levels. There were excellent facilities that were accessible to all. It is my opinion that the role coaching played in this success has never received due credit. This is especially true for the coaches at the beginning levels. The system was and continues to be a transport system where the athletes were passed from coach to coach as they progressed through their athletic career. This never allowed the club coaches, junior high and high school coaches to receive the recognition they deserved for identifying and nurturing these youngsters. Ultimately the coach who was associated with them at the apex of their career received the credit. Nonetheless the beginning coaches usually were teachers or recreation leaders who had paid positions and continued with their jobs of getting the youth off to a good start by providing direction and competitive experience. By the early 1970's this supremacy was being challenged by many nations of the world. Events that the US had previously dominated were now closely contested. This all began to change as educational funding was reduced. Mandatory daily physical education was gradually eliminated until today only one state has mandatory daily physical education at all levels. Physical education that had formerly provided a core of youngsters who had a basic fitness level and sound fundamental movement skill was taken away. In addition there was a trend to specialization and early tracking in sports other than track and field, which cut down on participation. This also had the effect of reducing the number of coaches involved. Formerly the football or basketball coaches who had assisted and coached several events in track now did not help because they were busy running their off season programs. The net result was to shift greater responsibility onto fewer coaches. This also coincided with a period when a number of experienced coaches became eligible to retire which further reduced the pool of available coaches. The growth of girls and women's programs added another dimension. Their inclusion in the scholastic and collegiate program was a positive step, but the net effect was to put more pressure on an already declining number of qualified coaches. Conflict arose between club and school coaches in sharing athletes. All this served to weaken the talent pool of qualified coached available especially at the beginning levels. The ultimate solution, especially for the schools desperate for coaches, was the so-called "walk on" coach or "rent-a-coach", a non-faculty member who was interested and willing They were usually given a small stipend. There was no assurance that they had any qualifications to coach aside from their interest in doing so. It was this background that lead to the formation of the TAC Coaching Education program. The goal was to provide beginning coaches with a basic body of knowledge in the sport sciences and the actual events. This would provide the background for them to effectively coach beginning athletes at the junior high school and high school level. From the formation of an ad hoc committee to explore the concept to the first Level I school it took three years. This was done entirely by volunteers with limited funding. The committee examined certification programs from many different nations. The final program borrowed the best aspects of many programs and synthesized them into one applicable to the situation in the US. Developing a cadre of trained instructors is the key to any program. Qualified, motivated, and committed instructors are essential to the success of the program. This proved especially difficult because the people originally chosen were already extensively involved in many aspects of coaching and administration and they would be volunteering their time for this program. Instructors were chosen for their proven excellence in teaching the fundamentals of track and field, organizational ability, and geographic distribution. The latter was necessary in order to insure that the program was truly national in scope. The second generation of instructors has come from coaches who have been through the Level I course. This has proven to be very helpful, especially in consistency of presentation. More emphasis must be placed on the training of instructors in order to maintain a high standard.
Championship Season – Swimming
My favorite time of the training years is the so-called championship season. I say so-called because champions shine all year by winning workouts and preparing for this special time. This is the time leading into and including all the big championship meets. This is the time where all the hard work pays off and the time to shine and compete. I am privileged to work with three swim clubs as a consultant on their dryland training – Carmel Swim Club, Carmel Indiana, Dynamo Swim Club, Atlanta and Sarasota YMCA Sharks. Because I live in Sarasota I have been able to spend more time with the Sharks. It has been really neat to see the kids grow in their ability to train and race. All the clubs are age group clubs so literally week-to-week you see the results of growth and development, a factor that must be continually taken into consideration. This is the time of the year when it is tempting to do more or change something. I learned along time ago that this is the time of the year when you do less and you dance the last dance with who brought you to the dance. You can’t make up for something you have not done in your preparation at this time. This is a time to get the head right and sharpen the focus. In dryland this is what I call the Hybrid phase that consists of two to three sessions a week of short sharp workouts that are selected from what makes the swimmer feel good. There must be enough of a stimulus to stabilize the strength gains, but not too much. It varies by individual, gender and stroke. This is where the art of coaching is paramount. Now we all get to paint on a bigger canvas.
Cut to the Chase
Focus clearly only on what needs to be done to get training results that translate in competition performance. This demands focus on the training tasks that are meaningful. Eliminate the nice to do activities that make you tired but don’t make you better. It is so trite to say but less is more. Find out what works and keep fine-tuning and tweaking that to achieve continual adaptation. Variety and variation for the sake of variety will lead to mixed results. Have a very specific objective for each workout. Everything in the workout should be in pursuit of that objective. At the end of the workout evaluate – was the objective achieved? if so why? If not why not? Adjust subsequent training accordingly. Always put the workout in context of the whole training plan, never lose sight of the cumulative effect of training. As I have said many times in this blog one workout cannot make an athlete, but one workout can break an athlete.