Different coaches have different personalities, which contribute to the diversity of sport. Some display more energy than others, some have a stage presence, and some have a sense of humour about their job. Nevertheless, there is more than one way to coach successfully.
Coaching and control are synonymous in the minds of many individuals inside and outside the profession but that is not an accurate description. Coaches motivate student-athletes to reach their potential as a group. Crafting systems that best suit the team is part of that task, managing every single detail of the team is not. Creating accountability among the players for their actions on the court will bring everyone together.
In practice, coaches should teach the team how to make decisions. If the coach only instructs a set of rules and guidelines – insisting that they game be played “the right way” – they curtail the enthusiasm of the players. In games, players own their decisions and they deserve as much input as possible – if they have earned it. Over the years, Larry Brown has been fired many times compared to Phil Jackson who has only been given the axe once (in Puerto Rico in the 1980s).
A coach is ultimately responsible for the outcome of each game and the entire season so many feel that they need to be “harder on this group on seniors than any group before them,” as the coach at Niagara said after qualifying for the N.C.A.A. Tournament. But there are many occasions when a passive personality is very effective.
Recently, I coached a game where I hardly did anything. The players won the game and I didn’t screw it up. Not that I would have screwed it up had I been more involved but they basically ran the entire show. I could have intervened if necessary but there was never an urgent need to do anything.
The team used the usual offence and defence to take a seven point lead. Although we lost the lead briefly at times, we controlled the tempo of the game. The players suggested a switch to a match-up zone, which I didn’t really agree with, but I value their input. After pressuring the ball well, the other team hit a few shots over the defence so we switched back to person-to-person defence. Players made shots down the stretch to win the game; all I did was make sure the five players on the court were the five that were playing the best together.
I worry at times that I do not display enough emotion on the bench. Coaches should be a mirror image of the character that the team should be showing. Remaining quiet was likely a disservice to the team but the bench was enthusiastic, so that overcame my shortcomings.
Afterwards, I watched a YouTube clip of Don Nelson receiving a technical foul with no time on the clock. Gilbert Arenas had already been sent to the line with a chance to tie the game with two free throws and he made those plus the T, winning the game for the Wizards. Nellie probably went over the edge, but it’s a subjective line. His active involvement cost his team the game insteal of inspiring the team to play better defence or whatever. Perhaps the team leaders should have handled the situation themselves.
Phil Jackson tries to take two technicals per season. Other coaches, like Gregg Popovich and Pat Riley get nailed far more often. Some coaches are loath to call timeouts, others bail out the teams they coach constantly. It’s a superficial illustration of the different levels of assertiveness that are effective on the sidelines. All things considered, it’s mature teams that can handle the ups and downs of the game and work things out together that win.