Past Success = Coaching Greatness?

The week 5 lecture and tutorial material focused on the concepts of observation and augmented information. During the course of Keith's presentations he addressed the idea of  whether having played at the highest level in a given sport gives you some sort of predisposition to coaching at an elite level in that sport. 

Some of my fellow class mates including Sarah Taylor and Trent Hopkinson have addressed this in their blogs which are well worth reading as they give some interesting insights and personal experiences.

What got me thinking was that Keith noted that Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and the number one women's canoe slalom paddler (I'm unsure of her name) are all self coached. Having read his recommended link, Spectrum of Teaching Styles and browsed over their spectrum of 7 coaching concepts, it becomes hard to imagine how these may be implemented considering that the role of "teachers and learners" becomes blurred when an athlete takes coaching upon themselves.

Perhaps another limitation lies in what Keith referred to as memory decay, where what you are thinking the movement (golf swing, tennis serve etc) may differ from what you recall when looking back on performances. This, to me, is one of the greatest advantages of having your own coach who's job it is to provide information for you, rather than relying on yourself to produce firstly a quality action and the secondly critique your own movement. Which could essentially create an environment where the athlete becomes their own worst enemy. After all, athletes and coaches often say that the best performances come from when there is little thought and they 'just do it' rather than over thinking it.

On the other hand, its hard to argue with the results of Woods and Federer, they are some of the greatest athletes ever, and after all the Spectrum of Teaching concept #4 also states that "no one teaching style is universally good or bad". And I think that is the single most important thing, the relationship between coach and athlete is better when its unique and is working best for them. I think it's something that is discovered rather than taught and perhaps the reason that players make good coaches is that they can relate to their athlete. I think a prime example of this is Andy Murray employing Ivan Lendl, who found himself in a similar position to Murray having not won any of the four major tournaments at a similar point in his career, despite having the ability to do so.


Anyway, those are my thoughts for this week, feel free to comment!

Cheers,
Leigh