Coaching Ceiling

Following on from last weeks blog surrounding the topic of the expert pedagogue, this week I got thinking about the same idea but from the perspective of an athlete. Could an athlete ever be considered an expert? And if so wouldn't that mean that coaches got their athlete to a level of expertise that essentially made them redundant?

I came to the conclusion that like coaches, athletes (no matter how talented) could not ever be considered 'complete' or an 'expert'. So by default, if there is always room for improvement, then there will always be a place for a coach to work and develop that room, it's just that as the level of athlete skill increases so does the margin for improvement (the law of diminishing returns).

Even if the coaching role is not filled in a traditional sense (where the focus lies on the technical aspects), there are numerous sources of research within the field of sports psychology suggesting that the psychological side of an athletes performance is as important as physical prowess involved.

While on that point, interestingly enough both Roger Federer and tiger Woods have gone long periods of time in their respective careers without a dedicated coach. I suppose there are always exceptions. But maybe if Federer and Woods had coaches (maybe even operating in a more unconventional sense) Federer may have broken that Grand Slam record already and Woods might still be in the #1 ranking. Who knows, sometimes its interesting to speculate.

I think the best example of the how important a coach can be is the appointment of Jake White to the ACT Brumbies (also discussed in Ben Mudie's blog). At the beginning of this season the Brumbies were widely tipped to finish last by quite a margin, due to their apparently weak playing list, but currently find themselves sitting atop of the Australian conference table. His coaching methods have obviously clicked with the team and his ability to think outside the box has most recently seen him suggest bringing Stephen Larkham out of retirement at 37yrs of age and 5 years since he last played for the Brumbies in an effort to cover an injury crisis.

Personally, having decided that that neither the athlete nor coach could ever be considered experts nor complete I think shows that the role of a coach is open ended. It is a role that is, I guess, in a way limitless and unrestricted in where it can go.

I think that looking at the role of a coach and athlete as something that is is a continual state of change and never finished highlights the interesting dynamic between coaches and athletes. Assuming that neither can ever be considered a finished product, one of them will always be presenting the other with new and unique challenges thus promoting a perpetual relationship.