The Wall Street Journal released an interesting article yesterday entitled "Manchester City's Non-Stop Pep Talk." The main theme of the article was the amount of time Pep Guardiola spent (52 minutes and 35 seconds to be precise) coaching from the sideline during the game against Spurs earlier this month. This got me thinking...
There are some coaches that are so dedicated to the "players game" (training is where the work is done and game-day is for the players) that they mock other coaches for coaching from the sidelines on game-day. You've all heard it, "Look at that coach using a "joystick" to move players around the field." Then there are all the coaches that fall between those two extremes. Regardless of where you fall, I think we can all agree that coaches have a responsibility to provide a tactical framework for their teams (I would argue that subjective freedom based on player ID's then operates within that, but that's for another blog). Furthermore, I think we can all agree that training is a means by which we can teach this framework, but where it seems we differ is what our role is during games.
Theoretically speaking, enhancing communication (team tactics) is the job of the coach and must involve opposition. Individual decision-making becomes easier/faster if communication is sound, thus shifting focus from reading both teammates and the opposition to just reading the opposition. At first, due to pure logistics, "opposition" means teammates competing against each other at training, but then of course, there is game-day. Sure you might have prepared your team for the game, maybe you even had film? Maybe you had the luxury of having a scout team? But while those are helpful, they cannot prepare you/your team fully for game-day. For example, if/when the opposition creates their defensive block differently to adjust to your tactics, do you just let your team figure it out, or do you help them? Theory says you help them. This is coaching.
So as you prepare for the games ahead, I ask a few basic questions:
Does your tactical framework provide an answer to each phase of the game (attacking, transitioning, defending) for your team?
How do the answers to each phase of the game adjust to upcoming opposition?
How do the answers to each phase of the game change if the opposition differs on game day?
If you can't answer these questions, I would argue that either you are holding your players back with rigid tactics, or even worse, your players aren't getting enough direction.
Remember your job as a coach is to ease decision-making, not to do the decision-making for them. On game-day it's essential to help your team through times of indecision as this is theoretically one of the best times to do so. For example, if done well, a coach modifying his/her team's receiving lines based on the opposition's block, improves positioning of teammates, promoting quicker decisions as the focus shifts more towards reading the opposition and less on figuring out where open teammates are. Through this action-based coaching, you are giving the players a better chance to win the game without sacrificing development.
For those interested in the article referenced in this blog: http://www.wsj.com/articles/manchester-citys-nonstop-pep-talk-1476207761
