Dion La Foucade and Associates的动态

Transcript

And again, it's not to say the one star is better than the other, but it's about recognising how each style can influence the players that you work with. So working with a more autocratic style that it perhaps enforces applies to make quick decisions because as a coach you prompted and effectively given them decision that the player should be making. Autocratic styles very good when working with very large group of players and you want something to be done very quickly and you want it to be done precisely. Sometimes when working large groups of players, if you're not perhaps so command in with your presence and your communication, players can get distracted or perhaps not quite understand what's being required to be done. Using autocratic style as as I highlighted earlier, perhaps very good for when introducing topics or perhaps introducing the skill to inexperienced or young participants. However, some of the disadvantages of that, as we've already alluded to, is that the players don't make those decisions or those perhaps activity or. In action decisions that that perhaps in games or game like practices they're required to make because there's a coach you've influenced their thinking. As a result of that, players can feel restricted, certainly if they want to. Those types of creative players that want to express themselves, they can order sell them, become very restrictive and it doesn't really support and allow that freedom. Certainly an autocratic style, though, is very useful and required when certainly managing players when there's a perhaps an issue regarding their safety and you perhaps need to bring them or catch their attention immediately. When you move towards more of that democratic style, players are perhaps more engaged and motivated to do what coaches and players have decided or engaged and discuss what they want to do or work within or the strategy that they're going to look at because they've had that involvement. Like feel like their opinion and they are valued as individuals and they are going to perhaps engage more highly as a result of that. It is also gonna have have to have a bit more of a development of their understanding interpretation. It's going to encourage that creativity. We said at the start the kind of utopia and we want our players to play with that level of creativity and freedom. Certainly working more democratically allows that. However, players are going to perhaps be more slower in their decision making. They may make wrong decisions. So as a coach, how do you handle that and how do you challenge players to continually trying that? It may not be appropriate if the players don't have the understanding. So you may initially want to use that democratic style. You've you've challenged players, OK, you've engaged with them, you've had that discussion. You've given players feedback that they continually are unable to execute what you're wanting to do. You may then have to use them. Autocratic and command style to ensure the players understand it is to where it needs to be. Well, if you move, move more to that, there's a fair place. The participants and the players are totally independent of making those decisions. There's got to be that real strong development of trust, that trust within your players that they can do at the right speed, the right tempo, the right intensity. So it's got that realism to it that they're going to execute what you want them to. It's also going to perhaps though, develop leaders. So you might sacrifice that disorganisation, that chaos. That perhaps lack of detail within the within the players execution so that players manage themselves. Individuals will naturally step up, organise others around them. But that may for that evening, for that practice, for that session be the priority. You as the coaches identified and you're looking or supporting one or two individuals that you've identified with those leadership qualities. And I've already touched on there what those disadvantages are already are perhaps using that start? Someone highlighted there that and again from my experience, often what happens is as coaches, coaches will work within a more democratic coaching style or development style when working with players between the younger ages or within the foundation phase and use development phase. But then when they get into a first team performance environment, all of a sudden everything's very autocratic, very dictators like in terms of. Structure and systems. However, I will challenge that and ask, is there a way in which you can involve your players in the process? Is there a way in which actually, even though there's performances and out the outcome of those performances is key, that you can coach in a way that supports and allows players to continually have good decisions? They're involved in that decision making and it supports them and allows them to have that freedom.