Coaches... What are they good for?

[Meddler]

Edwin Starr will be after me for that.... ripping off his lyrics....

Right. Gloves off.

Lights blue touch paper...

None / Some / Most / All of you have a downer on GNAS Coaches.

Why?

What is your problem with GNAS Coaches?

I don't want any of you personally abusing Coaches.

I want reasons why you think the GNAS Coaching system is brilliant / good / OK / bad / awful.

And more importantly, what do you think can be done to improve it?

I'll reply where I can.
... stands back and retires...

[Trunkles]

Availability (or lack of) which is why I am a Level-1 candidate

[Furface]

As a Coach, and as I have blathered on this forum before, I find a very odd attitude amongst most archers. Beginners love being helped, but as soon as they settle in, they don't like being helped. They see a Coach as a critic, and so avoid approaching one. So habits develop, and, when they finally do ask for help, radical surgery is required. So they say "I thought you'd criticise everything" and flounce off.
Coaches themselves range from the very knowledgeable and competent, to the very dogmatic and incompetent. But what we don't seem to be trained in much is the psychology of teaching: how to approach someone with offers of help; how to convince someone they need - or don't need - much extra work; etc etc. Generally we are working with people who are upset with their performance, often angry with themselves, but we treat them like eager beavers who want to learn.

[geoffretired]

There will be different responses to this thread(keeping my head down)
Each of us have had different experiences of students and coaches, so it is natural that we will see this from different perspectives. As Meddler says, forget the name calling etc. and say what has gone wrong in a non threatening way. Then try to find solutions.
Two or three things strike me as important. One is the way the students are approached.Waiting for the student to make the first move is, I feel, the best way. That does not mean they have to come up and ask for help. Their first move is often more subtle than that. A shake of the head, cross expression, chat to a friend when they know the coach is listening.
Another important issue is whether or not there are regular coaching sessions available at the club. If there are regular sessions, then access needs to be made simple and open to all. Qualified(on paper) and unqualified coaches need to work together or the differences become wider and more personal, usually.
A third issue is the way coaches get across their messages. Having said things to school children that have been taken the wrong way, makes the teacher( me) more selective over their choice of words. Using jargon in archery is one of my pet hates. Quite often both parties have little or no understanding of the expression. But even if the coach understands, that is no good unless the student has the same understanding.
I like to get the student to talk back what they have learnt. It is so revealing. They don't hide the truth, they just tell you what they have picked up from you. What they pick up is not always what you gave out. If they aren't asked, there is an assumption that what they learnt is exactly the same as what was said.
This thread is going to run and run. It needs to in my opinion; much good will come from it.
(I'm off to read up on self defence methods for internet users.)

[ecclesarcher]

I think a lot of the relationship between an archer and a coach is based in how they work together as people. I don't mean that they have to be friends, but that their basic approaches and attitudes have to match up to a certain degree and - particularly importantly - their teaching and learning styles have to fit together.

That said, most counties/clubs are short enough of coaches that there isn't a great deal of choice in who one works with, either as an archer or a coach. I've done a teacher training course, although I never got as far as teaching, and the knowledge I use most from that when I'm teaching or coaching archers is centred around different methods of teaching and learning. I don't know whether any of this is included in current GNAS coach training, but if not it might be worth considering. Without it, it can sometimes be difficult to realise that someone's failed to grasp what they're being taught (c.f. geoffretired's point above about getting students/archers to 'talk back').

Personally, I think the new coaching system has a lot to recommend it. Anything involving standardisation and centralisation is inevitably going to cause difficulties and mixed opinions in the beginning, just because it's changing an extablished pattern, but that doesn't mean it's not a better system long-term. I think that most things which help make archery more visible, or more easily understandable by the general public are a good idea, and having coaching levels which can be easily compared with those of other sports can assist in that.

That said, we all know that a piece of paper doesn't make a good coach. I think the key to any system of qualifications is in the quality of the assessment; if that sets a high and consistent standard, the qualifications will be respected. Unfortunately, high and consistent standards often mean monitoring, which can mean paperwork, accountability and 'tick-box' curricula, most of which are inherently unpopular.

Looking back at this, it doesn't really contain any answers. I suppose I'm musing on the theme - apologies to anyone who feels I've taken up too much space doing so . One final thing - personally, I think a coach is an essential part of performance; I'd be lost without mine.

People need different things from a coach depending on the level the archer is at. A pure new commer to the sport needs good sound basic instruction. How to define "good" is a tough one.

As we all progress into archery we develop our own style and form. A coach needs to work with a student to make the best of what they have got. I have seen examples of some coaches destroying all the good bits and trying to make a student into a version of them selves. In my opinion this is not a good thing.

A new archer has no idea what a good coach is? They just trust they know what they are talking about. I suppose that can be said for any form of teaching? Again I have seen evidence that some GNAS coaches are nothing more than new archers them selves with spare time to give and an urge to teach. Often encouraged to learn to coach on the back of "it will help you with your archery too"..just to make club coach numbers up. This ploy was tried with me, I turned it down.

For me a I look for cridibilty, experience and evidence they know what they are doing before I pay any attention to a coach. Then I'm all ears, I have the utmost respect for people who give there time willingly to help others for the right reasons. I don't have time for some so called coaches who do it to feed there ego, who lack technical abilty, practical ability, and don't take the time to learn the stuff they are teaching and what is more, move with the times. I'm sure this problem is not confined to just the sport of archery. I think all coaches need to ask and answer honestly "why am I doing this?"

It must be a tough job being a coach, archers are often angry frustrated people by the time they seek help, hats off to anyine who can deal with that and turn a frustrated archer into a happy archer.

The only way people will respect the system is by way of evidence of ability, backed up by results. How this can be done is open to debate.

[Max]

Coaching or Instruction? OK - newcomers need good instruction in the techniques that are (and this is important!) Most Likely to develop their skills and ability without placing undue limitations on their development (so a one size fits all approach is likely to be the best option). GNAS level 1 seems to me to be all about instruction, not coaching.

Once the novice has gained basic proficiency and is starting to question his/her style (reading books, watching videos, perhaps trying different grips and maybe taking photographs of themselves shooting), it starts to become harder.

We are all different. I have read many books and compared the styles of many leading archers, both compound and recurve. They were all different too, maybe not by a long way but enough to say - he's good and shooting with a bent arm. The other guy says the only way to shoot is with a straight arm and he's good too.

So once the novice is hitting the target reasonably consitently and getting something like good groups, what is a Coach supposed to do next? does he.....

(a) Video him from all angles, pick out all his bad habits and land it all on him at once, then try and fix them all at once using a rigid set of rules.

(b) Decide that there are 3 ot 4 main issus that are costing him points and deal wth them one at a time in priority order, with each stage improving the student's performance and building the one to one relationship between student and coach.

I've been to several GNAS 'coaching' sessions and only come across method (a) so far. Where do I have to go to find method (b)? Still looking!

[geoffretired]

I wish I could bottle all that has been said already on this thread. How true it all is! I'm sure those who have posted already will be coming back again later. Many will join in for the first time,too. This is a very big issue, in my opinion.
I coach regularly with a coach, judge and a county coach. We work to a plan. We are individuals but share knowledge and skills. The differences between us are the things that interest me most. In particular, the differences that could adversely affect the students. This forum is already doing good things in bringing together ideas that differ. It then allows discussion and the chance for any to take away a new and better perspective on something.( And didn't I need that!)
I believe we are representative of much that goes on at club level in all the variety that that entails. If we can put something down in print that will improve what we have been doing at our own clubs, that has to be a good thing.
I am drawn back to Rgsphoto's idea that archers need different things from coaches at different stages in their archery. This is another key issue, I feel.
I ask the question here, " Do recent beginners need a high level coach?"
In some ways the new coach training scheme seems to suggest not.Those wanting to become higher level coaches are given extra training to allow them to train or coach top level archers. (Perhaps ideas on that could be sent as PM rather than taking too much from the main idea of the original thread.)

[Rik]

I dug out my notes from a SCAS coaching conference, some years back. Frank Dick (Daley Thompson's coach) was talking on "unlocking potential".
He gave an overview of the roles (plural) of the coach, which went something like:
Direct, when motivation is high, coach when motivation drops, support through periods of variable motivation/progress, counsel when an experienced athelete has high motivation and is performing well.

The coaches I've met have varied from mediocre to very good at the "Direct" part (teaching). One or two have been pretty good at the "support" part, though I'd say the proportion of good "supporters" among coaches is no higher than in the general population of archers. The "coach" part is difficult to find, though.

I let my certificate lapse, because I don't believe I have the time to do the "coach" part of the job.
I'll still teach beginners, offer advice on technique and equipment etc. but I just can't afford the time committment to the coach/archer relationship that would be needed.

What's bad about the GNAS system? I'm not sure that's a good question.

If I had to say what I'd like to see, it would be something like this:

• Training in how to coach, how to get ideas across in different ways, how to tell when you need to try a different approach to get through to someone.
• Training on training. How you do it, at what level, what sort of results you should expect, how to tell if you're getting them and if not, why not.
• Training on technique. What works, what doesn't. The pitfalls to avoid. Common problems, how to spot them and how to fix them. Things you can get away with varying and things you can't.
• Training on equipment. How to set up kit correctly from scratch. How to advise people in selecting equipment.

The "technique" part is particularly difficult, as I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the only way to do that, is through one-on-one teaching, from someone who has a clue. Book learning doesn't cut it. Unfortunately, those people seem to be few and far between.

I could imagine the different areas of the training being set up as separate courses. You wouldn't necessarily have to have ticked all the boxes to coach, but you would need to know when to go and consult with (for example) an equipment specialist, or an expert on training methods. It would be unreasonable to expect everyone to know a lot about every aspect of the sport, after all.

It might also be useful if GNAS put together a "how do I find a coach?" page on their website. Actually, some sort of Coach/Archer "dating agency" might be good... "Archer seeks coach with GSOH in the Surrey area, with view to a long term relationship..."

[Max]

Originally Posted by geoffretired

I am drawn back to Rgsphoto's idea that archers need different things from coaches at different stages in their archery. This is another key issue, I feel.
I ask the question here, " Do recent beginners need a high level coach?"

Probably not Geoff, but why do we call them coaches at all - is their some stigma about calling a person and "Instructor" who is good at imparting general knowlege about technique and can replace clearly bad form with better form, based on the best and most up to date published information?But what is a coach? Why are some of the best sports coaches not necessarily goos sportsmen at all but damn good psychologists?

A coach needs to deal with the person first and the technique second - completely opposite to what is often recognised as good instruction. Why? Well not many people like asking for help - some are better than others and I admit I am bad at it. People usually try and sort out problems for themselves and only resort to help once all their internal wranglings have failed to produce the result. This means that quite possibly they have arrived at the right solution but failed to apply the right answer to the problem, thus discounting it. A coach has to break through those barriers before he can convince his student to adopt a better aproach.

So after nearly 3 years of being in archery could I instruct a beginner - probably yes, with a little training myself. Could I coach - Hmmmm, not at all sure. could I deal with an frustrated and often dismissive archer at the end of his tether, talk him down from the roof and gradually gain his confidence enough to help - tall order, yes?

Coaching needs a good skill base, but more importantly is about dealing with people - we often forget that.