What would you make of this?

[Witchie Poo Cat]

Originally Posted by PaulT

However there will always be something of yourself in your style of teaching/coaching which will suit some more than others.
We are all individuals!




"I'm not!"

I agree with you on that Paul, everyone has their own style even when they are adapting to their students. I think what I was trying to say is that some coaches (and Im talking generally, not specifically archery) have a "my way" approach while others have a "well, lets try this" approach. Of course, endless patience also helps!

[Thunk]

There is an image of the coach as some sort of dispenser of information - the man with the secret knowledge who will impart it at a price. Something like an old-fashioned schoolmaster complete with gown, standing in front of a blackboard.

Having been coached at quite a high level in another sport, I know that the relationship is not like that. Before any training, there is a personal relationship - it's almost like a marriage. The coach/athlete relationship has to work on several different levels in order to be successful.

Just because the relationship breaks down, and one coach gets replaced by another, doesn't mean that the first coach was no good. It just means that on at least one of the many levels of relationship, the paths of the coach and the athlewte diverged.

[simon m]

I'm not sure about "better" coach at all.

I mean lets say for example - Your club coach get you from 2nd class to bowmen over 12 months by adjusting your general technique and some fine tuning.......he/she may not then be confident or want to fine tune you further or in some cases have the skills, so you go to your county coach who may only ever see high end first class and bowmen which means his/her skill set is developed to fine tune.

[geoffretired]

Thanks for the recent inputs. I did say I wanted reactions to the comment and they are making a pattern. I notice that more and more are seeing the comment differently from me. In summary, you agree that a good coach can make a difference. I don't disagree with that. It makes sense really. What struck me more though was the connection between improved performance and and new coach. New coach makes a difference therefore new coach is good. I don't disagree with that either. What I felt was, "New" had been changed into "Good" by the commentator, and at the same time implied that the former coach was less good. I imagined the former coach's reactions if he had been listening.

"See what happens when a different coach is brought in." Not much change in the words but the quality of the two coaches is no longer being directly compared.
Perhaps I'm over sensitive?);

[Furface]

Chicago Light Bulb Experiment strikes again!
(Basically, a group of workers improved performance whatever was thrown at them, simply because they were given attention, and thought they were "special") Also affects f******l - new managers effect (Otherwise, how do you account for "success" of the likes of O'Leary or Rednapp - no answers please)
Personally, if a coach was being effective, I would almost expect performance to decrease in the initial period

[Rik]

Not really an opinion, more a set of observations:
If we don't know how long the sportsman has been with the 'new' coach, it's not possible to even guess the extent of their influence.

If you've been with someone for a long time, you may develop habitual responses to their coaching efforts. Now a top coach may be able to shake you out of a rut, but sometimes just going to someone new gives a slightly different angle on things (not necessarily different, but explained in a new way, or from a direction that makes it new).

Sometimes someone new telling you something you already know gives it fresh impact.

Without knowing the individuals involved, it's really impossible to comment more specifically (and maybe not even then).

[Murray]

Originally Posted by geoffretired

"See what happens when a different coach is brought in." Not much change in the words but the quality of the two coaches is no longer being directly compared.
Perhaps I'm over sensitive?)

Maybe they just knew more about the coaches and their relevant skills than you do? Or perhaps knew the archer better than you. IMO, simply not enough information to form an opinion - could have been a stupid comment or may have been spot on in this case.

[geoffretired]

Thanks again for the recent replies. I know I didn't give much information about the individuals in question. That was deliberate. I just wondered what other reactions there were.
Thanks to all for your inputs. There were some very interesting thoughts on different levels of coaching. I see the need to have different sorts of expertise for different situations. The different levels complement each other.
All are equally important. All need to be getting their part right. All need to be valued for the parts they play.);