select for your son

Hmmm,...apples ( option 1 ) or oranges ( option 2 )?
Both are fruit and both are beneficial in their own special way.

I think I'd pick a kumquat.
Comes in a small package, not necessarily the most known or most popular, but brings a distinctive combination to the ol' tastebuds.

Definition of kumquat: small oval citrus fruit with thin sweet rind and very acid pulp.

Tiny bugger,... but a alotta' zing!

Considering my perosnality I would choose Option 1 because I would know that is what is best for me and my team. My high school football coach was like this. I hated the man but now I really am appreciative of the things he taught me.

If I played for a "player's coach" I would not get any better. At some point you have to be held accountable for your actions and results. Does that mean you should have free rein to be a *rick? Not at all but there is a middle ground you need to find.

If I have to choose between my players liking me versus them getting better then I am going to choose them getting better.

I started out as a hard rearend and I think all my players hated me but I was new, school had very little success and young. I felt I had to come in and set the tone. It was a mistake looking back at it now. Today, I am more calm and even keeled but my guys know if they mess up they are in trouble. Does that mean I yell and scream at them if they let one go through their legs? No because it was a physical error and they happen. If they keep happening then we are going to look at a change.

Now if a guy tries to steal on his own then I am going to be very upset because that is a mental error. We are going to have a discussion about that. The discussion pretty much goes - I talk and they listen.

I'm not saying a "player's coach" approach won't work but it usually works only on teams that have older, experience and vetern players.

Be careful......

My son has had both types of coaches and both have had something good to offer.

The "father figure" coach has become a very good friend and fishing buddy. While the boys playing for him didn't always win, they absolutely loved him -- and he loved them back. To this day, he remains my son's hitting instructor and knows him and his needs like the back of his hand. My son would do anything for him.

The "hard edge" coach brought my son to new levels of excellence. He demanded all-out effort from his players and he got it. Because my son knew that mistakes were not tolerated, he played as well as possible because he didn't want to get yelled at. Initially, my son did not care for him, but he came to appreciate him and realized that the coach's high standards raised his game.

Bullwinkle gives just 2 options to choose from, but it's honestly not an either/or situation. There are players' coaches who do expect excellence and near-perfection -- but go about it in a kinder, gentler way -- and bring out the best in their players.

Even most of the "dictator" types have some humanity and once players realize that, it becomes easier to stomach their tirades. My son's "dictator" coach was very passionate about the game and cried in front of the team at times. It helped the players realize he was human after all.

There is one "dictator" coach I'm aware of at a college who I would not want my son to play for. The team does extremely well, going deep into the playoffs in its division each year, but the players cannot stand playing for the coach. If he has an ounce of humanity, he has not shown it to his players -- at least not the players we have talked with. In turn, many of his players have grown to avidly dislike the man. They do what he requires, but they have little respect for him as a person. I'm saddened that he feels this type of coaching style is necessary to achieve the desired results.

It all depends on the personality of the players. For me (when I was a 16 year old) it would be option 1 all the way. That was football, and I thought it was great. But for my son, option 1 would make him a basket case. His best game will come from option 2. Option 1 will get in his head and instead of thinking about baseball, he's thinking about "don't make a mistake".

quote:

who would you choose and why?

I preferred winning. I played for this kind of coach in football, basketball and baseball in high school. I handled these coaches the way I now tell my kids to handle these coaches. Hear the message. Don't take the delivery personally.

I wouldn't have an issue with my kids playing for a Bob Knight type. They wouldn't have problems with it either. My daughter played for one in high school. It's where she mastered the art of the "whatever" eye roll (not to the coach's face) on the way to four conference titles. The players b*tched about the coach for four seasons then gave her a huge hug and tears on the way out.

My son has played for a #1, and & someone halfway between #1 & 2, and he definately played better and learned more from #1.

The yell all day at you kind of guys have a short shelf life. They have to be in a coaching atmosphere where they are constantly getting new kids in my opinion. I had one for three years in football and basketball in HS. By the time I was a Junior I never heard a word they said. It was all just "blah, blah, blah now run" at a very fast, loud pace. All I listened for for was how many laps/suidides/bleachers/push ups after his tirades. Most of the other guys on the team felt the same way. You can only yell and scream for so long before it doesn't have any effect. Give me the coach who communicates with his players and doesn't consider them interchangeable pieces of his "Program". Just my opinion but kids seem to pay better attention to somebody who isn't yelling all of the time. Long term anyway.

You can have either type and it matters not an iota if the player does his job and works hard--the yeller won't be yelling if the player is a worker.

My son played for both and it mattered not him which type he had to deal with---his baseball coach especially was a old time coach--loud blustery and a bellower but he loved his players more than he yelled at them--he was a pure and simple taskmaster

In my opinion, option 2 is best suited for the kid who works hard on his own and gets better on his own.

Option 1 is better for a thick skinned- charlie hustle type who needs polishing.

As other stated, they both have their merits.

quote:

Reply

Taskmaster, I like that description, a coach that knows what is important and accepts nothing but a players best efforts at all times to perform the tasks required to be the the best ballplayer he can be. God sure didn't make enough of them thats for sure.

I agree with TR.

My now junior in HS played for type 2 for the last two summers. The expectation of this travel team was the players knew what to do when they join the team. Physical mistakes were overlooked unless they became pervasive, then playing time was adjusted.

The coach taught privately in the dugout. He looked non-chalant coaching third base. The players didn't want to let each other down, so there was little need to have a taskmaster out there.

This team won a Premier Baseball National Championship and a AABC Mickey Mantle National Championship as a 15U team and a PG Super 7 Natioanl Championship in East Cobb as a 16U. They won because of talent and chemistry and that was the right coach for that team.

Would a type 1 coach won in the same circumstance? My guess is yes because the ability was there and the players governed themselves.

How do you all feel about a coach that calls the players names and thinks that demeaning the players is coaching. Another little habit he has is talking about the players in a negative way in front of all the other players. He also uses profanity almost exclusively.
He is at the high school level.
Your thoughts?

i heart that was my experience in HS. I was poked in the chest and slapped in the head and benched for 3 years. I played when it mattered. I never saw the court, field or diamond unless we were behind. My younger brother didn't have thick skin and quit all sports at the sophmore level. My son can handle about everything but those types of coaches should fall off the edge of the earth in my book.

I don't think either of my sons ever played for coaches that they hated, but both of them seemed to do well with coaches that were a little on the tougher side. Mostly, they wanted to play for coaches who really knew the game and could help them improve and help the team win. I think coaches who personally insult and demean players are wrong, but being tough and holding players responsible teaches them life lessons.

I was very into sports in high school and played for both kinds of coaches. Our girls basketball coach was also the football coach and school "Bouncer" or disciplinarian. When he came to a classroom door to pull a kid out of class for a talk, we all knew we would hear loud noises from the hallway - the kid being slammed against the lockers, etc. Hey, this was the 1970's, and teachers could do things like that. In most cases, if the kid went home and complained, he would not get sympathy from his parents!

This coach looked like a professional wrestler - or a mountain! He scowled a lot and was a scary looking man with huge dark eyebrows and heavy sideburns. He was very tough on our girls basketball team. If we had a bad first half, the locker room would be noisy at halftime ... no girls slammed against the lockers, but those metal locker doors being kicked shut, stuff thrown at the lockers, a lot of yelling and berating for poor performance. I'm not sure it worked well with girls, as most of us found it intimidating. We didn't like the yelling and slamming, but we did want to play for this coach, we wanted to do well individually and as a team, and we wanted to win. He would put us through super grueling practices as punishment for a bad game, with girls getting sick etc., but we would keep pushing ourselves to do what he demanded. I can't remember any girls ever complaining to their parents, and I can't remember anyone hating him. Fearing him a little yes, but not hating.

A few years ago I went to a girls' basketball game at our old HS, and was surprised to see him still coaching (it was about 25 years after I graduated!). I didn't see him yell at all during the game - maybe yelling at girls is not accepted as much these days, or maybe he mellowed from his late 20s to his early 50s. I got a chance to visit with him for a few minutes after the game, and did feel happy to see him and talk to him. Thinking back now, I believe playing for that man for 3 years was one of several influences in my life that made me tougher and taught me how to keep giving everything you've got even when you are just about to puke. That is sometimes useful in the working world, too, LOL.

Julie

.

quote:

Originally posted by MN-Mom:
This coach looked like a professional wrestler - or a mountain! He scowled a lot and was a scary looking man with huge dark eyebrows and heavy sideburns. He was very tough on our girls basketball team.

OK, OK Hillary Mom...we get the picture already!




When under fire...remember: Serpentine! Serpentine! And don't step in the vomit!


.

The kind of coaches that iheartbb and doughnutman wrote about describe some of the Little League coaches when my sons were playing. They did everything they could to turn these little boys away from the game of baseball. Most quit. I would love to do a little research to see whether the boys who were so turned off by these coaches have ever watched a game since.

I go with Option 2. I am a player myself and will tell you this, I love to learn and get better and become the best I can. I am also the kid that takes comments/remarks to heart and try to get better at them but 9 out of 10 times I end up down in the dumps. Just my personality.

I chose 2 because when I am happy and enjoying the game, I do great and never miss. When I'm not having fun or doing poorly I usually stay that way for the hole game. I want to enjoy the game but its easier said than done sometimes. That's why I chose 2.

Neither. A good coach is both but not extreme in either. Players dont need you to be their friend. They need you to be their coach. They dont need you to be their taskmaster they need you to be their coach. A coach in my opinion is someone that inspires you to be the best you can be. He is someone that challenges you to find out just how good you can be. And he is someone you can talk to and confide in. When you mess up he is there to make sure you understand what you did wrong. And then he is there to make sure you know what you need to do to make sure you dont do it again.

My first job is to teach the game and the life lessons that it can teach you as well. My second job is to inspire you and to foster a love of the game far greater than you already had. The only way to do this is to create an environment where it is fun and it is challenging. The only time I rip a kid is when I see a lack of focus or a lack of effort. Then I always make sure I talk to the kid and make sure why I ripped him. I praise kids when they do it right.

I have seen kids so afraid of making a mistake that they cant help but make mistakes. They are actually relieved when the game or practice is over. They are so afraid of failure they can not succeed. I have also seen coaches that want to be everyones friend. They dont challenge their players to reach higher and they are killing their chances of being the best they can be.

To me a coach knows when to yell and when to pat on the back. He cares more about the experience the kids are getting than his won loss record. He sees all of them as special and wants them to all succeed. NEITHER. I want both.

quote:

Originally posted by Infield08:

There is one "dictator" coach I'm aware of at a college who I would not want my son to play for. The team does extremely well, going deep into the playoffs in its division each year, but the players cannot stand playing for the coach. If he has an ounce of humanity, he has not shown it to his players -- at least not the players we have talked with. In turn, many of his players have grown to avidly dislike the man. They do what he requires, but they have little respect for him as a person. I'm saddened that he feels this type of coaching style is necessary to achieve the desired results.

I think if I were putting food on the table and a roof over the heads of my family as a college coach, I might be a little dictatorial as well.

quote:

Originally posted by gotwood4sale:
.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MN-Mom:
This coach looked like a professional wrestler - or a mountain! He scowled a lot and was a scary looking man with huge dark eyebrows and heavy sideburns. He was very tough on our girls basketball team.

OK, OK Hillary Mom...we get the picture already!




When under fire...remember: Serpentine! Serpentine! And don't step in the vomit!

woody
i think i was in the woodchucks with this teacher. and he had (all 96 achievement awards offered by the woodchucks). i think his name was biddle?

quote:

Neither. A good coach is both but not extreme in either.

quote:

NEITHER. I want both.

Exactly why I chose the kumquat!

I posted these options to see how people would respond…

Some answered the question.
Some didn’t answer the question.
Some changed the question to suit their answer.
Some choose fruit.

But there was a great give and take from posters without getting personal or defamatory.

Great job people….

So, next time someone gets your underpants in a bunch….take a breath, relax, readjust and take the correct path.

quote:

many of his players have grown to avidly dislike the man.

A friend's son played at a particular major program. He said the coach had one great leadership capability other than winning. He drove all the players to bond together in their dislike for him.

quote:

So, next time someone gets your underpants in a bunch

Those wouldn't be " Fruit of the Looms " by any chance would they?