The Professionalisation of Coaching

The Football Association is trying to raise the bar by having qualified coaches register for the new FA Licensed Coaches Club and insisting that coaches, even grassroots coaches, embark on some form of CPD (Continual Professional Development). This CPD will be for a minimum of 3 hours each year (5 hours if you are a Level 2 Coach or above) – this in an effort to try to professionalise coaching, raise standards and achieve recognition for its members.

“IN DATE AND UP TO DATE”

Be “In Date and Up To Date” is the mantra.
The principle being that, if you wish to be recognised as a coach you should approach the role as professionally as possible. Update your knowledge, expand your horizons and try to take on new ideas.

After all, most professional bodies will expect its members to undertake some form of self-development through training whether it is through a higher level of knowledge or to refresh what you perhaps already knew or had been taught.

I have to say, in principle, I fundamentally agree with the idea and approach. Don’t stand still, don’t “sit” on a qualification – be progressive and develop yourself.

“VOLUNTEERS” ?

One of the issues, I feel, will be that the majority of grassroots coaches are volunteers.
Those volunteer coaches will be well meaning parents of players who have been recruited by the club to be a coach of a team, usually the team in which either their daughter or son plays.


Now it may well be that at least some of those volunteers will have been looking for an opportunity to get involved or, after having become involved, find they really enjoy the role.

They get bitten by the bug and now want to become the best they can be spending time and effort and money gaining more qualifications or attending County FA in-service workshops to improve their knowledge. For these coaches, I don’t think the requirement for a few hours CPD each year will be any kind of an issue.

BURDEN

However, for a great deal of others, this may become a burden; becoming onerous to find the time and money to attend courses, having to take time off work which can impact both family budget and valuable holiday time.

Now I know that there are a great number of clubs which support their coaches with development. Some pay for courses up front and others agree to either pay a portion up front with the balance paid once the coach has completed a number of hours or a season of volunteering.

But, for a lot of volunteers the question has to be asked; did they truly volunteer or were they “press ganged” as the club need someone to manage / run / coach a side? If they were a reluctant volunteer, will those people be as committed to self-development as other more intentional coaches?
If they aren’t as concerned with learning more, I think it is likely that those reluctant volunteers may just do the minimum required - such as get a Level 1 Coaching Certificate, perhaps because the club needs it for their Charter Standard status?

VALUE FOR MONEY

But if the club isn’t getting someone who is determined to be more ‘professional’, will the club actually get value for the money they may spend on the coaching course? If they then ‘send’ coaches on further courses, again perhaps because the club needs someone to do the course for its Charter Standard status, is it getting value and will the coach actually take on board all the learning offered?

What then happens to those coaches as time moves on? Either they get disillusioned or, perhaps, because they were recruited to coach because their child is at the club, if the child leaves, the coach gives up. Sometimes it may be a year or two – so did the club get value for money?

I know that some coaches follow their youngsters for a year or two and then feel that the child needs something extra that they can’t offer as the child moves up the age bands and, again, they drop out. That’s fine and understandable, but really, clubs need to do all they can to ‘re-cycle’ the coaches.

Moving theses re-cycled coaches back to the younger age groups, where they now have at least some experience, can benefit the new players and, potentially, remove the need to ‘persuade’ a new parent that they want to be a coach!

As a nation, we cannot really afford to lose volunteers who are often lost to the game through scenarios mentioned above as well as a host of other reasons.

So clubs spend lots of funds in getting people through courses only to see a good deal of those volunteers give up.

“INTENTIONAL” COACHES

Is it now time, even at the grassroots level, to truly professionalise coaching?

By that, I mean having a proper coaching hierarchy at grassroots clubs with a remunerated workforce, albeit it maybe only on a part-time basis.

Having a well-qualified and experienced Director of Coaching, with age specific coaches ‘reporting’ to the DoC, I feel, is definitely a way forward.
I would envisage the age group coaches being qualified and by that I mean being at least a Level 2 Coach with, preferably, a Youth Award Module 1 and 2 certificates as well.

QUALIFIED COACHES

Did you know that, officially, a Level 1 Certificate in Coaching Football only certifies someone as an Assistant Coach?

That being the case, whilst some people will undertake the course to expand their knowledge and try to better serve the players they coach and, perhaps, go on to take other courses and learn about the art of coaching (I think it is more of an art than a science), some will only do so because they ‘need’ to do it for the club to ensure they achieve criteria needed for the Charter Standard Status.

Nevertheless, is it correct that, at the MOST important ages that we are trying to teach children the game the LEAST experienced coaches are the ones trying to do that?

Now, I am not for one moment suggesting that the novice coaches are somehow at fault for this state of affairs, but is it right that it should continue that way?

Would it not be better for a club to formally recruit a coach with some years of experience and at least holding a Level 2 Coaching Certificate before they could be a Coach of an age group?
The Level 1 coach (whether or not a parent volunteer) can then work with the Level 2( or above) coach to build their knowledge, confidence and experience as well as accelerating their development rather than being left to their own devices as, I suspect, is the case in a lot of instances at the moment.

FORMAL STRUCTURE

Having a Director of Coaching with a UEFA B Licence, or above – responsible for part-time coaches and volunteers, defining a Vision and Philosophy and probably defining a development programme across the club would surely set a basis for the professionalisation of coaching in this country.

But now I’m talking about remunerating coaches for their time. Probably not a full time job, but paying a fee for hours committed. This allows the coach to pay for further development via attending courses and makes sure they aren’t out of pocket for travel and other costs (insurance etc.)

But where will the funding come from?

Well, there is lots of expense for some clubs keep sending volunteers on courses which they maybe don’t want to do and then they leave after a year or two.

How much do clubs spend on trophies for everyone at end of season presentation evenings? Wouldn’t we be better investing in true expertise to develop our young players?

Working to develop players who understand the game based upon expertise rather than well -intentioned but perhaps, sometimes misplaced ideas?

BACK IN THE USA

The framework of a DoC with assistant part time paid coaches works quite well in the USA where they value accrued knowledge, experience, formal qualifications and expertise. A similar model works in some European Countries where a similar structure works with a qualified Director of Youth overseeing the coaches and programme of development for the younger ages.

If facilities can be found to split practice times and/or days, it would be relatively straightforward to have a qualified coach in control of the development needs of several age groups. There may be some challenges around viewing all games but, possibly by delegating game day organisation to an assistant coach, we can still plan properly for the development of young players.



WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Can it work here in the UK? I understand that there is some movement towards this idea with a club not too far away from where I coach. An independent soccer school also provides coaches to the club from which their soccer students come and, I understand from the internet, that they are not the only ones to begin to work in this way.

After all, if you send your child to swimming lessons, gymnastics, golf or even piano – you expect that the coach or tutor should be paid for their time.

So why is it different for football?

ARE WE SEARCHING FOR A ‘HOLY GRAIL’ ?

ARE WE SEARCHING FOR A ‘HOLY GRAIL’ ? / IS THERE REALLY A “SILVER BULLET”?

There is lots of discussion and opinion voiced through the internet and traditional media currently, (in England especially, but now expanding to Scotland after the Hearts / Tottenham game) about Youth/Player Development.

WHAT CONSTITUTES “BEST”?

There is a general appreciation of Spanish football and particularly the way Barcelona play and whilst the English Premier League is generally regarded as the “most exciting league in the world”, there is a tacit acceptance that it is not the best league in the world. I guess that depends on your perspective…. What is ‘best’? Is it the league that scores the most goals (Bundesliga) or is it the “technically” (?) best league (Spain?) or is it the league that produces the most home grown players or is it the league that generates most international winning sides (Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina)?

SPAIN

Spain is, arguably, the ‘best’ team, internationally at the moment and if Heineken did football teams, Barcelona is probably the one they would ‘do’. However, there is a school of thought that suggests that Spain are really playing a derivative Dutch game based on the ‘Total Football’ of the 70’s and which owes a debt of gratitude to the vision of Rinus Michels and Johann Cruijff (who is now 64, would you believe – remember the first ‘Cruyff Turn’?).

NB As of 24 August 2011 new FIFA rankings officially place the Netherlands as number 1 in the World. - Ed




YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

There is a groundswell of opinion against the ‘Win At All Costs’ approach to grassroots football (at the potential Elite level, results have come second to development and performance for donkey’s years).
Coaches and managers are increasingly aware of their responsibilities to teach the GAME not just how to WIN

(“In England, you teach your kids how to win. In Portugal and Spain they teach their kids how to play” - Jose Mourinho)

That being the case, everyone is looking to the optimum way to develop players. Accepting that at Grassroots level you may have players once a week for an hour and a half this is a bit of a challenge.

A great deal of coaches accept that ‘Constant’ or linear, drill based practices are a thing of the past and that this approach doesn’t transfer well to the game.

Increasingly, ‘amateur’ coaches at the grassroots level are creating and using game related practices to teach the game – overloads, under-loads, 2v2, 4v4, 6v6, 5v5+2 and so on to recreate what happens in the ‘big’ game in order to allow the players to develop experience at an accelerated rate.

These “variable” and “random” practices help players to build game memories, which, in turn, transfer better to the ‘real’ game and makes it easier to recall and apply in the weekend match.

“The same thing NEVER happens TWICE in a game – but LOTS of SIMILAR things happen ALL the time” – Paul Holder, FA Staff Coach

CONTINENTAL APPROACHES

Of course, on the continent, game-like practices have been the norm for years. But now we are looking to replicate the best of what the world has to offer in football – Spain and Barcelona are the current ‘Gold Standard’ of football.

But, with a closer look, Spain have won one World Cup and two European Championships (the first in 1964), so, not consistent performers by any stretch of the imagination (although Barcelona and Real Madrid have won a ton of European Cups -Champions League and equivalent- between them over the years).

Most people will accept the Brazilians as probably the all-time greats (5 World Cups) but the Italians aren’t far behind with 4 wins and of course the Germans have 3 World Cups and 3 European Championships and are regular qualifiers in the last 4 of major competitions.

Various nations have tried to mirror the Dutch development, again, as they are recognised as producing some of the best players and coaches, with the exportation of their respective talents across the world as evidence.

Or is it a case of having a Vision and a philosophy of the way to play that is important? After all, if you have no collective vision, how can you plan a developmental programme to which everyone can subscribe and that is intended to provide gradual steps from the grassroots to the pinnacle of the elite levels? If we are all singing from different hymn sheets, do we really know where we are headed?

THE SILVER BULLET / THE HOLY GRAIL OF FOOTBALL SUCCESS

But, aside from the discussions about the merits or de-merits of ‘Variable – Random’ practices over ‘Constant’ practices, are we deluding ourselves that someone has “The Answer” as to the best / one right way to develop players?

With an acknowledgement to “10,000 hours of deliberate practice” to develop expertise and the coincidence of opportunity and desire is the rest of it perhaps cyclical?

Looking at incidences of World Cup and European Championships’ winners, only Italy and Brazil have won back to back World Cups and no team has won consecutive European Championships.

Perhaps the consistency of achievement at the latter stages of major competitions would be a more accurate gauge of success, in which case you’d be hard pushed to better the record of the Germans, but we rarely seem to consider replicating their development approaches / strategies – maybe we should?

But does anyone really have all the answers? Is it more a coincidence and combination of developmental approach/philosophy, the numbers of people available, the quality of coaches (another post, perhaps?), money available, deliberate practice and the cyclical nature of another (I hesitate to use the phrase) “golden generation”?