Parent vs. Coach (Coach Selection)
Authoritative or collaborative? Militancy or cohesiveness?
How does one create the ideal environment so that a player is poised for optimum success? This article will humbly attempt to unpack the nuances and roadblocks occurring during player/parent/coach interactions and conclude with a suggestive roadmap for amicable and fructuous outcomes throughout the player/coach/parent lifecycle. Parent vs. Coach (P vs. C) is a five-part series. The first addresses the most critical segment: coach selection. The remaining four parts will discuss long-term commitment, improvement, complication, and termination.
Game, set, and match are the three words that conclude a tennis match. Those words encapsulate a singular story that contributes to the forever-involving identity of what we call the player. But how is this identity formed? What are its origins? Two promising answers include at birth and coach selection. The myriad of varying experiences from birth would create a nearly impossible task of creating a roadmap for a successful outcome if addressed as the point of origin. Using coach selection as the point of origin creates an actionable pathway for developing a successful player.
What is the selection process for a suitable coach? Logical syllogism often governs our thought process and blurs interpretations of reality. Conventional wisdom dictates that we evaluate ability based on past and current player caliber from a coach’s repertoire. We confer, “All of Phil’s players are good. My son plays with Phil. My son is (will be) a good player.” On the surface, this approach may seem plausible. However, a suitability fallacy that can prove detrimental in the future goes unnoticed.
Personality compatibility is the understructure in coach suitability decision-making. It is a common practice on Long Island to grant an initial trial lesson before a semester commitment. During the trial lesson, the disciplinary practices employed by the coach should be the focus while refraining from concentrated analysis on technical expertise. Disciplinary practices refer to the parameters set forth by the coach, including acceptable behavior and the standard of performance expected during practices.
Children possess different levels of motivation, and varying degree of encouragement is required to drive performance. Within these parameters, the coach should attempt to integrate discipline and hard work, striking a balance that abstains from potentially sacrificing the player’s love for the game or suppressing distinctive attributes. As you watch the trial lesson, scan the coach’s leadership style and determine if building camaraderie, trust, and friendships is idealized. Reject all enforcing authoritative figures possessing a cookie-cutter mold mindset.
Tennis professionals are adept at selling their craft. They have mastered the art of negotiating. Proficient in identifying feelings and the driving forces behind them, tennis pros can tap into a parent’s and child’s mind, unveil their emotional desires, and provide an output of majestic words, much like a Shakespearean play. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Without sufficient evidence to support a proposed outcome, refuse the pitch.
An established custom unitized by coaches involves persuading the client to increase on-court hours and neglect collaborative work. While additional play time will improve ability, increasing playing time without a structured plan will lead to disaster. As on-court hours increase, the interaction becomes strained, competition results become the nucleus of the relationship, and the increased financial investment warrants a return. While the fixation on results is certainly unhealthy, short-term goals can be sound developmental tools when balanced within a nurturing long-term philosophy.
The superior approach entails evaluating what the coach articulates, doing your research, and ensuring the knowledge offered is rooted in realism. Be on the lookout for the coach who prides himself on past players and accolades. A good coach knows you are only as good as your last bat.
Goal setting is the Sistine Chapel of the coach selection process. It is the endgame, encompassing knowledge from the sales pitch and personality compatibility. Usually, a coach probes and asks the player and parent about their goals and expectations. The popular response is “I do not want my child to play professional tennis. I want them to play college, high school, etc.”
Though this is a true statement in the beginning, the underlying goals change as the child improves. This change in sentiment can create potential future conflict. Instead of asking what the goals are, the coach should explore an action plan regarding capabilities, desires, schedule, passion, and finances, leaving an opening for an amendment if circumstances change. Children grow and evolve. Employing an open-ended revolving model for growth rather than a static template will benefit the long game.
The principal intent of P vs. C is to introduce a functional manual affecting a wholesome working relationship between players, coaches, and parents. We aspire to mitigate personal friction, provide usable data for coach selection evaluation, present an approach for the initial interactions between parents and coaches, and identify checkpoints that allow for pivots when inevitable disagreements occur. While there is no fixed recipe for success or victory, we hope the information presented provides structure and direction to the tennis community. If the approaches feel right, use them and add your distinctive flavor.
The surest way to minimize conflict is to harness many ideas and thoughts and add them to the information pool. The more information we offer, the greater our understanding of each other. This in-depth understanding allows us to realize that we want the same outcomes. Pick the right coach and watch your child experience those magnetic words of game, set, and match in their favor.
