bustaheims said:
Well, really, cw, it boils down to this - a good coach is a good leader, and a good leader is a good motivator. These are pretty well accepted facts. Whether or not a coach feels it's his duty to motivate his players is largely irrelevant. If he doesn't, he's simply not going to be successful without a lot of help from others in that area. This is just the reality of the human condition. Without strong leadership to motivate, instruct and, well, lead, sustained success will remain elusive. All of the truly great coaches throughout the sports world are, at their core (and regardless of their opinion on the matter), great motivators. If they weren't, they wouldn't have had the sustained success we associate with being a great coach.
The reason books are being pointed to as more important is related to reputation. Only really successful coaches have a strong enough reputation to write and publish a book that is going to be read by a significant portion of the public. Could it be partially related to the fallacy of appeal to authority? Sure, but, at the same time, when they're all saying variations on the same things - that their relationships with the players and their ability to motivate them was integral to their success - it carries a lot more weight than some quotes made to members of the media. After all, every coach gets quoted by the media. Only a select few get published as authors.
Also, as for that quote by Quinn, training players how to motivate themselves is very much as aspect of motivating players. So, while Quinn may say he didn't feel he needed to motivate his players, his actions say very different things. No one is saying coaches need to be cheerleaders. There are many different forms of motivating others, and Quinn used many of them, from encouraging self motivation to fostering an "us against them" attitude, etc.
I think the attempt to limit the credibility of coaching ideas presented to whether a coach wrote a book on it is hypocritically hideous. (Though Pat Quinn was working on a book on coaching when he died). What book did you and Nik write on coaching? Let's agree to heartily disagree on that, ok?
In your post above, you put a lot of the onus for motivation on the coach - a top down approach. I don't entirely buy that and neither did Quinn or others in the NHL over the years. Sure, it's a coach's responsibility to have his team ready to play, provide a game plan, provide a system, get the most out of his players, etc
But let's turn it around: you could have the best hockey coach in the world trying to coach (or to use your top down approach, "motivate") the most physically talented player in the world. But if that physically talented player has the emotional make up and ambition of a dead fish, it doesn't matter how good that coach is. It's not going to end well - they're not going to win anything.
Thankfully, no NHLers I'm aware of have the emotional make up and ambition of a dead fish. But we do have varying degrees of characteristics that make up players. Some are more self-motivated than others. Some are more coachable than others. Some are more driven by an ambition to win than others.
Quinn and most in the NHL sought those players out. They preferred them. Quinn, Hitchcock & Babcock - all the top NHL coaches I can think of - managed their teams trying to foster an environment for them to succeed. They all attempted to coach players as men not boys.
Motivation is not a singular, top down, one way street. There are nuances/layers and various sources for motivation. It works both ways for the common good of the club. And it's why when players get drafted, scouts and managers look at those character attributes. In Phil's case, he didn't do so hot at the draft when his characteristics in that area came under closer scrutiny - cost him a few places in the draft.
Now, you hope a young man getting tagged with that stuff grows out of it. Many do. But Julien had his problems with Phil. Ron Wilson described the core/Phil as uncoachable at times. Carlyle/Spott had some tough moments with Phil. And now, Phil's quit on Horachek. Two of those NHL coaches have Cup rings.
At some point in Phil's career, he's going to have to take some responsibility and dig deeper to find that self-motivation to change his ways or he's not likely to have nearly as good a career as his physical gifts suggest he could have. This part has nothing to do with any of his coaches. It's on Phil. it's his responsibility. And Phil doesn't need to read it in a book in order to take it seriously or act on it.
lol
