I worry sometimes about the words “coachable” and “uncoachable” as theyre used in youth sports, particularly because, (a) some supposedly uncoachable kids simply lack the physical or emotional maturity, coordination and development to do what some coaches are expecting of them which (b) leads to those kids being written off by the coach as uncoachable.
I also worry that “uncoachable” is a very convenient way for some coaches— some— to simply blame the kid rather than really engage in some introspection about why a kid isn’t successful. For example, does the coach have too high a set of expectations? Is this kid a good fit for this team/league? What can we do about that?
Lastly, I think we spend way too much time (and I’m as guilty of this as anyone) focusing on what adults (parents, coaches) want out of youth sports (trophies, wins, to see a future Olympian developing before our eyes, a quiet orderly practice) and not enough on what the kids themselves actually enjoy about sports (having fun, competing and making friends). We get— or think we get— more satisfaction over feeling like we had a hand in turning this kid into a scholarship athlete than we would over simply seeing the kid have fun.
I’m not suggesting the author of this piece disagrees with me, but, to make a long comment short, I think the idea of “coachability” can be too focused on whether or not a child fulfills an adults expectations in a way that eclipses the question of whether a particular sport, league, team or coach is meeting the expectations of the child.
If the kid is having fun in a program that meets them where they are developmentally, I’d bet 10 times out of 10, the kid will be coachable in that setting.
I think whether a kid is coachable or not has a lot to do with the parents. It's not some magic thing kids have or don't.
That is true. But I still think the parents can go a long way in terms of encouraging a child to ask questions or whatever to make them a true asset.
I worry sometimes about the words “coachable” and “uncoachable” as theyre used in youth sports, particularly because, (a) some supposedly uncoachable kids simply lack the physical or emotional maturity, coordination and development to do what some coaches are expecting of them which (b) leads to those kids being written off by the coach as uncoachable.
I also worry that “uncoachable” is a very convenient way for some coaches— some— to simply blame the kid rather than really engage in some introspection about why a kid isn’t successful. For example, does the coach have too high a set of expectations? Is this kid a good fit for this team/league? What can we do about that?
Lastly, I think we spend way too much time (and I’m as guilty of this as anyone) focusing on what adults (parents, coaches) want out of youth sports (trophies, wins, to see a future Olympian developing before our eyes, a quiet orderly practice) and not enough on what the kids themselves actually enjoy about sports (having fun, competing and making friends). We get— or think we get— more satisfaction over feeling like we had a hand in turning this kid into a scholarship athlete than we would over simply seeing the kid have fun.
I’m not suggesting the author of this piece disagrees with me, but, to make a long comment short, I think the idea of “coachability” can be too focused on whether or not a child fulfills an adults expectations in a way that eclipses the question of whether a particular sport, league, team or coach is meeting the expectations of the child.
If the kid is having fun in a program that meets them where they are developmentally, I’d bet 10 times out of 10, the kid will be coachable in that setting.