Is he coachable?

Invariably when a coach contacts me about a player the question of whether he is coachable arises in one form or another and usually very early in the discussion. Coaches want to know a player's capacity for listening to instruction, constructive criticism and suggestions. Will the player be receptive and will he use these focal points as points of emphasis to improve his game and advance to another level of play?  Is the player willing to learn or is he a know-it-all stuck in his ways?

There are lots of skilled athletes looking to play in college.  One of the determining factors in closing the deal between coach and athlete is the players willingness to learn. Is the athlete willing to accept feedback? Will he recognize the constructive criticism, instruction and suggestions are offered to make him a better player?  Athletes who fail to be receptive to coaching are the ones coaches tend to pass on.

On the club and high school level the same holds true. During tryouts coaches will often give "pointers' to the group and then watch carefully to see which players work to address these suggestions. I do this frequently with teams I coach. If there is a battle for a starting position or role on the team, which athlete do you think is more likely to win out?

How do you take constructive criticism, instruction and suggestions?

Do you react or do you respond?

Reacting typically involves competitive responses.  A coach will offer insight, instruction or suggestions and the athlete will be argumentative or dismissive either in word or deed. There is a disconnect between coach and athlete. Coaches dealing with this type of athlete will often invoke the word "trust" or lack thereof in association with this type of athlete. A lack of "buy in" will be cited. Coaches choose not to waste their time with this type of athlete.

Responding typically involves reflective, open minded thinking on the part of the athlete. There is a willingness to step out of established comfort zones with an acknowledged prospect of broadening their game. There exists an eagerness to learn as opposed to a stubborness to new ideas. Responding often involves question and answer discourse between coach and player that serves to build a relationship whose foundation is trust.  When a coach knows the athlete buys into the program he is more apt to be willing to invest as much time as necessary to help the athlete develop.

Coaches, the good ones anyways, are hyper-sensitive to "coach-ability".  The best coaches are  themselves coachable. These are the men and women that are students of the game. They are always in search of more knowledge.... and by extension they expect the athletes they coach to be receptive and eager learners as well. Technical and tactical knowledge are musts but the ability to build reltionships that foster receptiveness to learning from constructive criticism, instruction and suggestions is also a focal point of a coaches continuing education.  In the end though a coach wants to see the same level of committment to the relationship from the player as he himself puts into the relationship. If a player is not receptive and responsive, coaches typical dismisss them and find others who are. It comes down to decision-making on the athletes part. It's an athlete's choice to be coachable.