Each training style has its own advantages, drawbacks, and uses, and it's important to understand all three. While coaches are generally classified according to the most common democratic, autocratic, holistic, and laissez-faire approaches to training, there are other training styles that emphasize different skills or priorities in player development and what they hope to achieve. In general, the autocratic training style can be a useful tool in certain situations, but it must be balanced with other training styles to ensure a comprehensive approach. Democratic training focuses more on communication between a coach and his athletes.
Instead of the coach having all the power autocratically, a democratic coach encourages the participation of his athletes. The coach acts as a guide and oversees suggestions that swimmers can ignore. Ultimately, the coach has the last word, but not without the suggestions and opinions of his athletes. This allows athletes to play an important role in the team and, at the same time, foster an environment based on growth and collaboration.
In the oft-cited book Successful Coaching, author Rainer Martens states that there are many ways to describe training styles, but the styles that are most often described are leadership style, submissive style, and cooperative style. The leadership style is one in which the coach makes all the decisions, has a firm behavior and uses seriousness to get a response from his athletes. The submissive style is one in which the coach makes few decisions, provides minimal guidance, and rarely imparts discipline. And the cooperative style is a flexible style that tries to empower athletes by sharing decision-making.
With coaches who act as positive role models and display productive behaviors, athletes know that someone with more wisdom and experience is on their side. The best thing about this training style is that it's very defined and less esoteric than some of the other methods listed here. As the coach of the Tennessee Lady Volunteers for 38 years, she never had a losing season, led the team to a record of 1098 NCAA victories, won eight national championships and was a coach for the U. From 1984. If you're still not sure which training style is best for you, you can make a list of your strengths and weaknesses to get a complete overview.
Laissez-faire training has a reputation for being a risky style, but as with any form of leadership, it can succeed in the right hands. Trainers who have a holistic training style look at their clients as a whole, without separating their work and personal lives. Knowing that they can turn to someone who is not only a reliable leader on the field, but who is also a resource for overcoming daily difficulties, can empower athletes in ways that other training styles cannot. Management training styles will require focusing more on project results, KPIs and team morale than on problems in the personal lives of team members or where they want to take their careers.
Every coach must take what they deem useful from different styles to discover what helps their teams grow, meet their goals, and perform successfully. If you work as a professional trainer or have done some training as a coach before, these principles are probably not new to you, but we are going to summarize them, just in case. The autocratic style requires that coaches have more experience and knowledge than their players; in the big leagues, this is not always the case. This approach to coaching emphasizes the interconnection of a person's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and how they affect all areas of their life.
Understanding that there is no perfect training style can help both players and coaches recognize that if something doesn't work, a different style can mean an improvement...
