Re: LSSU Laker Hockey 2012-2013, Part 2
There is an awful lot of ground on the spectrum that lies between being a "players coach" and being "manipulative". Nowhere did I suggest that he become a spectacle of a coach whose behavior flys off the handle, is illogically inconsistent or anything close to manipulative. You claim that Roque is anything but a "players coach" now or when he was an assitant; to that I would offer my thoughts on what I mean by a players coach and what I see out of Roque. I consider a players coach to be someone who when push comes to shove is more likely to ensure that the players are eschewed from the conversation of blame, and more often than not runs things the way the majority of players would ideally have it done, even if they may not be what is best for them.
[...]
You said that nobody gets respect without showing respect, but the same can be said for kindness; If Roque showed these players more respect and less kindness and coddling he may lose some of their affection and friendship but would certainly gain their respect once they realize that being hard on them may have not been the easy or nice thing to do but it was what was necessary to get the best out of them to produce the desired results, which is wins and team success, of which individual success and improvement is also a subsequent product. I imagine they would also respect that he recognized their talent and pushed them to refine it to give them the best chance at progressing their careers instead of letting them always have fun and shielding them from criticism at all costs....
We may disagree entirely on the “player’s coach” definition, but we are pretty close on the rest.
Your “player’s coach” examples are just my “bad coach” examples.
Above all, I see the player’s coach as having an individual and specific “two-way and individual communication” approach of the group, putting namely a lot of effort on self-confidence, buy-in and team spirit to make the players doing things his way, not theirs, by listening and explaining.
He doesn’t need to be friendly (but has to be trusted i.e. recognized as trustworthy), nor does it prevent him from being strict and very demanding, but that implies a solid moral authority. One key word is “connection”.
I agree that our HC can’t be described as tough or disciplinarian, probably because he got the job by offering a different approach than Anzalone’s (then causing trouble after being somehow efficient). One reason could also be that he wanted to secure his job with people who wanted stability, as very few “tough” coaches stay in a job very long.
I think that a coach who would “ensure that the players are eschewed from the conversation of blame, and more often than not runs things the way the majority of players would ideally have it done, even if they may not be what is best for them” is a horrible coach, with no leadership at all.
I would be fine on a “summer camp” where the objective is only to have fun.
We have seen the same practices, and your comments meet the complaints made by many players who claim that the practices are a dull. Most players would rather have a feeling of accomplishment than a waste of time. Poor conditioning and mental destruction is the result.
The apple/onion is not a bad thing, when it is the small piece of fun after a very intense practice and no fun at all.
I see your point regarding the “player’s coach”, but I consider that a good “player’s coach” makes the players individually answerable, and therefore should always work on a give and take basis … so “no sweating, no eating”.
I would expect a player’s coach to call a spade a spade, as any other type of coach. If he gives the media the impression that he didn’t see the same game, he loses credibility, and will have a hard time handling it in a face to face discussion with each player. He doesn’t need to yell or break sticks, but he has to be consistent with the message he conveys everyday. When the message itself is inconsistent, he may have a problem.
Emotions are a great part of a “player’s coaches” toolbox … are you still sticking with your position ;-)
“Simon Gysbers and Kellan Lain are talking fondly about the coaches at Lake State and their time there...” Come on, you know how it is. They won’t say anything negative until they retire and maybe write a book. Not only do players take a different line in private, but I am still waiting for some Roque advocate to bring up some positive evidence about development.
When I mentioned exceptions, it includes size, and I consider Oleksy as a statistical exception.
I don’t think you can say that Roque is kind … at all ! And I don't expect any player to take advantage of it. But I agree a good coach doesn’t have to be kind, if is is fair, consistent, credible ... Respect is something else, and it is very different from fear. When players are scared buy someone pretending to be kind … don't expect to get them on board.
Do we agree ?
Please insult me all you want. Call me a "sister, frustrated friend", etc. In the end, you have absolutely no idea who I am.
Everyone who knows me would tell you that everything I have said on here is the truth. Question my opinions, but not my integrity.
Time for me to fly. Peace my Laker brethren. Until next time, this is Lakers2Glory, over & out....
How much are you prepared to bet ? (I know you are not a sister). I would be happy to recover all the money I lost betting on the Lakers.
Why would I insult you ? And why are you denigrating players ?
Nothing personal, all I am saying is that whenever someone is blaming the coach for a player being ill treated, you have a story full of unlikely “evidence” supporting the coach.
When posters are questioning the coach, you are again right there feeding the forum with excuses, some of which being quite gutsy, I have to say.
The "girlfriend's" post is definitely less biased than yours.
when he is pressed to talk about him. How you can anticipate his success in life is not the point. He came to play hockey with great credential in juniors, and after three seasons, he still hasn't played a game. You know it is justified just by watching practices, despite many people (including Bill Crawford) having seen him doing as well, or better, than the two others at times. Let's admit you really saw him being horrible, maybe after a sleepless night and an early exam, do you seriously expect him to work his a++e off at any time when it is public information that it won't change anything in his life. Come on ... don't call that a fact.