Monday night I watched the NCAA football D1 championship game between LSU and Alabama. Before the game started two of the commentators mentioned that because of the amount of time to prepare for the game the coach who does the LEAST amount of coaching will probably win.
I know what the commentators were getting at in terms of being worried about the teams being given so much information that it might stifle their play. The question is, were they confusing coaching with bad coaching?
Anyone who watched the game knows that Alabama completely dominated the game. Those who have watched Alabama with Nick Saban in charge know that his teams are incredibly well prepared and while I’m sure most, if not all coaches work extremely hard, I can’t imagine any coaches can outwork or out prepare Saban and his staff.
The key is, while Alabama was extremely well prepared, they were prepared in a way that allowed them the freedom to be successful. As an example, when Alabama would kick off (to start the game and after their scores) their players were extremely well disciplined and stayed in their lanes which put them in position to then use their abilities and efforts to be successful. When Alabama was on defense, LSU would run their option offense and the defenders were disciplined to stay in their positions which allowed them to then make great plays.
While the announcers were assuming that the amount of time these teams had to prepare might result in stifling their efforts, Alabama used this preparation to put their players in position to excel.
The question is do you use your “coaching” (whether the coaching is for a sports team, a business, an organization or some other group) to stifle their performance or to put them in a position to use their strengths to their fullest.
Just something to think about.
Have a great day!