Theories of Coaching

Martens (1997) stated that the coaching style adopted by a coach would determine how decisions are made on the ability and strategies to be taught, how practice and competition are organized, which methods to discipline players are used, and the majority significantly what role the athletes are given in decision-making processes. Martens also suggested that coaches are likely to predispose towards one of the three coaching styles.
The three coaching styles as suggested by Martens (1997) are as follows:
Command Style (The Dictator/ Autocratic)
In this style of coaching, the coach makes all the decisions. The role of the athlete is a passive abider who responds to the coach’s commands. It is assumed that the coach has the information to dictate all through the session, whilst the athlete listens, understand information, and complies. This style of coaching is motionless used by many coaches. as it is a method of make sure that the session progresses on time. Marten’s suggested, coaches that doubt their own ability also use it, and they use this technique to douse any questions that may be asked of them. Improper use of this style can shift the player’s motivational reasoning, from an intrinsic nature to an extrinsic one, which can lead to a lack of enjoyment during the session and can even lead to players dropping out of the sport completely.
Submissive
Coaches using this style make as few decisions as possible, providing little instruction, minimal guidance, and organization….
On the basis of these beliefs, the coach can consolidate and develop various coaching and coaching styles and strategies, in relation to the situation and the performer. Martens (1997) suggested a philosophy for all coaches to endorse as "Athletes First, Winning Second". This is an excellent philosophy, which caters for the development and well being of the individual athlete but it is difficult for coaches to administer because of the demands put upon them, for money and success during the competitive season.
This critical review attempts to make reference to a planned coaching session carried out by Tom Bailey, and theories constructed on the study of coaching/ leadership styles and strategies. The coaching session plan can be found in the several institutions.
Coaching/ Leadership Styles.
Martens (1997) stated that the coaching style adopted by a coach would determine how decisions are made on the ability and strategies to be taught, how practice and competition is organised, which methods to discipline players are used, and the majority significantly what role the athletes are given in decision-making processes. Martens also suggested that coaches are likely to predispose towards one of the three coaching styles.
The three coaching styles as suggested by Martens (1997) are as follows:
Command Style (The Dictator/ Autocratic)
In this style of coaching, the coach makes all the decisions. The role of the athlete is a passive abider who responds to the coach’s commands. It is assumed that the coach has the information to dictate all through the session, whilst the athlete listens, understand information, and complies. This style of coaching is motionless used by many coaches. as it is a method of make sure that the session progresses on time. Marten’s suggested,