What are people’s views on the current trend for coaches at the side of the court and who seem grudgingly obliged to come on to court at every interval? (at least it seems grudgingly in some cases!) As someone that studies neuroscience and is particularly interested in sport neuroscience and what we refer to as the “flow state” it interests me in whether this is always a positive contribution to the player’s game. From my own point of view, I play best when I am, what we often refer to as “in the zone” and that is a so called flow state. Being “in the zone” is a state that requires minimal conscious thought. In fact, the chatter of conscious thought disrupts implicit brain function and disrupt “flow”. Is it essential that the coach comes on and says something, or are they following a herd instinct having seen that others have done it feel obliged to follow suit?
They probably have only 30 to 60 secs to talk with the players, so whatever they have to say is very succinct and to the point. And being pro players, they've pretty much covered all their skills and tactics during regular practice and previous match experience. The interval talk is just to fine tune their play that an extra set of experienced eyes can provide to help give an extra tactical edge over their opponents. And experienced wise coaches are aware of the flow state and will know the limitations of their players well, both physical and mental, so they know to not overwhelm their players with too much advice.
I think they should get rid of the coaching during the interval but for other reasons. Figuring out the right tactics by yourself is a skill as well. I don't want 2 robots playing against each other that only do whatever their coaches tell them to (a little exaggerated).
I can see the intention in it, but question if it is always beneficial. I can see cases where it definitely would be beneficial, but also cases where it might be, at the very least, distracting and at most, rather irritating and counterproductive It seems to me many of the coaches walk on to court with their body language suggesting a conflict and a reluctance, as if they are doing it because, well, that's what everyone else does.
The answer of whether it's beneficial to have the coach there at all times, is probably: It depends. Sports psychology is an exponentially growing science/industry. My uninformed opinion on it's status is that the science is progressing in leaps and bounds, but it still has a ways to go from all the pretty theory to knowing just how to use it on a specific athelete at a specific moment. You can arm a coach with all the latest research, but there has to be instinct, too. Like an artist, the best coach knows when their athelete needs a word of advice, a word of encouragement, a kick in the pants, or just to keep their mouth shut.
