Anson Dorrance, Geno Auriemma: Both Right?

[RockyMTblue2]

This morning I happened upon a brief video of Anson Dorrance (22 Nat'l Championships for women's soccer) talking about the differences in coaching men and women and what he says there seems like stereotypical thinking, but his women have 22 Natties. It is also sounding like the exact opposite of Geno Auriemma's coaching philosophy. Dorrance says you have to build women up and negative feedback gets in the way. Women are different. Geno pretty much rejects that: "the worst center in the game" etc etc etc. This I find fascinating. Is there any reconciling these coaching philosophies? Is it something in the nature of the sports involved, or the players attracted to each, to explain how such seemingly opposite coaching systems are both screamingly successful?

I know some of you coach at some level and would really appreciate reactions to this seeming mystery.

Anyway, have a listen to Dorrance:

 

[j66kicker]

Well, they've been coaching about the same # years, and 22 is TWICE as many as 11. Impressive.

This 24 minutes (Part I + Part II, which follows right after Part I if you let it run) are definitely worth watching and provide a lot of insight into Geno, if you haven't seen it.

 

[Yorkeez4]

I think you are exaggerating Geno’s negativity. He only does that to his superstars and not really that often in the grand scheme of things. If you look at the way Geno’s troops handle themselves after graduation It is apparent that he helps building exceptional citizens.

As for rhe 22 vs 11 - they are different sports and soccer in the US is no where near as popular at the college level as basketball. Both coaches are exceptional.

 

[DefenseBB]

I don't care what sport you're coaching-22 national titles implies other schools are fielding teams and you are beating them with regularity. While soccer is not one of our top 4 major sports, we still have many, many youth players in this sport that play through High School. There are 335 Women's D1 teams in soccer and 351 WCBB teams in D1. So while I don't think your intent was to completely impugn soccer, you did and the facts don't bear out your inference. This is sort of a Jordan vs. Gretzky discussion in their prime. Both were the kings of their sports by a lot, but Gretzky was the more dominant player within his than Jordan was within basketball. That doesn't diminish how great either one is. Anson is the more dominant coach but that doesn't diminish Geno's resume at all.
I also agree with @Yorkeez4 that Geno is not overly negative visa vi his team. He may use it to motivate specific players who he thinks can accept this motivation. As I have quite a few friends who coach in college, they all agree that coach women is different than coaching men. Women want to know why they need to go through the brick wall--what's on the other side? vs. men who you can yell at to just break the wall down and see for yourself. So maybe women are more cerebral than men? Thank goodness my wife doesn't read this forum...

 

[upstater]

What matters is in how a coach connects with his/her players.

If we knew the precise formula, many more people could do it with more success.

I think Dorrance's take is a good one but it may also apply to boys. Kids who have positive reinforcement from coaches tend to have more confidence (to play hard without caring as much about making mistakes) and so they play better. That's my belief. On the other hand, I've seen a youth level coach who was just brutal on his girls. He didn't say a lot on the bench, he let the girls play, but when he did say something, he was withering. "That goal is on you. You absolutely blew it!" He was like that a lot and made many a girl get emotional. Yet he had a fantastic relationship with the players, and they all played hard for him. We had another guy that was a college head coach who took over a team for a year, and he was much more constructive, instilling confidence, while also teaching them the proper ways to think about the game. He had very little rapport with them though as he was used to coaching 20 year old women. His advice to my daughter was to start counting connected passes on the field (she played central midfield). He wanted her production to be over 80% connected passes. She would come off the field at the half and he would ask what her count was. "I was 10 of 15." He'd say, "Is that good enough?" "No." You can imagine the result of playing scared this way. So, he never yelled, he never demeaned the girls, he was always constructive in teaching them the right ways, and the girls played scared and without confidence the whole season.

Coaching is largely a mystery, IMO. What works for one man/woman might not work for another. And it's also much easier to coach once you have several championships under your belt. No one is going to call you a "Mumu" at that point. One would expect, anyway.

 

[Jeff H]

Two things I'd say. First, Geno's methods would not work if his players didn't believe he genuinely cares about them. Two, you gotta be yourself. Geno couldn't coach just like Dorrance and Dorrance couldn't coach just like Geno.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

So while I don't think your intent was to completely impugn soccer, you did and the facts don't bear out your inference.

What inference or impugning. I just find it intellectually interesting and puzzling that two dramatically different coaching techniques or philosophies are wildly successful. Geno: don't treat them like girls. Dorrance: can't treat 'em like boys. Dorrance: can't run game film and show them what they did wrong; can only show them success. Geno shows them everything they do wrong -everything, and not just his super stars, everybody.

I think the contrasts are remarkable and fascinating. I have no thought to denigrate soccer at all. Both immensely successful starting from opposite premises.

 

[DefenseBB]

What inference or impugning. I just find it intellectually interesting and puzzling that two dramatically different coaching techniques or philosophies are wildly successful. Geno: don't treat them like girls. Dorrance: can't treat 'em like boys. Dorrance: can't run game film and show them what they did wrong; can only show them success. Geno shows them everything they do wrong -everything, and not just his super stars, everybody.

I think the contrasts are remarkable and fascinating. I have no thought to denigrate soccer at all. Both immensely successful starting from opposite premises.

Not you-Yorkeez was being a tad dismissive. You didn't impugn anything other than being the master of all things UConn on the web...

 

[Alydar]

What inference or impugning. I just find it intellectually interesting and puzzling that two dramatically different coaching techniques or philosophies are wildly successful. Geno: don't treat them like girls. Dorrance: can't treat 'em like boys. Dorrance: can't run game film and show them what they did wrong; can only show them success. Geno shows them everything they do wrong -everything, and not just his super stars, everybody.

I think the contrasts are remarkable and fascinating. I have no thought to denigrate soccer at all. Both immensely successful starting from opposite premises.

The goal is to motivate players to improve and compete. They both have the advantage of getting self-motivated talent but they earned that with their histories. A lot of what Geno says to his players appears negative but it is also honest, and his past players consistently report that at the moment what he said upset them but that later they realized he was just being honest. I'd guess that using positive reinforcement also requires that it be honest. Players know when a coach is blowing smoke.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Not you-Yorkeez was being a tad dismissive. You didn't impugn anything other than being the master of all things UConn on the web...

You're too kind. Had me going there....

 

[DEpup]

I'm not sure they are all that different. If you watch Geno coach, he is really positive when things go right.

 

[Big Mick]

Both are exceptional in their respective sports...and, who could question their results.


I heard this story about Anson and thought I would pass it along.

He was once asked "what is the difference between coaching men's and women's teams" and here is what he said - I might be paraphrasing somewhat.

Anson goes - remember that fitness and endurance is huge with me.

So - if I sit down the men's team and lecture them about fitness and challenge them to get fitter --- the men will go away thinking "Coach is right - all these guys are totally out of shape."

Now, if I sit down the women's team and give the exact same lecture --- the women will go away thinking "Coach is right - I really need to get in better shape."

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Both are exceptional in their respective sports...and, who could question their results.


I heard this story about Anson and thought I would pass it along.

He was once asked "what is the difference between coaching men's and women's teams" and here is what he said - I might be paraphrasing somewhat.

Anson goes - remember that fitness and endurance is huge with me.

So - if I sit down the men's team and lecture them about fitness and challenge them to get fitter --- the men will go away thinking "Coach is right - all these guys are totally out of shape."

Now, if I sit down the women's team and give the exact same lecture --- the women will go away thinking "Coach is right - I really need to get in better shape."

In the video above he says when he tells a men's team things that have to improve they are all shaking their heads yes because each of them think he's talking about everybody else, not them!

 

[BroadwayVa]

I think you are exaggerating Geno’s negativity. He only does that to his superstars and not really that often in the grand scheme of things. If you look at the way Geno’s troops handle themselves after graduation It is apparent that he helps building exceptional citizens.

As for rhe 22 vs 11 - they are different sports and soccer in the US is no where near as popular at the college level as basketball. Both coaches are exceptional.

Geno claims to treat all equally but by class year. Frosh, Sophs, Jr's, Seniors in that order. He is demanding. Any one that screws up hears about it with the same intensity. Freshmen get his most attention. Those relegated to the bench are not tasked as hard or demanded as hard---so if you are among the atypical 8 player expect to get serious Geno attention, good and bad.
Geno from the early days has said: I don't coach Women or MEN, I coach basketball player--believe it, that's what he has always done, much to his credit. He coaches the GAME and plays against the GAME. It has worked

 

[eebmg]

On a historically great team where competition on the roster is everywhere, there is only so much that can be gained with coaches providing 'positive reinforcement'. If a player does not correct their mistakes, or in any way under-performs for a significant stretch of time, no doubt she will be on the bench. Not so different.

 

[sivad40]

Negative reinforcement can backfire when a team is losing or the players isn't buying into what a coach is selling them. Bob Knight and Bill Parcells are examples of this. Their players ending up tuning them out once the losing set in.

There's also a difference in being negative and being honest.

 

[UcMiami]

Well, they've been coaching about the same # years, and 22 is TWICE as many as 11. Impressive.

This 24 minutes (Part I + Part II, which follows right after Part I if you let it run) are definitely worth watching and provide a lot of insight into Geno, if you haven't seen it.

This whole series is so well done.
And it is clear that there is so much similarity in the underlying quality of very disparate coaches. Anson and Geno in this specific two part set are very similar - and while they may express themselves in different ways at different times I think they are actually very similar in how they relate to individual players and to their different teams. Geno is clearly more of a public performer and more likely to poke fun at both himself and his players, but I suspect the practices and individual work/meetings with players would be close to identical.

Specific to Geno, while he may seem 'harsh', former players have spoken about the yearly transition between regular season and post season coaching - teaching and breaking down players from Sept - Feb, and then building them up and encouraging through the tournaments. It comes out in public statements as well - Lobo and the rest of them were the worst post player only during the regular season, come tournament time they were world beaters. Uconn didn't 'have DT and the other didn't' until the games actually mattered. And then it became his signature line.

 

[Trappist]

Joe Newton, the X-Country Coach of York HS in Elmhurst, IL - arguably one of the greatest programs in the country over the past 25 years: "His philosophy of coaching his Dukes was simple: "If they know you love them, they'll do anything for you," I see and hear a lot of that in Geno.
(And I think that it's the key to success for many great managers)

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Joe Newton, the X-Country Coach of York HS in Elmhurst, IL - arguably one of the greatest programs in the country over the past 25 years: "His philosophy of coaching his Dukes was simple: "If they know you love them, they'll do anything for you," I see and hear a lot of that in Geno.
(And I think that it's the key to success for many great managers)

I knew it sorta sounded familiar. A little cut during 2014 Nattie celebration. You are channeling Doris.