How do rugby players perceive and respond to different coaching styles?

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to analyse participant’s perceptions of two contrasting coaching styles for more effective rugby training. The study also evaluated participant engagement under the two contrasting coaching styles, and the coach’s perceptions of them. The study included 8 male participants who competed for a Gloucestershire Premier League rugby club, with age raging from 18-35 years old. The participants were divided into two groups: 1) the first group attended two command training sessions, followed by two guided discovery training sessions (once a week). 2) The second group attended two guided discovery training sessions, followed by two command training sessions (once a week). Measurements for participant perceptions were conducted through two focus groups upon the completion of the training sessions. Engagement measurements were conducted through the use of observations that were interpreted based on an engagement criterion of: 1) non engaged, 2) somewhat engaged, 3) averagely engaged, 4) predominantly engaged, and 5) fully engaged. In addition, coach perceptions were provided through the use of reflections that added another extra dimension to the study. Results showed that five participants engaged best under the command style, two under the guided discovery style, and one showed no difference. Participant’s perceptions revealed a number of interesting and intriguing findings about both coaching styles. Overall, four participants preferred the guided discovery style due mainly to enhanced learning and development reasons. Only one participant preferred the command style due to greater repetition of physically performing tasks and activities. Two participants had no preference enjoying elements of both styles, and one participant didn’t attend the Focus group so therefore wasn’t included in the analysis. The coach reflections revealed positive and negative aspects regarding both coaching styles but his preference was towards guided discovery. As a conclusion, it demonstrated that the command style can potentially ensure greater engagement due to increased time performing rugby skills and activities. Also, participant and coach findings suggest guided discovery was the preferred method of coaching within rugby training in this instance, however, the learning and coaching experience is extremely individualistic with no correct method.