I believe each of the two methods have their own strengths and corresponding drawbacks. Frankly speaking, there is no hard and fast way to coach. IMO, a coach’s training method has to correspond with 4 factors: 1) amount of time you have for training 2) ability & attitude of the current squad 3) commitment of individual members 4) Amount of training resources you have

While winning national championships does not necessary validate the training process (some teams train much harder than others and still lose in the end) it gives an indication of the ability of the coach to produce results. For more commercialised teams, this is important because funding is neccessary for team to continue operating. Failure to produce results may result in a cut in sponsorship, resource allocation and might even cause a team to close down because their bosses can no longer justify their presence.

Nobody likes to be disliked, and a Performance Climate as you mentioned is likely to be less popular. I belong to this category unfortunately. But i didn’t chose to be in this category of course. It just happens to be high on my value system which i feel is able to produce the best results.

I am a firm believer of the law of attraction and how it can attract like minded individuals together for a common belief. Whichever that floats your boat.

Just my two cents worth =)

Very well put! I’ve seen both methods at work and do my best to be the latter more so than the former. It’s amazing how much faster the athletes develop in a positive and supportive environment.

If it’s alright, I’d like to repost this article on DocSpirit.com.

Cheers!
Sean