I was fortunate to be in a sporting environment as a youngster growing up and always enjoyed playing sports. My dad was a teacher and coach. I probably felt that I was going to reach a particular plateau in terms of performing myself, so my main motivation to consider coaching was that I thought I wasn’t going to play very long. I played to the university level and then I played some senior amateur hockey, and for a year in Europe. Everybody recognizes there is a limit, but I really enjoyed the atmosphere of athletics, and had some really good experiences. I felt the best way to stay in that atmosphere was to get involved in coaching.
Do you feel that coaches have a responsibility to motivate players, or do you let them take ownership at certain times?
Sometimes I think back in a fuzzy way because I can’t remember things as well as I would like, but I know I started out as a fairly autocratic coach. I was young, coaching players that were almost the same age as I was. I took the initiative in terms of trying to motivate the players to begin with, and then eventually, as I got a little smarter and learned a little more through going to clinics or reading things on motivation, I recognized that you’ve got to sell your players on the importance of internalized self-motivation. You try to give them some ways in which to do it and then let them start to take ownership. To the best of my recollection that’s the way I would say that it happened.
When would you or your assistants go into the room with the purpose of motivating the team to try to get a win, and when would you let them deal with it themselves?
Quite often we’d go in and make an emotional plea to bring the game up to a particular level, but I think we did it the right way. I couldn’t put a number or per- centage on the times that we did that. Sometimes we just left them alone. We were fortunate, and I’ve mentioned this in several clinics, to be in an environment with a lot of skilled, intelligent athletes who bought into the character things that we talked about, the guidelines we were developing, and as a result became self- motivated. We looked to the veteran players to provide leadership and motivation. Our veteran players, with very few exceptions, developed into great role models for the rookies
Were those players leaders before they came in, or did they learn those skills?
I would think it’s a combination of the two. They were probably leaders to a de- gree in the environment that they came from. They had what you might call a propensity to be a leader or certain qualities that would let them move into a lead- ership role, such as their attitude, intelligence, and their ability to recognize what is important. We tried to encourage and develop leadership by often rotating the cap- tain’s role early in the season, having different players lead the warm-up or drills. Often we would have a player who was very skilled in a particular area work individually with two or three teammates. We also tried to identify and praise lead- ership actions when they happened.
How does a coach instill confidence in his players? Can you instill confidence in your players?
I believe you can. When I think back to myself as an early coach, I recognize how I’ve changed, how I’ve matured, improved, and gotten smarter about different things like assisting a player in developing confidence. You can structure the envi- ronment and bring certain things to the attention of players, things that they have done successfully. You can structure practice to allow your athletes to experience some success on their part and become more successful, say, this week than they were last week. Then you need to make sure you really give them extra praise in that regard, like, “John, you’re doing the one-on-one coverage so much better this week than you were last week. Nobody seems to beat you out of the corner anymore, and that’s great. You’re really moving up.” Confidence can be a very fragile characteristic in athletes because they are getting instant feedback on their physical performance. Our “self-talk” sessions were done in part to help build self- confidence. We tried to have players build a positive, yet realistic, perception of themselves.
If a player comes to the bench and breaks his stick or gets upset, and you see that his self-talk is too negative, what do you do?
This is something that came into my coaching repertoire as I progressed as a coach. I believe self-talk is very important. I actually designed a little handout for the players on self-talk that defined it and explained its importance. You talk to yourself 1,785 times a day. We tried to get the players to make as much of it as pos- sible, positive, focussing on the good things they do. We talked to them individually about not getting down on themselves too much, telling them, “We think you’re being a little too negative. You’re taking away some of your energy and enthusiasm by being too tough on yourself.” We stressed positive reinforcement. I can’t remember how many years ago we introduced it, but we tried to have a teaching session on that subject each year. We usually did it with the whole team, but even- tually we started to do this with new players to talk to them about the importance of self-talk.
Is body language, the way they carry themselves as an athlete, the same type of thing?
We didn’t want anybody skating over to the bench with his head down after a goal was scored against him. The goal is scored and that becomes history, and you skate over and get ready to go again. We had to address several times, over the course of the years, players not being upbeat, not being positive, kind of sitting there with their heads down in the dressing room. You notice those things when you come in. Once in awhile if you come in right after the period and you want to mention something while it’s fresh in your mind, and you see guys shaking their heads and muttering or whatever, that’s the time to talk about the kind of atmosphere you want to have in the dressing room and make it as positive as you can. If guys want to sit together, if you have the defence pairs sitting together in partners in the dressing room or a line sitting together, we always want them to feel free not to criticize each other but to bring up some things that they thought the other guy maybe wasn’t doing or maybe could do a bit differently. We want to have a little bit of interplay and communication between them. If you had something you wanted to say to your linemate, you should be able to say it to him, and the linemate should be able to accept it as long as it’s given in a positive way or in a way that will make things a little better.
People often ask what the coach said in between periods to get the team going. How often did the “soapbox speech” occur in your locker rooms, and was it a major factor in the game?
Not very often. I like to tell a story sometimes in clinics or sports banquets about when we played Loyola University in the national finals in 1967. Some of the
older guys hadn’t been playing well early in the season, and some of them had lost enthusiasm for the game, and we talked to them and said maybe it would be best for them to leave at the end of the first semester, and they were OK with that. A couple of them left, a couple of them stayed, and there was a general malaise with the team and very little enthusiasm. We brought this rookie line up about halfway through the season, and they sparked things in the second half and played really well. We got into the National Championship final game against Loyola at the Forum with 12,000 fans, as far as I know the largest crowd to have ever seen a Canadian college game. We’re down 4–2 at the end of the second period, but even- tually come back in the third period, and this rookie line once again sparked things. They got two of the goals to bring us back to 4–4 at about the 15-minute mark, and then we scored the winning goal with about 17 seconds to go in the game to win the National Championship. I was asked this question a lot: “What did you say? I mean, it’s got to be magic. What did you say?” I didn’t really say anything at the time. The things that made the difference for us were the things I said to them on September 10th and October 15th and November 1st and January 20th or whatever. I just reminded them of the things we had worked on all year to try to get better in certain areas, and those things fell into place. You know there’s no magic. I can’t think back to exactly what I said, but I didn’t jump up on a table or kick the garbage can or anything. We knew we were playing with them; we knew we were close.
Have you ever come in and made the difference in the game with something you said?
Yes, I’ve done it the other way too the odd time. I’ve gotten a little excited when I thought we were really a long ways away from the way we should have been playing as a team, for our capabilities. I may say, “You guys are shortchanging yourselves. You’re shortchanging each other,” and get a little excited, a little upset, a little mad, but I never have been a grab-the-stick-off-the-rack-and-crack-it kind of guy, although I have kicked a couple of garbage cans. I guess you’ve got to get the right mix, as most coaches know, but sometimes it takes coaches a long time to
figure it out. The yelling becomes pretty ineffective fairly quickly with an above- average team. I think you can scare some kids, and I’ve heard this said about some coaches. The intimidation factor is probably a little higher for the younger players, and there is maybe a little more yelling, but in my experience with the older players, you don’t need it that much.
Do you try on game days to look for some sort of angle that makes this game dif- ferent from last week’s game or last night’s game?
I believe you’re always looking for an angle or a little bit of an edge. How are we going to react to the challenge of what they did to us in that last game if they did some things particularly well and took away our ability to do some things? I would imagine you’d have to look for that angle a little more in professional hock- ey. One of the nice things about coaching at the university is that there is kind of a built-in motivation because of the shortness of the schedule. There is extra impor- tance to every game, but that said, I still look for that something to draw on.
It’s very difficult for organizations to build a dynasty. How did your teams’ identity evolve?
I think the university itself, or the organization itself in this case, has a recog- nizable tradition connected with it, if it has been fairly successful. When I joined the University of Alberta, their basketball and hockey programs were really strong. One of our major focusses was the work ethic. We really tried to use that as the cor- nerstone. You want to build the feeling in the players that they do not want to have the coaches or fans say they really got outworked over the course of the game, that the reason they weren’t successful or didn’t play well, or it wasn’t a very good game to watch, is that the U of A Bears were just not working. We wanted to be an up- beat, hard-working, enthusiastic team, and supportive of each other.
And then we’ve always talked about sharing the puck. We’ve been using that expression for a long time, the co-operative support concept. We wanted our play- ers to recognize that’s the way we wanted them to be, the team identity that we wanted them to buy into. We also tried to focus on self-discipline and prided our- selves on quite often being the least penalized team in our league. These identity characteristics became the key components of our “team guidelines.”
Along with outworking the opponent and the self-discipline, we tried to be as proactive as possible. We talked about trying to set the tempo in games and not sit- ting back to see what the other team is going to do. I’ve never been a big proponent of matching lines; I think personally there are more problems with it than advan- tages. Sometimes it’s a lot easier not to worry too much about matching lines if you feel that your talent level is at least equal to theirs and maybe a touch better. We always tried to sell our players on the fact that we were going to try to be good in all aspects of the game and that if anyone wanted to worry about matching, we’d let them worry about matching us. That would be an indication to us that we were setting the tempo, we were dictating the course of the game.
I don’t mean that we’ve never matched; on occasion we’ve decided that it was going to be to our team’s advantage to match. I can remember one time that Bill and I should have matched because we had a scouting report on a player by the name of Don McLaren, who played for York University. We were going down to play them in the playoffs, and our scout said that McLaren was their best player by far. We talked about it and decided not to do any matching, not to start with any- way, and just see how the game goes. Well, he scored three goals in the first pe- riod. We outshot them 52 to 16 and lost 3–2.
How did you create and maintain that identity?
A lot of it comes from within. One of the reasons for our success was having a core of really good players. You’d like to think eventually that guys who play here for two or three years are all going to buy into the things that you’re trying to sell. Initially we used to have 180 people out for tryouts. The rookies would try out sepa- rately, and then we would gradually phase them in with the returning players. We used to meet with the returning players just before this happened and tell them to show the guys who are trying to make the team what it takes to play on this team. I
can remember when Ace Brimacombe, who was trying out and later became a very good player for us, said to me, “I couldn’t believe it. I saw these veterans smashing into each other and winning all the races.” He said it really opened his eyes. It’s kind of a role-model thing on the part of the veteran players.
I guess we initiated it in terms of building an identity, but the veteran players did most of the internal leading just by role-modelling what was necessary to play. To maintain it we always tried to bring in some new players every year. We occa- sionally cut returning players, but it didn’t happen that often. The graduation cy- cles, where four or five players are leaving every season, gave us a chance to bring four or five new players in. That was the big reason for maintaining our identity; we never had to completely reload.
You say a lot of the communication of your tradition and your identity came from the players. Would you do anything special to subtly communicate key messages to your players and the new guys coming in?
We definitely made a conscious effort over the years, to develop a set of what we called “team guidelines.” They were a set of beliefs or values or behaviours that we as a coaching staff believed would help us be successful as a team. We intro- duced them early in the season and referred to them often. They’re intended to guide behaviour, and I know from experience that they help encourage the devel- opment of mature behaviour and self-discipline. When you start the season with new players, often coming from a wide variety of backgrounds, it is important to let them know what is expected of them and what they in return can expect of their coaches. The guidelines apply to everyone connected to the team. We felt it was important to get player feedback in order to build their ownership stake in the guidelines.
Some of the guidelines stressed the importance of being personally respon- sible for your actions and maintaining a positive, enthusiastic attitude. Showing re- spect to all those involved in the game, developing consistency, and strong habits of discipline. These characteristics were part of what we felt would become our “championship habits.” We talked about being accountable to one another. Co- operation and unselfishness were a key for us. The catch phrase we had displayed prominently on our dressing room wall was John Wooden’s “It’s amazing what can be accomplished when no one cares who gets the credit.” Of course we were al- ways reminding players that hard work would be the cornerstone to our success.
The bottom line on guidelines was we wanted things spelled out clearly, dis- cussed, and understood, and we wanted everyone on the same page and com- mitted to the guidelines. They became a very important factor in our success.
Why do you think so few organizations can hold their teams at the top for long peri- ods of time, the way you were able to do it?
Maybe it’s just getting the right combination of people to start with. I’m really big on the role-model concept. If you want to improve yourself, have a mentor who is very positive and who’s achieved something, and try to hang around with suc- cessful people. Some teams are successful for a period of time, and I don’t know if complacency is the word, but sometimes they kind of lose track of the fact that there’s something that has to happen for it to continue.
Do you think it had to do with you and your assistant coach Bill Moores being there for a long time? Some organizations change their leaders and key people. You talk about your players being role models, but it’s also the people at the top.
Absolutely. I’m glad you mentioned that. It hits the nail right on the head, re- ally. The continuity factor and stability factors are so important. I hadn’t thought of it in those terms exactly. Players appreciate that too, especially if the core people, say a coaching staff that they have some respect for and faith in, stay there. That’s a big, big factor, absolutely.
What made you want to remain coaching at the University of Alberta?
Just my enjoyment of it, I guess. There’s kind of an internal feeling of satisfaction in knowing that you really enjoy your job. I enjoyed going to work every day, having been a Phys. Ed. graduate and kind of a jock. The other part of it was that we started to enjoy some success, and I think that helps motivate you. If you experience success, it makes you feel a little more confident and a little more self- assured. That’s a motivating factor in itself, and you want to continue in that envi- ronment.
Coaching at the university level is the best environment for coaching in terms of the athletes. They are not as talented and as skilled as athletes at the profes- sional level, for example, but I think there’s more opportunity to sell concepts to university players and more opportunity to influence them. It’s a little more satis- fying. I don’t know what professional hockey is like now, but my experience in 1975 with the Oilers was that there was a core group of players who were great, and you could do a lot with them, but at that particular time there was also a smaller group that was somewhat noncommittal. My experience with the Winnipeg Jets from 1989 to ’93 was different; there the players were committed to try new things and open to new concepts. I never had a problem going back to the university level. I was kind of happy to go back, in some ways, because I was in a good situation and always enjoyed it there.
How have you defined success through your career?
I think success is obviously a winning record. As I look back I see that we’ve had a tremendous number of our players who have come through the program and have gone back into the community and done a really good job. We have about eight or nine players that I can think of just offhand who are coaching Tier II junior hockey. We’ve never had a lot of people go on to play in the National Hockey League. We’ve had a number, but I think the better measure of success is what the people do as they graduate and go into the community and really contribute back. Almost all of our players have gone on to do extremely well in their chosen profes- sions and have become very productive members of society.
What were your most memorable coaching experiences?
I guess you always remember the National Championship games that you win. One of my most memorable experiences relates to a good friend of mine, Wayne Fleming, who was coaching Manitoba when we played them in the finals of our conference to go to the Nationals. It was a three-game series in Manitoba, and we split the first two games. They were leading 4–2 in the third game going into the final few minutes. We scored a goal to make it 4–3 with about 1:23 to go, and then we scored another one to tie it with about 30 seconds to go. We went into a straight 10 minutes of overtime. They went ahead 5–4, we tied it up 5–5 and then I remember Dennis Cranston scored on a faceoff with about 15 seconds to go in overtime. It was a devastating game for them to lose, but it was a game that really sticks out in your memory. Wayne and I talk about it once in awhile.
The other memorable experience that stands out is the year I was asked to also be the head coach of the football team in ’67. We played in one of the early College Bowls against McMaster. It was a really tight game back and forth, and we were ahead by two points, 11–9, going into the final minute. They were pushing us back, and they were in a pretty good position to kick a winning field goal. It was a rainy day. They had tried a field goal a little earlier, but because the weather was bad they decided to try and push it down and get a little closer. One of our linebackers, John Wilson, who later went on to play for the BC Lions, intercepted the pass, and we won that game in the dying seconds. That was in November, and the following March we were playing in Montreal in the hockey Nationals. This was the year, as I mentioned earlier, that we played against Loyola University in the final. The mem- ory of that year really sticks with me.
I coached with Dave Chambers and Andy Murray at the Spengler Cup in Switzerland, and we won in a nail-biter, in the last minute of play. A player by the name of Rob Plumb scored for us. The fans in Davos and the atmosphere in the rink were great. It was 1985 and Canada’s first gold medal at the Spengler.
Another game I remember well was one we lost. We played Toronto in the
National finals in our rink. There was a big crowd, it was packed, and at that time we had an organist playing and it created a great atmosphere. They got up on us 3–1 in the first period, and from then on we really dominated the game. Tom Watt was coaching, and when I kid him about it he says, “We just threw the puck off the glass and sent you back down to your end.” I can’t remember what the final shots were, but even though we were quite dominant, we couldn’t come back to win. I told the team afterwards that was as good as we’d played all year because Toronto had a great team. We really controlled and dominated them, but we couldn’t score. We hit sticks and legs on shots, and they just dumped it out. I told our team we were proud of them because we had played our best game of the year. You remem- ber games like that too.
0 comments: