Beyond ‘crude pragmatism’ in sports coaching: Insights from C.S. Peirce,William James,and John Dewey: A commentary

Introduction

A central aim of Simon Jenkins's article is to provide coaching theorists-practitioners with a clearer understanding of philosophical pragmatism as a viable approach to coaching—an approach that is both intellectually well funded and effective for achieving desired goals. By clarifying, Jenkins also seeks to recommend this way of coaching. For him, philosophical pragmatism would lead to better coaching than “crude pragmatism” because it is not merely practicalist—that is, focused on short-term results through ad hoc fashionable coaching techniques (techne). It is rather a method, facilitated by a distinctive temperament and guided by practical wisdom (phronesis), that emphasizes goal-directed experimentation, observation of results, individual and communal reflection upon those results, and consequent revision of the assumptions, habits, goals, and purposes that leads to renewed experimentation. I think Jenkins has described successfully various elements of a well-developed pragmatist coaching practice. His conclusions, though, are brief. As a complement to his article, then, I want to offer my own descriptive summary of a pragmatist coaching practice from the specific standpoint of Peircean philosophy. I will try to articulate my general Peircean viewpoint in a clear and succinct way.

Philosophical pragmatism

Philosophical pragmatism is better than crude practicalism mainly because pragmatists reflect carefully, through individual and communal inquiry, about the ends, goals and purposes they pursue and how they pursue them. Action for the sake of action does not constitute a pragmatist practice, or any kind of practice—it is hapless doing. But the continuous, experimental, communal, reflective search for effective action in order to achieve admirable purposes does constitute a pragmatist practice. Pragmatists focus, then, on goal-oriented, purposeful action. ¹ They seek effective action for the sake of admirable ends. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of their actions, pragmatists must reflect critically about both (a) the habits and characteristic dispositions that their actions reveal and (b) the aims that they pursue through those habit-driven actions. As a pragmatic practice develops, both the habits and tendencies that lead to characteristic ways of acting under specific circumstances, and the purposes and goals that those actions aim at achieving, are matters for reflective, communal assessment and revision. Habits can be transformed; ends and purposes can develop and evolve. ²

Regarding the ends of a pragmatic practice: Individual sports-players, teams, ^a and coaches engage in sporting practices for a diversity of goals and purposes. As Elcombe puts it, “Those engaging in athletics can at once live sport for health and well-being, to celebrate or express, and/or to test and compete” (Elcombe, ⁴ p. 89). I would add that many live sport for play, for ludic experience, also. Regarding the habits that underlie a pragmatic practice: Sportspeople have characteristic dispositions, skills, techniques and tactics for how to solve the challenges and tests that sport presents to them. An individual football player may be a fast sprinter with a strong, accurate shot on goal; another may be quick in short spaces and may dribble and assist well; another may mark well and anticipate rivals’ intentions—all have characteristic skills that they hone to be able to play in a team. The team itself may have characteristic tactics and approaches to playing the sport, especially in relation to rival teams' tactics. From a pragmatist stance, all of these skills, techniques and tactics are various forms of “habits” or incorporated beliefs that guide action. A good pragmatist coach can help sport players to cultivate and transform effective habits to achieve purposes reasonably deemed admirable by the community of players, teams and coaches involved in the practice.

Let me work with Jenkins's example of Arsène Wenger's coaching at Arsenal. As reported, the end of Arsenal's playing is to win matches and tournaments while consistently playing possession football, an attacking style that Wenger finds aesthetically admirable. It is implicit, however, that these ends must be shared by the individual players and by team as a whole. I would guess that Wenger has favored standout creative midfielders like Tomas Rosicky and Mesut Ozil over the years not only because they fit his ideal of attacking football but because they, and the teammates that these playmakers lead, embrace the style. These ends also help to shape the skills, techniques and tactics—the habits—that the team and individual players cultivate and hone in order to play. They influence how they train and how they play. And, as the example suggests, both ends and habits evolve. When Arsenal went on a losing streak in 2008, Wenger and his team made adjustments to go 20 matches undefeated. At this point, they had to make important, noticeable changes in defensive tactics, a kind of habit. But as Wenger reports, he makes small adjustments and subtle changes from match to match, always asking how Arsenal can win. The aim of winning while playing with a consistent offensive style is always in view. However, in principle, even this guiding end or telos is open for reflection and revision, for example when Wenger observed that possession no longer led to winning in most matches. Experience could, for example, lead Wenger and his team to make some concessions of style in order to win a crucial match in a tournament. They may come to place a bit more emphasis on winning than on always attacking. Or, to the contrary, they may come to place an even stronger emphasis on attacking to assert their team's personality in a football world full of defensive, counter-attacking teams. They could reflectively conclude, for example, that they prefer the risk of losing the contest while playing attack to win, than the risk of losing their style while playing defense not to lose. The general philosophical point is that a pragmatist community of inquiry openly and critically reflects upon its ends and the means they deploy to pursue them. This brings up two final points, one on coaching methods and the other on attitude.

Abductive reasoning

Jenkins recommends abduction as an important component of a pragmatic method of coaching, but as the reader will note, there is wide disagreement among interpreters as to what abduction is. Let me state my own view in very concrete terms related to sporting practice. ^b When Wenger's Arsenal went on a losing streak, the facts made it evident that their habitual way of playing was not working. They were approaching the sporting contest with a set of skills, techniques, and tactics that were failing. This disrupted their beliefs-habits, and it created doubts so as what to do. ⁶ Solving this situation required a diagnostic process regarding where the problems lay. As a first step, Wenger and his team needed to identify plausible explanations for their failures. Abduction is the process of making hypotheses to explain the reasons for an unexpected or problematic fact. Making such diagnostic hypotheses well requires knowledge, observation, experience, and insight—for example, knowledge of one's own and rival skills and tactics, detailed observation as to what the players and the team as a whole are doing or failing to do, experience as to what has worked or failed in the past, listening to players' input, and insight into how one may modify the current situation to solve the problem. Intelligent natural beings, including human beings, constantly abduce—they make conjectures as to how to solve problems—in order to survive and thrive in their environments. Good philosophical literature may be an aide to honing one's abductive practice and may guide a methodic approach to abductive problem-solving. Jenkins' bibliography provides some avenues for that. I suggest that a good pragmatist coach, when he or she abduces, listens to the players' own plausible explanations for failure, makes reasonable conjectures as to what is wrong, and then guides the individuals and the whole team in testing possible solutions, given the diagnostic explanations, by making experimental adjustments methodically. ^c

Pragmatic attitude

From a Peircean perspective, the attitude of a pragmatist coach must not only be flexible but also loving, in the sense of love as agape—that is, love that encourages the beloved persons' evolution and growth and fosters them to achieve their freely-chosen ends. ⁸ On the basis of a Jamesian strand of pragmatism, Jenkins has described well the “flexible” and “tough-minded” temperament of pragmatist coaches. I want to add the Peircean recommendation that pragmatist coaches ought to be “loving” in the sense that they give freedom to their players to set their own aims or to contribute to setting team ends, allowing them to take reasonable risks—e.g. new strategies or creative plays—for the sake of achieving those goals. Loving coaches then do their best to help players achieve those goals. They lead players to identify their own talents and to develop them. And they foster the creation of teams that draw from the players' talents and skills, rather than imposing upon the players their own preconceived tactics at all costs. Elcombe has in fact already argued very lucidly to recommend loving or agapastic coaching. ⁴ From a Peircean standpoint, he describes three coaching attitudes. Some coaches emphasize spontaneity, creativity, and give lots of liberty to their players, but fail to provide structure. I would add that they also tend to appeal to emotion and courage. They may get successful results for short periods of time with highly talented players, such as Guy Lewis with Clyde Drexler and Hakeem Olajuwon with the University of Houston's basketball team at the National Collegiate Athletic Association in 1983 and 1984 (Elcombe, ⁴ pp. 93–94). Other coaches impose their preexisting plans and tactics at all costs. The players who do not comply or do not fit the mold, are out. Most coaches act this way (Elcombe, ⁴ pp. 94–95). But loving coaches are observant and perceptive of their players' talents, skills and abilities and are sensitive and responsive to their goals. These coaches see themselves as facilitators to guide their players and teams towards setting challenging aims and admirable goals, while remaining effective at devising experimental, evolving, communal processes to achieve those ends. In Elcombe's words: “Love, in this context, is not about the display of emotion, but is about the approach one takes in preparation, in presentation, and in dealing with others. To coach through love requires a sense of vulnerability, courage to risk, and the need to support athletes unconditionally” (Elcombe, ⁴ p. 100).

Elcombe ⁴ offers Phil Jackson, former coach of the Chicago Bulls and Los Angeles Lakers at the National Basketball Association, as an example. Jackson encouraged the right balance of spontaneity and habit, creative improvisation and planned tactics, good decision making and risk-taking, to lead a variety of teams with very different skill sets to victory. He did not impose a preexisting mold upon the players. He created teams that won with their unique set of talents and skills. In general, this describes loving, flexible, creative, experimental, pragmatist coaching.