By Kathleen DeBoer

Kathleen DeBoer is the Executive Director of the American Volleyball Coaches Association and a former Senior Associate Athletics Director and Head Women's Volleyball Coach at the University of Kentucky. Her book, Gender and Competition: How Men and Women Approach Work and Play Differently, is published by Coaches Choice. She can be contacted through her Web site, at: www.kathydeboer.com.

I'd rather coach women in practice settings any day, but if we are talking about coaching in competition, I'd prefer coaching men."

If you have been an athletics administrator for any period of time, you have heard this statement or a variation of it from your coaches who have worked with both female and male teams. This pattern in preferences is certainly not universal, but it is common enough that it cannot be attributed to isolated coaches or particular teams.

When you question the coaches making these statements, the responses are again very predictable. They will tell you that female athletes listen better, they are more interested in "doing it right," and they want to know their specific role and position in team patterns. "Was that ball mine?" "Is that player mine?" "Am I in the right spot?" Since most coaches find the details of technique and strategy fascinating, this interest on the part of their athletes is very affirming.

The reason coaches tend to prefer working with males in competitive situations is that male athletes "just play." They are not easily distracted by extraneous issues, they take initiative in making things happen, and they never question the value of winning. For coaches, who are universally competitive people, these responses in contests are viewed as natural and normal, and any other response is perplexing, if not utterly incomprehensible.

So what causes these differences? Do our athletes come to the gym with a hard-wired inclination to prefer training or competing? Or, are our coaches training them to respond differently to practice and competition? The answer is "yes" to both questions.

PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR
One way to analyze the issue is to look at how athletes choose to behave when they are not being coached. A friend of mine has taught eighth-graders how to play volleyball in co-ed physical education classes for over 25 years. He describes these patterns of behavior when the students enter the gym: The first boy who comes into the gym grabs a volleyball off the rack and either shoots baskets with it or tosses it up and hits it against the wall. The first girl who enters the gym sits down on a bleacher to wait for her friends.

The next boy who enters the gym generally engages with the first boy. They start playing short court over the volleyball net or a game of one-on-one at the basketball goal. The second girl who enters the gym may get a ball off the rack and sit down next to the first girl or she may sit down in a different place on the bleachers. As more boys enter the gym, the games they are playing either expand or multiply. After a number of girls have arrived in the gym, they get in a circle and pass and set the ball around the circle, laughing and talking as they exchange the ball.

This differentiation is not universal. There are girls who will choose competitive behavior over socializing, and there are boys who would rather engage one another or the girls than join the game, but these children are the exceptions rather than the rule. The teacher reported to me that this pattern of gendered behavior has not changed over the two and a half decades he has been teaching volleyball to his classes. When choosing unsupervised interaction, most males choose competitive play, and most females choose cooperative play.

What happens when athletes are being coached? The 1990 Olympic Sports Festival was held in Chapel Hill, N.C., where Bill Neville, a veteran coach with broad experience working with both male and female volleyball players, was the head of the volleyball delegation. He watched the four men's and four women's volleyball teams train and made the following observation about the practices: The women's teams spent most of their practice time on technique and positioning drills, while the men's teams spent most of their practice time in competitive, game-like drills.

Intrigued by Neville's observations, I started to more closely watch whether the same training trends happened among my coaches at the University of Kentucky, where I was then an athletic administrator. I found that the gender-differentiated pattern he had observed in the volleyball practices indeed held true for our basketball teams, our baseball/softball teams, and our soccer teams. Like the volleyball training, the women's teams spent more time on positioning drills and repetitive technique-oriented sequences, and the men's teams spent more time in head-to-head, competitive, results-oriented sequences.

Since most of our coaches had spent all of their time coaching either men or women, they were unaware that this difference in training methods was so prevalent. When I asked the coaches of the women's teams to reflect on the difference, the most common speculation was that the female athletes did not have the same physical skills in terms of movement, jumping ability, and power as the male athletes, and therefore, good technique was more critical to their success in playing their respective sports. When I questioned the coaches of the men's teams about this difference, the most common theme I heard was that, while the coaches would have preferred to do more technique work, it was too hard to keep the athletes focused on it. To keep the practice intensity up, they reverted to competitive drills.

Shortly after these conversations, I went to watch a friend coach his six-year-old son's basketball team. When we entered the gym the boys were engaged in a variety of activities. Some were competing with each other by shooting long shots from outside the three point line, some where playing H-O-R-S-E, and others were trying to dribble without having another child steal the ball.

The coach started the organized part of the practice with a few dribbling drills. The boys engaged in these exercises so lackadaisically that the coach stopped the drill and scolded them, pointing out that dribbling was an essential skill to playing the game and they should pay attention to their method.

Next he introduced a shooting drill. My friend began by explaining how to hold the ball, where to position it in relation to their body, and how their hands should look on follow-through. During this explanation the boys fiddled and nudged each other, rarely looking at the coach. As soon as he gave them the go-ahead to practice this technique, they ran to the baskets and immediately started playing a game to see who could make the most baskets in the shortest period of time.

About 15 minutes into the 60-minute workout the coach divided the boys into teams for competitive drills, scrimmaging first in three-on-two fast break situations and progressing to five-on-five drills. These six-year-olds had no skills or movement abilities whatsoever, yet they spent most of their practice time in competitive, game-like progressions.

My next opportunity for field research was at the Women's Volleyball World Championships in Sao Paolo, Brazil. I accompanied our national team as an advisor. Our practice times frequently overlapped with those of the other women's teams. During the course of the two weeks I watched the eventual silver medalist Brazilian team and several of the Asian teams in training sessions.

These were the best women's volleyball teams in the world, full of elite athletes with 15 to 20 years of high-level training and competition experience. They were above-average jumpers with great body control and movement skills. Their practices, however, were amazingly technique oriented. They worked for long periods on footwork drills for blocking and transitioning from defense to offense. They spent considerable time on serving and passing drills. Only occasionally, for a few minutes at the end of a training session, did I observe anything that resembled a scrimmage or competitive exchange.

My observations of a beginning boy's team engaged mostly in game-like activity and elite women's teams engaged mainly in technique training made me question the rationalizing lore I had been given by my peers to explain gender differences in training regimens. The idea that women need more skill training did not prove true. In reality, coaches train their teams in these gender-differentiated patterns because they are more cooperative and easier to deal with when engaged in activities in which they are comfortable. By their methods, coaches reinforce what their athletes already do well--cooperative play for females and competitive play for males.

That leads us to the following questions: Are we short-changing our athletes by allowing them to spend most of their training time in their comfort zone? Is it not also an important part of our responsibility to teach female athletes how to compete? And what about the discipline needed to learn technique and skills--should we be more diligent in teaching this to our male athletes?

To make a female team more competitive, your coaches must practice competing. They must accept the fact that the "me versus you" nature of a contest can be difficult for female athletes. Competitiveness must be taught and rehearsed. It will not develop by itself.

On the other hand, the usual male paradigm does not reinforce the discipline necessary to engage in repetitive drilling or cooperative tactical maneuvering. Male athletes must be taught by their coaches to train and cooperate for success. These critical team skills do not "just happen."

Each of you at this point can cite examples of top athletes at your institution who are exceptions to these stereotypes--athletes who are both rigidly disciplined and insanely competitive. Yet I venture you could make a much longer list of those who lack one or the other and that the list breaks mostly along gender lines.

CHANGING PRACTICES
Like athletes, coaches will not easily want to leave their comfort zones. So if you want them to change their training with this idea in mind, you may need to help them through the process. The first question they will likely have is: How much competing do you put into your training if you are coaching women, and how much drilling do you demand if you are coaching men? It's a tricky question. Each coach must evaluate the capacity among his or her athletes for engaging in anxiety-producing activity.

My observation is that the younger the athletes, the lower their tolerance for unpleasant situations. The primary motivation for young people to engage in sport is to "have fun." Too much focus on competition between members of a team will cause stress among young girls who are generally very "in-group" focused. Too much skills repetition will feel boring to young boys who want action and to prove themselves against their peers. More mature athletes realize that periods of stress in training are part of the process in pursuing athletic excellence.

I've also seen that a sudden shift away from current practice makes athletes edgy and confused about the goals of training. Therefore, encourage your coaches to make incremental changes in their training rhythms.

The coaches of female teams who have the most success with teaching competitiveness are verbal and straightforward about what they are doing and why. Instead of assuming their athletes know how to compete, they make the practice of competing a regular, predictable, and evaluated part of a workout. They also verbally deconstruct the inevitable conflicts that result from forcing their athletes into the uncomfortable situation of battling against each other.

Finally and very importantly, they study and respect the level of anxiety within their team. They have learned to recognize the signs that their team is ready to blow apart and they know when to back off and transition into practices heavy on comfortable, process-oriented drills.

Those who fail at teaching competitiveness generally plunged their women's teams into a competitive caldron without warning, explanation, or debriefing. The resulting anxiety and disruption of team chemistry is disastrous to relationships, both among the players themselves and with the coach. Females bond through interaction, so authentic communication between coach and athletes, and among the athletes themselves, is a critical component for success in training a female team to compete.

Training males in repetitive, technique-specific, non-competitive sequences must also be done with careful planning. Basketball's Rick Pitino is the coach I have observed who had the most success with this type of training. First, he separated his technical training from his team training. His morning sessions were individual (one or two athletes at a time), short (20 minutes), and frequent (four times per week). The focus was completely on technique--shooting the three, cross-over dribble, stutter step and accelerate, head/ball fake and shoot, free throws, and so on. Athletes were corrected each time they performed a technique incorrectly regardless of the result of their efforts.

I observed one session where a player missed 90 percent of his shots. The coach running the drill stood where he could only see the player's form, not whether he made the basket. The coach's comments were directed at the prescribed shooting form, which was correct most of the time. The coach said nothing about the misses.

The main reason for the success of this training regimen is the individual nature of the sessions. The athlete is working only to satisfy the coach and the sole focus of the coach's feedback is the technical accuracy of a particular movement. The absence of rivalry and belittling feedback--which was very common in the team practices--allowed for concentration on method rather than outcome. The effectiveness of the method was proven by the results: Pitino's teams won and were noteworthy for their consistent shooting, solid technique, and disciplined tactical execution.

MUST BE TAUGHT
In this analysis I have intentionally avoided references to the gender of the coach. In my observation, the coach's gender does not correlate with the style of the training. Male coaches of female athletes are just as likely as female coaches to spend the majority of their practice time in technical and tactical regimens. Female coaches of male teams, while still limited in number, generally spend most of their training time in competitive, game-simulated regimens.

The key is that coaches tend to structure their practices for immediate success. So they continue to repeat drills that are successful, as determined by the participants. Most coaches understand that they need to sometimes push athletes outside their comfort zones, but what they don't usually realize is that these comfort zones have dictated how they structure practices. By talking to your coaches about this dynamic and how to alter their practices to overcome it, you will ultimately help them be more successful.

Training complete athletes does not happen automatically. It takes purposeful attention by the coach to the component of success that is difficult for their athletes. Females must be taught to be comfortable with head-to-head competition. Males must be taught the benefits of repetitive sequences focused on technique and tactics. Concentrating on only one side of the equation shortchanges both male and female athletes--and may be hindering your teams' overall success.

A version of this article was originally published in the Spring 2006 edition of Olympic Coach magazine, which is a free publication of the United States Olympic Committee. To subscribe or view past issues, you can visit the magazine's Web site at: www.usoc.org/12688.htm.

Sidebar: MAKING IT WORK
Paul Dill, Head Men's and Women's Volleyball Coach at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has coached both males and females throughout his career. Named the AVCA Division III Women's New England Region Coach of the Year last fall, he currently has the men's team ranked in the top 20 in the nation. What does he think about coaching genders differently?

He says that when athletes on his women's team arrive at practice, they're eager to work tirelessly on honing their skills but are uncomfortable being competitive. "And when my men's team hits the gym for practice, they have one question: 'Coach, when are we going to play?'" Dill says. "Competition is their sole focus."

That's why Dill's top priority when he became head coach of the women's team 11 years ago was to bring out their competitive drive. And when he took the reins of the men's team four years ago, he immediately put the focus on building individual skills. "My goal with both programs is to put athletes outside their comfort zones, because that's the only way we are going to be the best we can be," Dill says.

For the women, that means spending less time on safe, no-stakes drills and placing them in competitively charged situations every day in practice. Dill accomplishes this by turning drills into do-or-die scenarios, like his "first kill" drill. "This is a six-on-six drill where we're feeding balls in and the offensive team can't rotate until every player in the front row has a kill," he explains. "Every time, it will come down to one player who hasn't made a kill. Everybody knows the set is going to her, and it places tremendous pressure on her.

"It can lead to a lot of frustration and a very tense atmosphere, but that's what I want," Dill continues. "This player has to beat her teammates to get out of the situation, and if she can find the grit to push herself in that practice situation, she'll find it in a match. I tell my women's team to expect our practices to be just as competitive as our matches, if not more so."

To incorporate more individual skill building into his men's training, Dill sometimes brings players in for sessions outside of regular practice. More often, though, he focuses on drills early in team practices, making scrimmaging the reward for successfully working on fundamentals. "I tell them if they want to play, they have to earn it by working on skills, and I'll compromise a little bit by adding a competitive element to the drills," he says. "Once we transition from drills to playing, I keep them focused on translating the skill we've worked on to the game, because otherwise they become mesmerized by the ball and forget what they just learned."

Dill says the key to successfully expanding both teams' comfort zones has been communication. "I spend a lot of time explaining to the women why I want this competitive focus in practice--that their goal in competing hard is to make their teammates better, not to embarrass them," he says. "After we do a drill that makes them uncomfortable, we talk about it. I ask them how it made them feel, and we work through it together.

"Another key has been creating the right atmosphere on my women's team to make this level of competitiveness tolerable," he continues. "Early on, I just focused on making them competitive, and I saw a lot of players become frustrated. I learned that to focus this hard on competition with women, you need an underlying team culture that's very supportive. They need to know that even though they just went through a drill that completely exposed them, everyone on the team still cares about them and no one is mad at them. In that environment, they're not afraid to make mistakes, and that allows them to compete as hard as I want them to."

Dill believes his approach with both genders pays dividends on the court. "Opposing coaches talk about how aggressive our women are, or with our men's team, they'll say, 'Where did that guy come from? He wasn't on your team last year,'" Dill says. "It's great to say, 'Yes, he was, he's just that much better now!' Our women's team's competitiveness and the individual improvement of our male players are the yardsticks I now use to measure our success."