Clipboard Chris and the Question We’re Not Asking

What do our coaches actually need?

I read with interest the piece from “Clipboard Chris” on TFC.

But more than that, I read the comments.

There were some respected voices in there. Coaches who have spent years on the grass, not just in a room talking about it.

And the comments didn’t argue with the article.

They expanded it.

They confirmed something that has already been said, just more publicly this time.

We are hearing the same message again

In a previous blog, I outlined the structure of coach education in Tasmania.

The pathway is clear.
The expectations are high.
The investment is real.

And the gap is just as clear.

Coaches are qualified.

Then largely left to work it out themselves.

What stood out this week is that the same message is now coming directly from the coaching community.

Not one voice.

A pattern.

Course v Reality

The idea that courses don’t reflect real coaching is not new.

But it still resonates because it remains true.

Real coaching is not:

• a clean session plan

• a controlled group

• a short assessment window

It is unpredictable, messy and constant.

And yet, we continue to assess the controlled version.

Not the real one.

The comments said more than the article

The comments told the fuller story.

Not one issue. A system.

• Coaches struggling to access courses

• Late or unclear communication

• Cost and time pushing people away

• Experienced coaches stepping back

• New coaches asking for mentoring

And one comment in particular should not be ignored.

A respected coach, Steve Darby, made a simple point.

Coaching used to be on grass.

Now it risks becoming something else entirely.

When YouTube becomes the classroom

If coaches are turning to YouTube as their main source of learning, something has gone badly wrong.

YouTube should be:

• a supplement

• a reference

• a way to spark ideas

Not the system.

Because if it is, then what exactly is the formal system providing?

And it is not solved by a one-off conference.

We know how those days go.

You sit.
You listen.
You take notes.

And then you go back to training and try to work out what actually translates.

Too often, very little.

That is not innovation.

That is coaches filling a gap.

This is not just about coaches

It is worth saying this.

Coaches are not the only group who could say they feel this gap.

Volunteers, administrators and parents all sit inside the system in similar ways.

They are essential.

They often operate without consistent, visible support structures.

That is not unique to coaching.

But coaching is different

Coaching is one of the few areas the system actively regulates.

It is mandated.

Licences are required.
CPD is required.
Clubs are assessed against it.

So while others sit within the system, coaching is enforced by it.

And when something is required at that level, it should be visible as a priority in its own right.

When something is mandated, it should not be assumed.

It should be designed for.

We keep asking the wrong question

The system asks:

Are you qualified?
Are you compliant?
Have you met the requirement?

But the question that is rarely asked is:

What do you actually need to coach better?

Not:
what do you need to complete

But:
what do you need to improve

They are not the same thing.

Qualified is not developed

We are good at qualifying coaches.

We are not as consistent at developing them.

Once the course is done, the system largely steps away.

No consistent mentoring.
No visible, ongoing structure.
No regular engagement that builds coaching over time.

The expectation remains.

The support fades.

The experience we are not using

There is another part of this that sits quietly in the background.

We have experienced coaches in Tasmania.

Not just qualified.

Experienced.

Decades in the game.
Different environments.
Different countries.
Different levels.

Coaches who have:

• adapted over time

• studied the game deeply

• continued to evolve

And yet, much of that knowledge sits on the sidelines once those coaches step away from formal roles.

Take someone like Ken. Yes, I am biased but I am astounded by his football knowledge.

Fifty years in coaching.
Multiple countries.
Titles across levels.
Still watching.
Still analysing opposition.
Still doing the work.

That knowledge does not disappear.

But it does get left unused.

Why are we not using it?

Not as a one-off.

Not as a guest appearance.

But as part of a structured approach to developing coaches.

Because if we are serious about development, experience matters.

What coaches are actually asking for

I asked Ken a simple question.

What would actually help?

The answer was not complicated.

Monthly workshops.
North and south.
On grass.

• practical sessions

• real coaching environments

• quality guest speakers

• space to watch, question and discuss

Not once a year.

Not online.

Regular.

Consistent.

Useful.

The ideas are not hard to find.

The question is whether anyone is asking.

Connection matters

There was another moment in that conversation that stayed with me.

We had to stop and think about who the National Technical Director actually is.

That is not a criticism of a person.

It is a reflection of connection.

Because in years gone by, there was a sense that the national game came to Tasmania.

There was visibility.
There was presence.

That feels less obvious now.

Who is actually doing the work?

If coaches are relying on YouTube, private networks and their own connections to develop, then the question becomes unavoidable.

If the system is responsible for coach development, who is actually doing that work once coaches are qualified?

Because from the outside, it increasingly looks like the coaches themselves.

The consequence

When development becomes self-directed and disconnected, the standard does not lift evenly.

It fragments.

Some coaches improve.

Some stand still.

Some leave.

And the players experience all of it.

The Tasmanian reality

In Tasmania, you can see it.

The difference between:

• a supported coach

• and an unsupported one

shows up quickly.

In session quality.
In player engagement.
In development over time.

The margins are small here.

The gaps show faster.

What this should look like

If we are serious about coaching, development has to look like coaching itself.

Regular.
Practical.
On grass.
Observed.
Challenged.

Not once a year.
Not in a lecture room.
Not something you tick off.

But something that exists week to week.

This is not new

None of this is new.

The structure is there.
The expectations are clear.
The feedback is consistent.

And now the voices are public.

The question

If we are mandating coach development, who is actually delivering it in a way that coaches can use?

Final line

We don’t have a knowledge problem.

We have a follow-through problem.