Matt Somers asked:

A wise man once said that apart from the spelling there is no difference between counselling and coaching. There’s a shade of truth in this but for the sake of the clarity I’m trying to achieve in this piece I am going to illustrate the differences such as they are. In fairness, it’s relatively easy for me to do this as I am concentrating on coaching that takes place at work; usually delivered by a line manager. We’ll see later on when we come to look at the different types and branches of coaching activity that the lines of distinction do become far more blurred.

As with mentoring, the skills of the coach and the counsellor are the same. They each listen attentively, ask probing questions and offer non-judgemental observations in the spirit of helping their ‘clients’ find their own answers. I don’t think either a coach or a counsellor would go down the “You should…”, “You must…” route. The difference does not lie in the skill set; it has much more to do with the content of the conversation and the desired result.

Counsellors are concerned with identifying root causes. They will guide us on a journey through our history to identify critical incidents and problems that have left a mark and cause us problems still. With such issues identified, the work of the counsellor develops into one of exploring ways of dealing with those problems and making changes. We can easily see that relationship counsellors, substance abuse counsellors, bereavement counsellors, etc. focus on dealing with what’s happened.

Coaches are concerned with moving forward. Coaches help the people whom they coach to identify a desired set of circumstances, to examine how that contrasts with current circumstances and then to plan out a series of steps to get from one point to the other. The coach starts from the here and now and, although aware that situations in the past can cause problems today, is more focused on creating mobility and momentum and on getting people started. Coaches focus on dealing with what must happen next.

Picture the scene: you’re three-nil down at half time. The team counsellor would examine the mistakes of the first half, but the team coach would set out the tactics for the second. Both are useful, and as ever are often combined. As always, the needs of the people we’re helping must override any semantic debate around the differences.

However, getting the positioning right is crucial. I’ve seen many a coaching programme get off to a shaky start because staff perceived that they were going to be counselled and were obviously uneasy about how well their managers were qualified to offer this kind of help and whether it was appropriate to talk about potentially emotive personal issues in a work context. Of course there may be a time for counselling at work, and what starts out as a straightforward coaching session may move in that direction. With this in mind it is worth checking out your organization’s welfare and access to counselling policy if you have the slightest suspicion that a coaching approach may uncover a deep seated issue and thus need a professional intervention.

The statements below are an attempt to put these comparisons in simple terms

Managing “Do this.”

Instructing “Here’s how to do this.”

Training “Have a go at doing this.”

Mentoring “My advice would be to….”

Counselling “What feelings does this invoke?”

Coaching “How do you think you could…?”

I wonder if in the end these differences are purely academic and of more interest to people like me who muse on these things, than to people like you who have the harder task of getting people to be the best they can at work.

Having said that, an appreciation of the similarities and differences is useful when it comes to positioning coaching in your team and in your organization. You may well find that if your team is unclear about what coaching involves and have confused it with other things, then they may not engage as fully as you’d wish.

David Horne asked:


There are many coaching styles out there which is what makes our game of tennis so unique. All you have to do is see the various beliefs and methods of coaches and you often find that the way they coach is a direct result of the way that they were taught.

The modern game of tennis has seen the introduction of the “Big” forehand which is used by players such as Roddick, Williams, Sharapova and Federer to intimidate their opponents and be able to crunch winners from all over the court.

The forehand today is often taught with the player having a slight bend at the elbow and allowing the racket to loop around completing a circle before making contact with the ball. The traditional forehand was where the player turn side on to the ball, move the racket straight back behind them with arm extended between the hip and the knee. The closed stance prevailed during this swing.

The Negative aspect with this type of swing from a biomechanical perspective is that the athletes does not generate the fluid swing involved with a continuous swing nor do they allow the elbow to play a major role in the generation of racket head speed. When you take the racket straight back you are indeed able to generate better racket preparation, however, you inhibit your momentum by having the racket complete a stop or pause at the “turn around” point of the back swing. The continuous loop swing prevents this from happening.

I have often found many younger players developing the bad habit of using too much “wrist” during their loop on their backswing which ultimately leads to poor racket preparation and a slapping of the ball due to the player having to rush through the racket to meet the ball out in front.

With these players I have found that starting off with the straight racket back swing eliminates this problem and i then progress to the loop once they have taken the wrist out of their swing.

As with most tennis theories, we should follow the basics but also be willing to make adjustments for individuals using various techniques to correct their own bad habits.

The loop swing allows the player to maintain a continuous motion and allowing this racket head speed to continue as the racket drops below the ball just prior to impact thus generating the “brushing motion behind the ball” leading to topspin.

In summary, we should try to teach the players a loop swing but may need to follow different stages of progression with those players who show poor technique on their back swing. Teaching early racket preparation is the key to developing a great forehand and not waiting until the ball has bounced before we start our backswing. The power and spins used in today’s game will get you in trouble and will cause problems with timing.

Federer is a great example of great forehand technique where as Roddick has his own unique style involving explosive power that is difficult to teach to younger players as they don’t have the footwork or intensity to hit that ball like Roddick at their age.

Remember that tennis is an individual sport and you must use your experience and skills to help players get to a point where they still have their own natural style while maintaining sound and correct technique. Trying to copy the exact patterns or swing of a professional goes against the natural given talents of each individual.

Tennis is constantly evolving due to racket technology, improved physical conditioning of the athletes and the invention by certain players of new grips and swings. Tennis has become a power based sport and as a result we need to teach the younger players the right way from the start so that they have the opportunity later on to develop a big forehand weapon.