At a conference organised by IBM a few years ago on talent management, Daniel Costantini, the former 'coach' of the French handball team, pointed out a linguistic curiosity. He was surprised that the media and the general public had often referred to him during his career as the 'coach' of the French handball team, rather than as its 'trainer'.
I take his astonishment on board. Why is the term "coach" used to describe the position held by Didier Deschamps (football) or Guillaume Gille (handball)?
The act of selection is certainly an essential component of their function. Taking on the best players is both a key to success and a complicated challenge, as there are so many criteria to take into account: experience, technical and physical qualities, current form, personality, motivation, relationships with the staff and other athletes, etc.
However, the role of the recruiter is only one aspect of a much more complex function. To bring a group to high performance, it is not enough to select players well. You also have to set goals, assign tasks, organise your staff, encourage players, give feedback, congratulate and coach.
Why are all these activities, which are just as noble and important to sporting success as the mere act of selection, obscured by everyday language?
The first explanation is that these post-selection activities are less visible. Whereas the act of selection is by definition public and often highly publicised, other management activities are mostly carried out in the privacy of the group, or even in the inter-individual relationship with each member of the staff and the team.
I see a second explanation: the act of selection is spectacular. There are the chosen ones and the disappointed ones. It can create exceptional destinies, or on the contrary shatter dreams and careers. It can generate dissension and bitterness. In other words, the act of selection has the makings of a news story. Much more so than congratulating a player or conducting a pre-match briefing.
Finally, the use of the term 'coach' is also a way of emphasising the difference with the role of the club coach. For the club coach, the question of squad formation only arises once or twice a year, at the mercato. Moreover, the club coach lives almost continuously with the players and staff, whereas the coach lives with his group only intermittently. The ratio of 'selection' to 'other management activities' is therefore higher for the national coach than for the club coach, which is implicitly highlighted in the common language by referring to the national coach as 'coach'.
