“Son, that was shite.”
It was probably the best feedback I have ever received as a coach.
I had delivered a meeting, worked through the tactical detail and walked away thinking my job was done. The information had been presented clearly enough in my head, so I assumed the players now understood it. They did not.
Coaches spend a lot of time planning what happens on the pitch, but meetings are coaching as well. Pre-match meetings, half-time, huddles, hot reviews, video sessions and selection conversations all influence what players understand and how they feel.
They can also become a dump of information from coach to player. One coach speaks, another remembers something they want to add and then a third voice comes in to clarify the clarification. By the end, everyone has contributed except the players.
During my work with Singapore Rugby, we started looking more closely at how we used these moments. Could the meeting be shorter? Did every coach need to speak? Could the players explain the plan in their own words? What did the group need to hear now, and what could wait?
We also reviewed what actually happened rather than relying on how the meeting felt. In one comparison, coach instruction dropped from 17.5 minutes to 7.3. Questioning increased, positive feedback increased and the players led more of the discussion.
The numbers did not automatically mean it was a good meeting. They did, however, give us something concrete to discuss. We could compare what we intended to do with what actually happened.
A meeting is not successful because the slides looked good or the coach said everything they wanted to say. What did the players hear? What can they remember? What can they explain without us in the room?
Keep the main thing the main thing.