The Great Coach Debate: Discipline or Player

In sports, there are often two ends of the coaching stick. One is a player-coach, and the other is a disciplinarian. Both styles of coaching have their ups and downs. The player-coach is the more lenient coach whereas the disciplinarian coach identifies as more of the traditional coach, very loyal to rules and respect. Is there possibly a balance between the two? Should teams just stick with the original, or should they give this new style, the player-coach, a chance to develop? Will teams continue to crumble at the feet of their coaches?
Many teams, even those in the professional leagues, have converted to this player-coach style. Some coaches seem to think it gives everyone a chance to feel equal; however, many question the respect that is being reciprocated or if there is a thing of respect. Typically, these player-coaches try to be the team’s friend which is okay until it comes down to a play that will determine the games outcome. I agree that establishing a relationship with your team is essential, but I also agree that establishing respect, authority, and routine is as essential. I am not saying that this style of coaching will fail, but I am saying that without players who are self-disciplined enough to accept this type of leeway, it will be harder to succeed.
On the other hand, the disciplinarian is strictly all about discipline, respect, and execution/military. This style of coaching is fading away year after year. Some notable disciplinary coaches are Nick Saban (Alabama), Bill Belichick (Patriots), Mike Tomlin (Steelers), Deion Sanders (Jackson State), Kirby Smart (Georgia), Greg Popovich (San Antonio Spurs), and Coach K (Duke). Between all these coaches, the coaching style is based on work ethic, discipline, and execution. Their tactics to many are viewed as extreme, but that is because it is tough love. They also are able to build connections with hundreds of players, and their success has grown outside of their sport. If you look at these coaches’ resumes, you will find championships, Hall of Famers, respect amongst their peers, and their players will have a lot to say about how they impact their lives. I get that it feels good not to get hollered at or to have punishments for messing up, but it also makes you tougher mentally.
The overall question is who has better success the disciplinarian or the player-coach? Would the competitiveness ramp up more if more discipline was installed? Is the discipline hurting the players in the long term? The answer is up to you, but all I can say is the numbers do not lie. Disciplinarian coaches win and raise amazing ball players and men. My vote is disciplinarian because without discipline you can’t execute, can’t find the will to come back and fight, or be successful in the real world. Which style is better; that’s the million-dollar question.