Skip to content

The Feedback Myth: What Tortorella and Wooden Get Right …and Why the Car Ride Home Might Be Undoing It

By Enio Sacilotto

John Tortorella is known for being a hard-nosed, old-school coach. However, in this clip, we see a different side of Tortorella that we might not expect. He demonstrates the importance of effective feedback.

There is a myth that positive feedback equates to being a nice coach, while constructive feedback means being direct and harsh. Tortorella shatters this myth by being both positive and specific in his feedback.

The key for a coach in giving feedback is to provide players with clear information. Coaches need to avoid giving generic feedback. For example, saying, “Good job out there,” or giving vague criticism like, “You need to do better,” lacks the necessary detail. In both cases, the feedback fails to offer useful information.

Athletes who want to improve in their sport seek specific feedback from their coaches. They want to understand exactly what they are doing well and where they need to improve. This requires feedback that they can actively process.

Research psychologists Roland Tharp and Ron Gallimore conducted a famous study on renowned UCLA basketball coach John Wooden. They observed him throughout a season and found that the bulk of his feedback was purely informational, devoid of emotional judgments. He would point out a mistake and then deliver clear, concise instructions that were actionable within a brief four-second timeframe. This allowed the athlete to apply the feedback immediately. Wooden’s corrections and instructions typically lasted only 10 to 15 seconds, and he rarely used generic praise like, “Good job.” Furthermore, because his feedback was short and specific, he was able to deliver it frequently, enabling athletes to adjust their performance easily.

Many coaching courses and books suggest using the “sandwich approach” for giving feedback, which involves offering a compliment, followed by criticism, and concluding with another compliment. However, there is a more effective way, as evidenced by research from Parkes in the Journal of Behavioural Studies in Business, which indicates that combining praise and criticism can lead recipients to distrust the praise. They may begin to anticipate the criticism, which diminishes the impact of positive feedback. Consequently, the athlete becomes unclear about what actually happened in the play.

Coaches should separate praise and criticism, addressing them at different times. Constructive criticism should be given when necessary, as John Wooden did, while specific praise should be reserved for moments when it is truly deserved. For instance, John Tortorella exemplifies this approach with comments like, “Great job protecting the puck” and “It’s been a little bit of a battle with the puck for you tonight; keep it simple and get it deep, come on.”

Athletes need concrete information they can act upon. Telling a player, “Great shift,” offers no actionable insight. Instead, coaches should include precise details about what the athlete did well or what they need to improve. For example, in defence, feedback might be, “You need to be more patient, stay between the two men, keep your stick on the ice, and block the passing lane.”

John Wooden’s Model in Action:

Consider the scenario of winning a loose puck in a game or during a practice battle drill.

Avoid: “You are soft; you need to want the puck more!”

The Wooden Approach:

Wooden Scold: “You reached with your stick and didn’t move your feet.”

Wooden model: “Move your feet, get the inside lane, drive your hips into his hands, and pick up the loose puck.”

Coaches often use vague terms like “toughness” and “play with heart” to describe winning battles. In this example, the Wooden model replaces these vague comments with specific, actionable instructions that players can use as tools to win the loose puck.

The Car Ride Home:

Parents often lack the technical insight that coaches possess and may unintentionally provide generic feedback. This can lead to a disconnect. Katherine Tamminen from the University of Toronto interviewed 27 athletes and their parents in 2017. One notable quote from an athlete encapsulated the sentiment: “I kinda wish that my parents, after a not-so-good game, would be a little more supportive because, at the end of the day, they are my parents and should support me no matter what.”

The bottom line of Tamminen’s findings is that young athletes want to hear from their coaches about what to correct and what technical feedback is necessary. They prefer their parents provide unconditional support instead. When parents overstep and attempt to take on the coach’s role, young athletes may feel frustrated and resentful of their comments, distracting them from reflecting on their performance in the game. Therefore, the message to all parents is clear: let the coaches coach and focus on supporting your athlete.

Other Considerations for Coaches When Giving Feedback:

  1. Use feedback to mirror exactly what you want from the athlete. Avoid the “praise trap.”
  2. Time your feedback appropriately. Skill corrections should take place in the moment, while team corrections and attitude issues can be addressed post-game.
  3. Do not dwell on mistakes. Encourage athletes to view mistakes as stepping stones to learning. If an athlete has a bad shift and makes a significant mistake, read the situation; they usually know they messed up. Sometimes, it’s best to give them space. If feedback is necessary, consider giving them a moment to gather themselves before addressing the issue.
  4. Use feedback as information, not as judgment. Remember, you’re here now, and this is what we’re working towards. Feedback should not be a verdict on a player’s worth.
  5. The specificity test – use this checklist: 1. Does the feedback address specific behaviour? Is it actionable? Does it include instructions on what to try in the next shift or repetition? Can the player apply this feedback?

Even at the NHL level, known for having the least “warm and fuzzy” coach in the league, Tortorella’s feedback mechanism focuses on precision rather than toughness or gentleness.

Sources :

Tamminen, K. A., Poucher, Z. A., & Povilaitis, V. (2017). The car ride home: An interpretive examination of parent-athlete sport conversations. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 6(4), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000093

Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (2004). What a coach can teach a teacher, 1975–2004: Reflections and reanalysis of John Wooden’s teaching practices. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 119–137.

Von Bergen, C. W., Bressler, M. S., & Campbell, K. (2014). The sandwich feedback method: Not very tasty. Journal of Behavioural Studies in Business, 7(9), 1–13.

Enio Sacilotto is the President of International Hockey Camps and runs the Mental Edge High-Performance Training. Enio has 44 years of coaching experience (professional hockey in Europe and the Victoria Royals (WHL)). Currently, he coaches at the Burnaby Winter Club Hockey Academy, is the coach of the Serbian U18 men’s National hockey team, and is the Head Coach with the Burnaby Steelers. If you have questions or are interested in his services, contact Enio at enio@coachenio.com or call 604-255-4747. Website: www.coachenio.com.