I've been thinking a lot about coaches and their role in relation to athletes (maybe the saturation of Olympics coverage has seeped into my head). Coaching in the broader sense (life coaching, performance coaching, etc) is an enabling activity, intended to help an individual meet a goal. The coach is a support, a sounding board, a motivator, someone to provide accountability, but they are subservient to the goal of the individual. This doesn't seem to always be true in sports and athletics.
Coaches (I'm primarily talking about head coaches, here) for competitive team sports (football, basketball, etc) function much more as active leaders. They are invested in the growth of the players, but only as it relates to the team excelling/winning. They are, in a sense, playing a strategy game against the other coach with their players as game pieces or units.
In baseball, the head coach is called the manager, which is more accurate. Managers are like the players of a "turn-based tactical role-playing game" to borrow a description from Brainy Gamer; they are invested in their players as units that can be deployed strategically towards winning the game. This is the same (to varying degrees) in football, basketball, etc. Coaching for the growth of an individual player may be part of their job (and, in fact, as you go down the coaching staff hierarchy to the position coaches, player growth becomes a larger and more primary coaching goal), but it’s not the driving force behind the head coach's or manager's actions.
In contrast, coaches in individual sports (tennis, gymnastics, boxing, etc) are enablers of the athlete, concerned only with the growth and improvement of the athlete. They are not playing a game themselves. Atul Gawande even notes that "in professional tennis, golf, and skating, the athlete hires and fires the coach." They may think through strategic issues surrounding a given match, but the ultimate control of performance and execution lies with the athlete. They are the ones playing the game.
This gets interesting when looking at videogames. A cursory Googling for "eSports coaching" turns up a pittance of obvious resources, but searching for "StarCraft coach" returns a host of options, such as StarCraft Lesson. I am curious to explore these offerings to see if these tend toward experienced players seeking to impart their wisdom or expert coaches looking to guide others to greater success.
Then, there are efforts to embed the coach in the game. We have FPS Trainer (by Play2Improve) which seeks to programmatically embody coaching smarts directly into a game, but is that really aimed at peak performance or is it more of a tutorial, aimed at getting newbs up to speed? Not that either one is right or wrong, but they could be seen as very different coaching functions.
Then you have games that look a little more like baseball, in the sense that there are different types of players (just as the manager and the players on the baseball team are playing two "different" games). Savage and Savage 2 by S2 Games are prime examples; they even call out the two types: action players and commanders. Commanders (like head coaches) are playing an RTS, using units made up of action players, who are playing in an FPS mode. In other games, this distinction isn't as clear (or may even be emergent), but I believe it happens. I wonder how much coaching for individual improvement happens in the Savage player community...
In conclusion, it seems there are some areas in videogames ripe for tools and supports that enable coaching of both varieties. Coach as manager/leader is more readily supported by existing structures (though even those could be enhanced). However, coach as growth enabler seems like a role that could be amplified. In Halo multiplayer, the match review tools allow the possibility for real coaching to take place, but are there structures that could take that further? Or is it already there, and I'm just missing it?