I do agree with the philosophy behind what is said in this article. There's being on your feet, involved in the game, calling encouragement and support, and making obviously NEEDED adjustments, and then there's "micromanaging." Players do need to be given a chance to demonstrate their mastery of what they have learned through their experience without being told exactly what to do with the ball every time they touch it, and the "screaming" coach isn't an image most people want to be associated with. At the same time, our players are still under development, and I think, as Coach Aven also points out, that reinforcement at the right time (and I'll add, in the right manner--encouraging rather than scolding) can be very effective; it allows players to get helpful feedback in the moment, not later when dozens of other things have occurred in the interim that cloud their memory of what they were and should have been doing. A halftime comment of "You remember in the 8th minute, when you cut to the outside and then passed into pressure instead of using your open space?" is likely to just get a blank look, while immediate reinforcement is more likely to register. I also think it's good to reinforce good decisions on the field, even if they don't always achieve the desired results; younger and more inexperienced players, in particular, can sometimes get the idea they're doing the "wrong" thing if it doesn't result in a goal, and a quick pat on the back can enourage them to keep trying until they succeed.
The amount of effective involvement, of course, depends on the developmental stage of the team. Older, more experienced players may appreciate the chance to be more independent and correct their own mistakes as the game progresses, while less confident players may get more easily frustrated without the support of someone to help them make needed adjustments. 45 minutes is a long time for a team to realize something is not working without the person they've come to count on for training to help them "fix it."
Ultimately, I think it's up to the coach to be able to "read" his or her team and adjust coaching tactics accordingly to provide as much or as little instruction as is needed to help the team experience a sense of success. A blanket statement of "coach" or "don't coach" during a match doesn't take into account the thousands of variables that come into play; it's a head coach's job to recognize those variables within his team and act accordingly. One uniform coaching style will not work for every coach, every team, and every player, any more than one uniform teaching style will work for every teacher, every class, and every student. Even so, I still agree with the concept that in any case, the coach should play the role of support, encouragement, and positive adjustment during a match--not that of controller. Reinforce what they do right, help them learn from what they do wrong, but in the end, yes, it is "their" game...it is the players, not the coach, who need to be counted as successful when all is said and done.
