Interview scorecard template

E-sports Coach interview scorecard

Evaluate E-sports Coach candidates across 4 weighted areas: subject and technical command, how they actually teach, group management and safeguarding, and progress and communication. Subject and technical command leads at 30%, so probe game knowledge at a level above the players: meta, macro decision-making, and reading a scrim from replays. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
education coachingcoachingcompetitive gamingesportsteam performance
TL;DR
For subject and technical command, look for evidence the candidate game understanding clearly above their players, with macro and meta reasoning they can evidence from replays. For how they actually teach, look for evidence the candidate runs reviews that change specific player habits, with a named example of a fix that stuck. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Subject and technical command

30% weight

Probe game knowledge at a level above the players: meta, macro decision-making, and reading a scrim from replays.

Evidence to listen for

  • Knows the material or discipline well beyond the level they teach
  • Holds the qualifications, licences, or certifications required, and they are current
  • Can answer an unexpected question honestly rather than bluffing
  • Keeps learning in their own field

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Knowledge barely ahead of the learners; bluffs when asked something unexpected.

2
Needs Improvement

Adequate on the syllabus only; gaps show under questioning.

3
Satisfactory

Solid command of the material for the level taught.

4
Very Good

Depth well beyond the taught level; comfortable being asked anything.

5
Excellent

Game understanding clearly above their players, with macro and meta reasoning they can evidence from replays.

02
Evaluation factor

How they actually teach

30% weight

Test how they turn a review into a player actually changing a habit next match.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes how they teach a specific thing, not their philosophy of teaching
  • Adapts when the first explanation does not land
  • Checks understanding rather than assuming it
  • Differentiates for varying ability within one group

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Only philosophy, no method; one explanation and no plan B.

2
Needs Improvement

Delivers content but cannot adapt when learners are lost.

3
Satisfactory

Sound instruction; differentiation is limited.

4
Very Good

Multiple routes to the same concept, with real checks for understanding.

5
Excellent

Runs reviews that change specific player habits, with a named example of a fix that stuck.

03
Evaluation factor

Group management and safeguarding

25% weight

Assess how they manage a roster falling apart mid-split and a player who has stopped listening.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has a concrete approach to a disruptive individual and a whole group losing focus
  • Knows the safeguarding or duty-of-care obligations for this age group and setting
  • Escalates a concern through the right channel
  • Sets boundaries without becoming punitive

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No behaviour strategy; unaware of safeguarding obligations.

2
Needs Improvement

Struggles with disruption; vague on duty of care.

3
Satisfactory

Manages a normal group; less confident with serious disruption.

4
Very Good

Confident group management with clear safeguarding awareness.

5
Excellent

Manages roster conflict and disengagement directly, keeping the team functional through a losing stretch.

04
Evaluation factor

Progress and communication

15% weight

Judge whether they track performance properly and can tell a player honestly that they are being benched.

Evidence to listen for

  • Measures whether learners actually improved, not just attended
  • Gives feedback that changes what someone does next
  • Communicates with parents, clients, or managers about difficult progress honestly
  • Records progress usefully

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No sense of whether anyone improved.

2
Needs Improvement

Tracks attendance rather than progress; avoids hard conversations.

3
Satisfactory

Monitors progress; feedback is general.

4
Very Good

Measures progress concretely and handles difficult conversations well.

5
Excellent

Tracks performance with real data and delivers hard roster decisions honestly and early.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a E-sports Coach

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    What's your approach to developing strategies for different game titles, and which title are you strongest in right now?

  2. 02

    Describe your experience analyzing game data, then walk us through one replay you reviewed and the call you flagged.

  3. 03

    What tools or software do you actually use for game analysis and team management?

  4. 04

    How do you keep up with patches, roster moves and meta shifts across the scene?

  5. 05

    Can you give an example of a training session you ran that clearly worked?

See the complete E-sports Coach question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards