Coaches Corner

Drafts, salary caps and financial equalisation are all attempts to keep sporting competitions artificially even. They basically break every rule/law of free movement, free market, etc, so lets assume everything is on the table. One key premise that limits the effectiveness of these artificial systems the assumption that there are roughly as many good players/etc as there are teams. eg: if there are 18 teams, then there are 18 'match winners' in the league, so drafting and salary caps will ensure that each of them will go to a different club. But this is not the case. There is more to a successful club. I contend the following are also key factors in the success of a club, and therefore are things an 'equal' competition would have each club being strong in: the quality of coaching the quality of medical staff the quality of the recruiting the quality of management within the club (Staff) the quality of leadership within the club (Board) I propose that,

Skill Development is complex, and I've written about it before  here  and  here  (and  here  and probably elsewhere). My general thoughts are that long term development is often compromised for short term gain, and that our definition of Skill Development is often too narrow. But what if we started thinking about development from the end point rather than the start. There is one part of skill development that happens towards the end of the process, that we often forget about. That is: changing technique that is limiting. Changing things is much harder than learning them in the first place, so having to stop and change something takes a significant amount of time. Unfortunately for the athlete, this usually happens when they should be learning new and more difficult skills. Effectively, this athlete is standing still when everyone else is going forward. I'm not saying you should do things slowly, in High Performance you need to get there as fast as possible, but you also

Systematic development is important. Why? Because, assuming it is done well, it increases your chances of developing successful athletes. By providing good fundamentals in a range of different areas, the athletes capable of reaching the highest level will have as few limitations as possible. Sometimes our systematic development gets distracted by outliers. By the 'special cases'. We think - aaah - she did that when she was younger therefore that is what everyone should do. But that is not the case. Athletes like Lionel Messi are outliers. They are freaks. The system needs to let them through and not get in the way. But at the same time, we need to make sure they don't get in our way. There are 2 or 3 football players the calibre of Messi in the world. Systematic development was a key part of the rest of the elite football players in the world. Systems need to cater for the overwhelming majority of athletes. Don't get in the way of the outliers, but also, don

When I was young, passionate and idealistic, I was coaching a develop squad and set out a periodised plan. Everything made sense. Everything fit together. It was an impressive document, if I do say so myself. When I was old, pragmatic and wise (?), I was coaching the same development squad (different athletes by now!). I had a loose periodised plan (mainly for load management), but mostly planned based on skill progressions. The difference between the two is that, with skill progressions you move on once you have achieved the level of competence you were striving for, but with a periodised plan you move on when you have scheduled to do the next thing. ( Photo Credit )

There are more and more experts involved in High Performance sport: coach scientist - specialist experts Medical staff manager Traditionally the roles are allocated as follows: coach - knows about everything - manages everything scientist works in consultation with coaches medical staff work in consultation with the coaches manger does all the non technical work - dealing with sponsors, other organisations, finances, etc But what if the coach doesn't have this skill set? Who should be in charge then? ( Photo Credit )

When in competition, don't play above yourself. Just be at your best. Its not just about process though, nor is it just about outcome. The outcome has to be PART of the process. Your process is defined by the outcome you are striving for - whether you like it or not. If you are striving to be the best in the world, then your process will be, essentially, striving for perfection, for to think you will be the best without reaching your own potential is both arrogant and unlikely. But if all you are trying to do is to be better than someone else, then it is them who define what your process is, not you. Very often teams and athletes cite their best performances against the best in the world, where they lose admirably. Of course - this is because there is absolutely no pressure to win and so there is no fear of under-performing. Everything is easy because there is nothing to lose. They are joyful to play in because there is no pressure. Once in a very long while you actually wi

Antoine de Saint Exupéry, wrote "It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove." Rather than constantly look for new ideas - spend time working out what you can do better. What less you can do? What you can do more efficiently? And spend time on that. Rather than be the coach who works the most, always try to be the coach who works the least. This will make you the most efficient. ( Photo Credit )

There are people who believe data will provide all the answers, but what they often fail to take into account is the data collected purely by expert observation. For example, a coach who works with a team every day for a year will have collected millions upon millions of data points through observation.  Does this present a perfect picture? Of course not, but neither does pure data analysis in isolation.  However the combination of the two provides greater context. One of my biggest frustrations is the 'Everest' approach to statistics.  That is, coaches who look at statistics just because they are there. For example, 'Traditional' volleyball passing stats use as 3-0 scale, representing how many hitters a setter can set based on the quality of the pass.  (It is interesting how this obviously subjective statistic has become viewed as objective because you can make averages and percentages from it because it is number based!) One flaw is, as setters become better

Doing things takes time. I had a friend who did very well at university studying 80% of the course. He looked at previous exams and worked out what was most likely to be in the next exam. A bit part of the reason he did this is because he was working part time and had limited time, so he worked out the odds to become successful within the limitations he had. Leaving no stone unturned is all very well, but if there are 100 stones, each takes 1 second to turn, and you have to win in 60 seconds, that is not an option. You have to carefully calculate which ones are most likely to give you success, then do your best with them. ( Photo Credit )