'Secret sauce' for the teacher coach

It's common for coaches and players to think that the effective elite coach has 'secret sauce' in their coaching that lower level coaches don't. But most research into effective coaches reveals that the best coaches do basic things that all coaches do - but the best coaches do them better.

So what is the 'secret sauce'? First, international coaches are working with the very best with the goal of making them even better. In other words, those players have to learn. In the case of team sports, players have a greater chance of learning if you follow seven learning rules - which aren't so secret!

1. Let players learn by doing, not from you talking
   • reduce your talk time and get them going – it increases player time on task
   • with familiar drills set it going with two or three “cue “words
2. Repetition leads to learning
   • BUT, only perfect practice makes perfect (and permanent)
   • SO make sure you provide enough “goes” in each drill for learning to happen
3. Making mistakes is part of getting it right
   • don’t critique individual repetitions; let the drill run and make comments after everyone has had a chance to try or to work it out
4. Don’t provide all the information
   • hold some back so players have think
   • some coaches like to add an element of confusion to each drill to force players to think – just like a game
5. Take players through the base stages of skill experience:
   • uncontested walk through
   • uncontested at around 50% (applies to individual skills and team combinations)
   • uncontested at 80%-90%
   • partially (or soft defense) – allow the skill to succeed
   • intermediate defense where pressure is now applied (offensive or defensive) again allowing the skill to succeed
   • fully opposed, where the player must execute the skill in a decision-making mode (just like a game).
6. All players should expect to be spoken to personally in every session. Technical correction or refinement is core business for coaches.
7. Rules 1-6 work in harmony, they overlap and apply at all times, so: “Apply each rule without breaking any of rules 1-5.

Deterrence, doping and right actions in sport

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has responsibility for the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code). New Zealand’s own Drug Free Sport New Zealand is a government agency with responsibility (in law) for implementing the Code. If you’ve never seen the Sports Anti-Doping Act, you can find it here. And if you have never thought about Drug Free Sport, visit its website here.

All coaches should have some awareness of our anti-doping policy. But the coaching movement would be better all round, if coaches had a sound grasp of what deterrence means. In our everyday lives, we avoid acting criminally because we have all agreed that’s better for society and therefore ourselves. We are so committed to that idea, we agree to the government police force (New Zealand Police) to deal with those who break the law – policing by consent.  The prevention of doping in sport is based on a form of deterrence theory: the threat of sanctions deters prohibited behaviour. We all know that deterrents mostly fail to deter serious criminal actions. Performance enhancing drugs are mostly sourced through criminal networks. So the supply-side isn’t too interested in deterrence – they are not deterred. Why not?

Well, criminology researchers point out that deterrents are effective with certain types of offences or offenders. New Zealand’s anti-doping law and the highly intrusive nature of providing urine samples was put in place (in 1994) with the support of New Zealand’s elite athletes. So as a group, those athletes not only reject the rule breaking of dopers but agree that the law should empower government to deal with them, and in a robust way. Unfortunately, deterrence theory –the greater the likelihood of detection and severity of consequences, the deterrent effect increase – is largely incorrect. It does appear that non-legal sanctions have the greatest deterrent effect e.g. disapproval of peers, family and fans, loss of income and/or sponsorships.

So with this powerful set of forces as a backdrop, how many coaches spend time with their athletes impressing on them the importance of adhering to right behaviour – “right” meaning what we agree about how something should be done or how people should behave. All sports have rule books and most make a point about the importance of moral behaviour i.e. fair play. Most coaches address the technical side of rule breaking ‘thou shalt not double dribble, or put your foot on the line or touch the net’. And we practice assiduously to give our athletes the capability to execute those skills.

It is not clear to me that coaches, as a rule, place an emphasis on making right or moral choices in the game, shirt pulling, pushing down on the tackled player’s head as you the tackler get up,  pretending to have been pushed out of a lineout, and so on. There’s wider point here. Do we coach athletes to go to the edge of the rules envelope to gain an advantage, or do we coach them to use the rules to enable the fullest execution of their game skills? If the technical rules of the game do not act as a strong deterrent to play within them, then it’s not such a big step to take, what cyclist Tyler Hamilton referred to, that first little red pill (watch a short clip of Hamilton here).

There’s some emerging research on this subject. Early findings suggest that coaches see deterrents as less credible than athletes.  Other research indicates that athletes are interested in making moral decisions. They report that guilt and shame are in themselves a deterrent. But also that the culture of the team or training group and ‘critical incidents’ during an athletes career precipitated the decision to dope. I would argue that the stronger the moral code in training and regular competition, the stronger the deterrent effect of the Code.

(photo source: Tabata Times)

References:

Kirby, K., Moran, A. & Guerin, S. (2011). A qualitative analysis of the experiences of elite athletes who have admitted to doping for performance enhancement. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics. 3(2), pp205-224.

Moston, S., Engleberg, T. & Skinner, J. Athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of deterrents to performance-enhancing drug use. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics. 7(4) 623-636.

The Pyramid of Success

The great UCLA basketball coach John Wooden once said that "Talent is God-given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful." Great words from a legend of coaching - and not just basketball coaching. Few, if any coaches, have bestrode the coaching landscape like Wooden. While 10 NCAA National Championships in 12 years is extraordinary and unrivalled, his dedication to making the young men he coached better people is how he will be remembered. The many quotes attributed to Wooden have little to do with basketball but everything to do with character -  "Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are."

I've met and worked with many coaches who quote Wooden and claim his influence. Meeting the standard he set, however, is more than just quoting his words. If you accept Wooden's coaching philosophy, you have to live and operate by it. Success and failure on the training floor has to be framed by the characteristics Wooden saw as all important. His arguments have merit in a scientific view of performance. Writing training programmes and delivering coaching scientifically is not particularly difficult. We know a great deal about training volumes, intensity and recovery; about playing systems and game theory. The great coaches, however, go beyond the 'what to coach'. They have an ability to inspire athletes to go beyond what they thought possible; to commit years of their life to winning a world championships; to go where none have gone before. Invariably, their athletes talk of the personal qualities the coach displayed and lived, and how they [the athletes] became better people for knowing the coach.

The best of these coaches pay close attention to personal qualities and share their assessments with the athlete. After all, if the athlete doesn't know what the coach is looking for beyond technical skills, how can there be any improvement? Communicating those qualities must integral to training sessions and directly connected to competition performance.

Wooden's Pyramid of Success is well known. Each block of the pyramid speaks to what it takes to be successful in life by being a better person. No other coach has a legacy that goes beyond the sporting code he or she dominated. Wooden's wisdom can make us all better coaches. But before testing your delivery against the pyramid, the challenge is to ask yourself how much you are willing to change of yourself to meet Wooden's standards. In his words "It isn't what you do, but how you do it".

(photo sources: Goodreads.com, and J R Wooden)

Russian systems (2)

One of the early messages I heard from those trying to understand the Russian system of long-term athlete development was the suggestion it takes 18 years to develop and Olympic champion. Some in the West inferred that meant hot-housing talent. My sense of it was a little different. Upon close examination, that 18 year timeline included good quality physical education in schools. Programmes that ensured young children were taught basic movement skills - athletics and gymnastic movement. Today, we call that physical literacy.

From there, the Russian system did start to identify talent through a nationwide system that brought talent through youth, junior, squad programmes. From what I could deduce, there was no one fixed pathway but school sport was central. Even in the specialised sports schools, a full academic programme was followed as in a public school. Youth and junior international competition formed a pathway to a first Olympic Games. As many have observed, many medallists fail to win anything at their first Olympics. In the main, only on return attempts does medal success come. The best New Zealand example is canoeist Ian Fergusson. He went to the Montreal and Moscow Olympics before striking gold in Los Angeles and Seoul in 1984 and 1988.

All this demonstrates is the importance of playing the long game with athlete development. Our junior development coaches should be highly valued and highly skilled. They are central to a sport's athlete development system.They are setting the platform for success. And high quality school physical education is a central piece of the puzzle.

By age 10, children should be able to:

• combine movement patterns smoothly including the ability to run
• handle a variety of skills including simple gymnastic motion including rolling and balancing
• perform a basic throwing overarm and underarm throwing action
• throw and catch on the move
• strike a ball consistently with a bat or racquet
• kick and trap a kicked ball.

And BTW, no performance enhancing drugs required.👈

(photo source: World of Art)

Coaching basics (2)

Sitting at the airport on the way to coaching at Nationals, I'm reflecting on the old saying 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. A saying that guides a lot of my coaching. I'm a detail coach. I believe that paying attention to the right details makes a significant difference to individual and team performance. BTW, I coach teams. Apparently it's fashionable to call your team or team members the 'playing group'. I put that affectation in the same category as 'awesome'!😈😈. I do coach a weightlifting group though. Now that's off my chest, back to the detail.

Introducing or teaching new skills is often an opening for coaches to describe the action in some detail and then, piece by piece walk the player through the skill - some more talk and so on. I tend to use a couple of techniques that speed up early learning with novice, intermediate or elite players. First, have you got anyone on the team or in the gym who can actually demonstrate? I used to do some myself, but time has not been kind to the body!

My instruction to watching a demonstration is to 'watch the whole movement', 'look at it in a total way and imagine yourself doing it'. after the first set of demonstrations, I repeat the instruction with the additional '....and imagine how the kills feels'. Then a second demonstration. 'Now holding all that imagination in your head, make your first attempts'.

I have always been struck by the number of athletes who succeed almost immediately. these athletes may never need correction on some aspects of the skill and their needs will be different to those who don't. I've had this work in closed skill settings (such as the Olympic lifts) and in open skill basketball plays.

But we shouldn't really be surprised. Sport participants are generally more adept and motivated than the 'non-sporty'. The athlete is often more willing to try new things and may be already granted good kinaesthetic awareness courtesy of well-selected parents!

Coaching this way means you can pay attention to fewer things and tailor training sessions to the needs of individuals. And there's a opportunity to use established protocols for the early learners to help those who haven't quite got it.

In the absence of a good demonstrator, a second strategy. I have an online library of video clips that we play through mobile phones, again using the same approach 'watch and imagine yourself doing it'. As a basketball coach I was always conscious of the old saying that it's the most over coached and under taught game in the world. I want my coaching to have immediate impact on performance. Intensive coaching input risks crowding out the critical element for athletes, the need to feel the action, to have that 'aha moment' when the instruction leads to 'I heard what you said, but now I know what you meant'

This is first application of the 'don't fix it' principle by trusting motivated athletes to get right first. Then, I can start on the detail and it's different for each. This can become 'the way we do things round here'.

 (Photo source: the Psychological game)

Thoughts on Russian athlete development (Part 1)

Earlier in September 2017, along with China, Turkey and othere, Russia was suspended from international weightlifting for one year. The International Weightlifting Federation handed down this punishment to those countries each producing three or more Anti-Doping Rule Violations in the combined reanalysis of samples from the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games.

The domination of Russia and, from time to time, other former Soviet States, in world weightlifting has two dimensions. First, the question of whether or not a State was complicit in a sports doping programme. Answers to that will play out as it may, but a second dimension risks being lost from sight.

Russia had and still has a long-standing athlete development system now massively compromised by doping. However, it may be worth looking at the development side of the equation to see what we can learn in the positive. The disappointing issue for the banned nations is that without doping, they (in particular Russia) may have dominated the sport anyway. We and they will never know.

So thinking back to when the Cold War was at its peak, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) drew on all the member States and applied sport to the political tool box abroad. The western sports world took umbrage at a early talent ID, full-time State-sponsored training and a focus on sports where it was thought the USSR (and East Germany) would win. This, we said, was not what sport was about.

How times have changed. We and most other western countries support high performance programmes with taxpayer funds, wrap-around services, long-term planning and targeting sports. And why not? It works! The more important question for me, however, was the 'development' side of the Soviet system and its design. Drugs are not a development tool! 

The issue was not that the Russian scientific approach was especially hidden. They were readily available in publications like the Soviet Sports Review (in English) and in scientific journals. Our problem was not taking the time to look and translate. 

More on the Russian approach in my next post.

(photo source: Boston University, Guided History, The Soviet Union and the Olympics)

Coaching basics (1)

I was asked recently if I could summarise the basics of coaching. My first responses were, how long have you got to hear the summary and also who is asking the question? For example, if a general practitioner were to ask a surgeon colleague about the basics of neurosurgery, it’s possible the answer might be different to the one you give your taxi driver - unless the taxi driver is a doctor waiting for qualifications to be verified (yes that happens).

This post summarises two sets of ideas that guide my daily practise, whether I’m teaching the beginner or the elite athlete.

Teaching effectiveness: there’s a lot to this topic – but five things to remember:

1  athletes learn by doing, not from coaches talking – talk less and let them do more

2. athletes learn at different rates – so don’t expect everyone to progress in parallel

3.  explain what and why as concisely as possible [see (1)]

4.  keep the first instructions simple: some athletes will get it straight away

5.  athletes want to get it right – so correct errors.

Planning: to paraphrase the great American scientist (amongst his many other talents) Benjamin Franklin, “if we fail to prepare, we prepare to fail”. Planning doesn’t guarantee success, but with no plan: how will you know you got there?

Every training session:

• has a set of goals
• is progressive (starts simply and gets more complex) – even with advanced athletes
• builds in intensity
• reflects the way we want to compete
• involves the athlete – who gets to answer questions before I give my opinion.

To this last point. It’s easy to critique, and coaches do it a lot i.e. what’s wrong or what could be improved. When things go well, however, we are often quite non-specific –‘that’s a great performance’ or ‘good job’. But I’m confident athletes are keen to know what was good or went well. If we focus on process goals to guide performance – then we should reference them in feedback.

(photo source: quotesforsmile.com)