Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Scientist vs/and Coach

Expand Messages
  • Colduck, Craig (SPORT)
    Buoyed by the positive responses from my previous submission, I ll have a crack at this one too. Coaching the under 10 C soccer team and coaching the National
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 14, 1998
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Buoyed by the positive responses from my previous submission, I'll have a
      crack at this one too.

      Coaching the under 10 C soccer team and coaching the National representative
      side are two very different jobs and require two very different sets of
      abilities. If a coach at an elite level has a team of professionals around
      him (I will use the masculine for brevity, please forgive the patriarchal
      overtones) who provide him with professional expertise in sports science,
      sports medicine, nutrition, etc., then it is probably not necessary for him
      to have expertise in those areas himself and still perform the job of
      coaching. The implications of specific actions and strategies can be
      explained by the various experts. In this case, a rudimentary knowledge of
      all of these aspects may not be of any benefit other than in streamlining
      this explanation process. The results achieved may remain the same.
      If there were no access to these experts, then any extra knowledge the coach
      had in this area, may be of vital importance to his performance. At the
      elite level, many coaches can "get by" without having this knowledge because
      support networks may compensate for their lack of expertise in various
      areas. Similarly, that coaches opponents/peers in other countries may have
      a similar lack of expertise and they may all be doing the same things right
      or wrong so overall, they remain competitive.
      Does this make him a bad coach? For that particular situation at that time,
      he may have all of the skills required to achieve the best possible result,
      so how can he be called a bad coach? In a different situation, where
      scientific support is not so strong, his lack of expertise may cause a
      shortfall in the service provided to the athletes, so in this second
      situation, he may not be considered a good coach for that position.

      A second point is that performance in some sports is more dependent on
      conditioning than in others. In many team sports, players can compensate
      for a lack of conditioning by having superior vision, creativity, experience
      and awareness. Tactical superiority can outweigh physical conditioning as
      can superior skill. One visual cue misread by the goalkeeper during a
      penalty shootout of the World Cup can mean success or failure for the whole
      team. Some of the world's best cricket players are not exactly
      advertisements for elite sport conditioning but no one can do what they do
      better than they can.

      In other situations, a "critical mass" of talent in a squad or program might
      lift athletes to levels they may never have achieved training on the same
      program by themselves. Conditioning in sport is only one component of many
      as has already been mentioned several times. Applied sport scientists can
      have a major role in working with the coach to fine tune his training
      practices and basic researchers can have a major role in generating new
      knowledge. In some cases, it may be the coach who draws all of the
      resources together and in others it may be a manager or a politician who
      decides.

      As the pressure for results becomes greater on elite sport, as it inevitably
      will, coaches will have to be more skilled and more versatile to get to the
      top jobs. Coaches who can not show results are thrown out and new ones take
      their place. The ones who survive and prosper will be those who can make
      the most of the situation they find themselves in. Increasingly, they will
      need to understand and be able to utilise sport science. Whether they
      derive this knowledge and skill through formal educational programs as
      Samuele Marcora has suggested or whether they can learn the same skills
      first hand from being an athlete or through other experiences is really
      unimportant. The formal education option seems better for a large scale
      improvement in coaching standards.

      Craig Colduck
    • Hamish Ferguson
      Hi everyone I will take time to clarify my position. There are many good courses available in sports and coaching in New Zealand. I have seen many good things
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 16, 1998
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi everyone

        I will take time to clarify my position.

        There are many good courses available in sports and coaching in New Zealand.
        I have seen many good things come out of most. I have also seen some bad.
        Hence my opinion that this is not the key to coaching.

        I do make use of sport science specialists. To answer Steven Seilers
        question I expect them to have an education to doctoral level or at least to
        the general standard like a physiotherapist who has done four years.
        Although I will look at what advanced courses a physio has done.

        My main argument is that most countries have a education programme for
        coaches that is very sufficient to blend the required (yes required)
        knowledge of sport science with the knowledge of the sport. Cycling New
        Zealand has copied the Aussie Cycling Federation system where after sitting
        a coaching course the coach has to submit their work with an athlete for a
        season. At the higher levels it also involves spending time being observed
        by higher grade coaches and at the highest levels involves submitting a
        small thesis. The entire process may take 4-5 years but does allow the coach
        to take the information from each level and have the time to apply it. My
        personal experience from doing Uni courses is that after the final exam most
        information is forgotten as students prepare for the next course.

        Hence I am more in favour of coaches getting their information in small
        doses over a long time and having the time to apply it to their sport rather
        than cramming for 3-4 years to only lose most of that info.

        Cheers

        Hamish
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.