Every now and again, a client will ask me to come up with a new way of doing something to help them achieve their performance goals.

In recent years, a real focus for me has been developing innovative talent identification, recruitment and retention strategies for professional sporting teams.

These next three posts will outline a concept called the Player Potential Profile – an integrated, practical approach to Talent Identification and Recruitment in High Performance Sport.

Regular readers of www.sportscoachingbrain.com will know I have been critical of Talent Identification: or more accurately the way that talent i.d. is currently conducted in the western world.

The fundamental thinking behind this criticism is the obsession of talent i.d.-ers with physical testing and physical abilities of potential champions.

Whilst it is indisputable that a degree of physical talent is necessary for success in any high performance sport, competition success at the highest level depends on the optimal blending  of mental, technical, tactical, genetic and cultural / familial factors in addition to physical factors.

The “big six” indicators of a player’s performance potential – the Performance Potential factors are:

1. Physical abilities;
2. Personality characteristics;
3. Playing skills;
4. Performance abilities;
5. Pedigree (i.e. genetic makeup);
6. Preparation ((i.e. environment, family, culture).

The Player Potential Profile concept grew out of a need to provide professional team clients with a simple, practical way of assessing talented players using a cross disciplinary, integrated approach.

It also grew out of a need to provide the Boards of Directors and CEOs of several professional football teams I have worked for with a simple, easy to understand, all inclusive “rating scale” to help them determine which players to recruit and retain.

The development of the Player Potential Profile was based on three core principles:

1. Can you develop an integrated, interdisciplinary, practical approach to talent id, recruitment and retention for high performance sport?
2. Can you test, evaluate and analyse the “big six” indicators of player performance using valid, reliable, relevant and meaningful testing protocols?
3. Can you simplify the results of the testing protocols into a simple, easy to understand format for sports managers, coaching staff, recruitment staff and sports administrators without technical expertise in performance science to help them make better recruitment and retention decisions?

The Player Potential Profile is developed in partnership with the coaching, sports science, sports medicine and strength and conditioning professionals in each team and is a genuine interdisciplinary, performance focused measurement of potential.

Performance Potential Factor Number 1 - Physical abilities:

Finding real physical talent in players of any sport is not difficult - real talent is harder to hide than it is to find!

The first challenge in developing a measure of physical abilities is to find physical testing protocols which are not only scientifically valid and reliable but are also relevant and meaningful to the sport and the Club’s playing philosophy. For example, a 3 kilometre running time trial may be valid and reliable as a test protocol but it may not be relevant or meaningful to a team looking to recruit a player into a power based, explosive role.

The next challenge is to be able to convert the often complex, detailed results from the physical testing protocols into something which has meaning and relevance to non-technical staff, i.e. Board of Directors, CEO etc who may need to be convinced to allocate resources to buy one player or the other.

A Board Chairman, charged with signing off on the recruitment budget is unlikely to be impressed by a “beep test” score of 15.5 or a VO2 max of 76 mls/kg/min so being able to convert test results into something meaningful and relevant to the sport’s decision makers is critical.

In designing the Player Potential Profile the key has been to match the testing protocols with the Club’s long term player development philosophy, i.e. implement a testing process designed to find players with the ability to deliver the Club’s “trademark” playing style.

Performance Potential Factor Number 2 – Personality characteristics:

Ask an experienced coach this question, “What does it take to win at high performance levels?” and invariably you will get a response like this: “You need physical talent driven by determination, desire, passion, commitment, a strong work ethic and courage”. Yet, in spite of the general acceptance of the critical importance of mental skills and personality factors in success in high performance sport, little real focus is given to this area of talent identification and recruitment.

In the Player Potential Profile model, all Performance Factors are considered carefully and with equal focus.

For example, in a professional football team I recently worked with, the coaching staff determined that five personality factors were the most important in their talent identification and recruitment philosophy.

Some fundamental research suggested that there were two scientifically valid and reliable testing tools available to measures these personality factors.

We then worked collaboratively with the coaching team, the test designers and a psychologist to create a unique testing tool based on the original testing tool which met our needs of validity, reliability, relevance and meaning.

In Second Post of the Player Potential Profile, I will cover Playing Skills and Performance Abilities and how they are measured and incorporated into the Player Potential Profile.

Wayne Goldsmith

© 2010, Sports Coaching Brain. All rights reserved. This post can not be reproduced in full or in part without the expressed consent of the author Wayne Goldsmith.

Remember how when we were kids everyone liked to eat cupcakes.

Then when we got older and a bit more health conscious we were told to give them up because of the sugar and flour and other stuff in them.

Then along comes a sports nutritionist who said “Muffins are a great food for athletes – nutritious, high carbohydrate energy foods”. So we all started eating them again even though they are basically still just big cupcakes.

What a big con.

Almost as big a con as Training Studies in Sports Science Research.

So here’s a typical training study – i.e. a research study being which changes something in an athlete’s training program, measures the difference between pre and post change and concludes with a research finding recommending that by implementing a similar change other coaches and athletes will see similar effects.

What’s wrong with this picture?

It all seems logical – I measured each athlete’s power output. I changed one element of their training program. When I re-measured power output at the end of the training period which incorporated the new element,  power output had increased. Therefore what we did (assuming the stats were done correctly) worked and if other coaches and athletes do what we did they will also see an improvement in power output.

Seems to make sense.

No it doesn’t.

It – and most training studies – do not make any sense. And they don’t make any sense for one reason – Assumptions (note the first three letters of the word assumptions by the way).

The big hole in all training studies is that they assume everything else – i.e. other than the training variable being manipulated - is equal and constant.

It is impossible to control and/or measure all the variables that could potentially impact on the results of a training study in one athlete’s life – let alone the lives of several athletes involved in a typical training study and even more importantly it is impossible to control every relevant aspect of the lives of other athletes not involved in the research study but who will try to apply the study’s findings in their own training.

Yet, time and time again, we see researchers present the findings of training studies at conferences and in peer reviewed journals that are for all intents and purposes – useless and irrelevant.

Here’s just ten problems with training studies – there are hundreds:

1. You can’t control the diet variables of the athletes;
2. You can’t control the quality or quantity of their sleep;
3. You can’t control their emotional / psychological well being;
4. You can’t control their other activities (i.e. those physical activities not directly involved with the training study);
5. You can’t control their rest or recovery activities;
6. You can’t control their overall life workload, e.g. work, family activities, study etc;
7. You can’t control the engagement / commitment to their execution of the training variable being measured;
8. You can’t control their hydration;
9. You can’t control their tolerance to pain or discomfort;
10. You can’t control their honesty – and honesty is critical – because if they are not complying exactly to the researcher’s requirements the results are even more meaningless.

And let’s not even begin to think about individual genetic variation - which renders most training studies irrelevant and let’s not even begin to look at socio-economic factors, cultural differences, differences in training backgrounds and athletic history………..you just can’t do a simple training study then get up at conferences and tell coaches and athletes it will also work for them.

The bottom line is – the vast majority of training studies are useless because the subjects are subjects for a relatively short time – they are human beings 24 hours a day and as such, every thing they do will potentially impact on everything else....including the research study.

And even more damming of training based research studies is this – as a researcher you can pass on the results of the research study to coaches, athletes and sports science colleagues but unless they can duplicate the research environment exactly and precisely with identically matched athletes, protocols, level of engagement and environment, the results are meaningless.

Now we come to the real issues. The majority of researchers do the training research study then try to apply it to the sport, rather than developing a real understanding of the sport, asking the sport what they want to know, then solving real performance problems for coaches and athletes.

The only people who really benefit from the traditional way of doing training research studies are the researcher (who gets to publish the work in a peer reviewed journal) and the individual athlete/s involved in the study itself. But to take the results of a carefully controlled study and try to apply it the broader sporting community is just plain wrong.

The results may be relevant to the person/s directly involved in the study but they are not necessarily generalizable to the broader population.

There are millions of potentially great research projects out there – but they involve working with real athletes and real coaches in real situations to solve real problems.

There are three different types of research and each one has its place and role in the overall scheme of understanding and learning:

1. Academic driven research, i.e.usually conducted by Universities for the purpose of generating research papers and obtaining grants;
2. Practitioner driven research, i.e. conducted by sports science professionals in settings such as Academies and Institutes of Sport, High Performance Centres;
3. Coach and athlete driven research, i.e. simple, practical, applied research projects to solve actual performance problems.

Each of these research methods has strengths and weaknesses. The Academic driven research is high in reliability and validity but often lacks practical understanding and relevance. The coach and athlete driven research is simple, practical and immediately relevant but often lacks accuracy, reliability and vailidity measures.

Clearly, the one simple message is for the Academic, the Practitioner and the Athlete and Coach to work together in a performance partnership committed to finding the best possible solutions for performance problems in the shortest possible time.

So, the next time you come across a journal page boasting the breakthrough findings of their new training study, let me know. I will send you the link to a great site which teaches you how to make over 100 different types of paper airplane so you can put the page to good use.

And stick the muffin on top so we get rid of the two biggest cons in sport at the same time!

Wayne Goldsmith

© 2010, Sports Coaching Brain. All rights reserved. This post can not be reproduced in full or in part without the expressed consent of the author Wayne Goldsmith.

Training Load Lecture Number 1 of every coaching course in the world starts with the 3 standard variables in load management and exercise physiology:

1. Volume – How much to do
2. Intensity – How hard to do it
3. Frequency – How often to do it.

But, once you have coached for a few years and actually worked with athletes, the fourth and perhaps the most important variable of all becomes apparent as the critical determinant of exercise and training:

4. Athlete engagement – How completely the athlete is engaged in doing the activity. 

For the past 50 years, sports scientists, coaches and trainers have spoken about the big three in exercise prescription: Volume, Intensity and Frequency. And for just as long, the debate has raged over the best ways of manipulating the “big three” to get the right responses and adaptations to training programs.

However, there is a fourth and even more critical element in exercise prescription and training program design….athlete engagement.

How much time is spent designing training programs in terms of the “big three”???? – yet little or no time is spent on how to maximise the athlete’s engagement in the program – and hence the program (and the athlete) never realises its full potential.

Potential is what it is all about: the reason training is planned and periodized is to provide the environment and opportunity for athletes to realise (and even exceed) their potential in the shortest possible time. To do this requires commitment and engagement – not just compliance.

For example:

A swimming coach spends hours working on designing a new workout for his swim team. He comes up with 24 x 100 metres (Volume) on a time cycle of 1 minute 30 seconds, working at 85%  of maximum (Intensity).  The team will complete this set three times each week (Frequency).

Because the coach has included the “Big Three” in his exercise prescription and training program design, he feels he has done a good job. But consider how the following two athletes complete the same workout:

ATHLETE A completes the task the way it was written. The athlete has complied with what he has been asked to do and given the minimum standard of compliance to the session.

ATHLETE B – Challenges himself to complete the session with technical excellence despite the onset of fatigue. He controls his stroke, his skills, his breathing and his pacing. He encourages his team mates to give their best and to work together on achieving the best possible outcome. He has engaged with the session and is striving to use the opportunity to enhance every aspect of his performance.

• Which athlete is likely to get the most out of the training session?
• Which athlete is likely to accelerate their rate of performance improvement the fastest?
• Which athlete is likely to achieve their training and competition goals in the shortest possible time?

How the athlete completes the work – how much they are engaged – body, mind and spirit to completing the workout – will largely determine the impact of the session. The physiological “big three” merely set the MINIMUM standard for the workout – the basics: it is the athlete’s level of engagement which determines their potential to get the MAXIMUM possible return and reward for the workout. 

It is important to understand how coaching has evolved. There are now two different and distinct coaching approaches: Coaching by Compliance and Coaching with Engagement.

Compliance coaching -i.e. coaching where the coach controls the outcome of the session by manipulating the “Big Three”, is old coaching philosophy and in these times of Generation I – of “me”, “my” and “mine”- is a coaching dead end. This is 1970s coaching – the coach sets the workout – the athlete does it.

Engagement coaching – i.e. coaching where the athlete’s own standards, drive, personality and passion produce even greater outcomes than the coach thought possible – where the athlete adds real value to the session – is the way of the future: it is the future of coaching. It is tapping into the thoughts, personality and behaviours of the next generations of athletes and partnering with them to produce new levels of excellence in sports performance.

Coaching success in modern sport is determined by the ability to engage athletes in the program. In the old days, coaching was all about what you knew - knowledge was the currency of coaching. Now, with the incredible quantity of information available on the Internet, knowledge is no longer the currency of coaching – and coaches who rely on their knowledge alone will go “bankrupt”!

It’s a bit like being at school.

“Class”, says Mr Jones, “Tomorrow morning at 9 am (Frequency) you will hand in a paper of 1000 words (Volume) on the subject of Global Warming. The paper should be appropriately referenced and detailed (Intensity).”

You get the compliance students (those who do the assignment to a minimum standard and hand it in on time) and the engagement students (those who do the assignment to highest possible standard and exceed even the expectations of the teacher). And it is these students – those who engaged with the project task who can and will change the world!

The days of writing training programs and designing exercise sessions in purely physiological terms are hopefully dead and buried.

Sport is more complex than the “Big Three” and Performance is an integrated blend of physical, mental, personality, technical, tactical, strategic, cultural and genetic factors.

Hopefully from now on, when we teach coaches, students, exercise professionals and fitness enthusiasts about programming, periodization and sports physiology, we will include engagement as a core variable and make the Big Three – the Fabulous Four!

Wayne Goldsmith

© 2009, Sports Coaching Brain. All rights reserved. This post can not be reproduced in full or in part without the expressed consent of the author Wayne Goldsmith.

There is no doubt that successful sports performance is multi-disciplinary in nature. Athletes and coaches need to be aware of the physiological, biomechanical, psychological, nutritional, medical and immunological and other issues that can impact on their competition performances.

It - performance – is rarely – if ever -about one thing in isolation! 

It is when all these factors come together and work as an integrated performance system that excellence in high performance sport is possible.

Coaches are trained to think and work in a multi disciplinary environment. For example, a coach on observing an athlete training will be thinking about physiology (speed, heart rate, lactate, fatigue, effort, exertion level and so on).

At the same time however they will be thinking about technique, skill and biomechanical issues. They also may be considering attitude, motivation and personality issues – the psychology of performance.

Coaches are trained to think critically about all aspects of performance and how they interact and influence each other. Coaching is above all – about problem solving!

In contrast a sports physiologist sees the athlete in terms of blood and muscle, heart rate and lactate. A biomechanist talks of the athlete in terms of angles, speed and acceleration. A psychologist considers the athlete in terms of self confidence, motivation, attitude and arousal.

Yet in trying to achieve optimal performance, it is all these factors, and many more besides, which need to be blended together in the right mix at the right time and in the right amounts to produce a winning athlete or team. It is the effective management of the various sports science disciplines into a multi disciplinary team approach that can make all the difference.

Whilst the concept of the various disciplines of sports science working together makes sense, there are traditional and historical barriers to the multi disciplinary model which must be overcome if it is to make a real impact on sports performance.

Traditional Model of Sports Science Professional Development:

The traditional development and education pathway of sports science professionals sees the student become progressively narrower in focus over the period of their education:

• High School / College: Wide perspective (maths, science, English, history, sport, languages etc);
• Undergraduate University: The perspective narrows, perhaps Science or Human Sciences only;
• Final Year University : The perspective narrows again, physiology or exercise physiology only;
• Post Graduate University: A further narrowing, muscle physiology only;
• PhD and Postdoctoral Study: Focus on minute detail of one aspect of muscle physiology only.

At the end of ten years of study, the system has produced a person with outstanding skills and knowledge in one very specific area of the sports science industry – the single discipline specialist.

The problem here is that to the man with a hammer, every problem is a nail!

If a coach goes to a physiologist with a performance problem, the physiologist will try to solve it using physiology – the physiologist will look for the best physiological solution to the problem…not necessarily the best solution to the problem.

Contrast this with Typical High Performance Coach development pathway:

• Level One Coaching: Beginners, kids. Focus is on Fun, skills, and enjoyment;
• Level two Coaching: All of the above plus working with state level athletes. Focus is on learning to train, how to compete;
• Level three Coaching: National / international level coaches. All the above plus a focus on winning, on training, on mental skills development, on biomechanics, on nutrition, on dealing with pressure etc.

And it is at this final point, where the sports scientist’s focus is at its most narrow and the coach’s perspective is at its widest, the two are brought together either through a research project funded by an academic institution or through a national team sports program.

Is it surprising then that in many instances the two groups of professionals (coaches and sports scientists) find it difficult to effectively work together?

Also consider that it is at this point where sports science professionals from the respective disciplines are brought together in an Olympic or professional team environment and asked to contribute to the performance of the athlete or team.

Considering the development process of the sports science professionals where each discipline is relatively isolated, distinct and separate from the others, the concept of forming an effective multi disciplinary team with a common focus is a challenging task.

Add to this the traditional, political, personality and historical conflicts between disciplines and the ubiquitous “us versus them”, “silo” and “empire building” political environments which are allowed to evolve in ALL academic and sporting institutions and it is little surprise that a true integrated, multi disciplinary environment is at best difficult to foster.

There are three key issues here:

1. The current education and development program for sports science professionals narrows their focus to make them experts in one area of sports science. In most cases this means becoming an expert in one aspect of one area of one discipline of sports science;
2. At the same time, as the current philosophy of the national level High Performance sports systems around the world are “coach driven”, the key decision makers in the system, i.e. the coaches, are being educated to be increasingly broader and multi disciplinary in their focus. Coaches are looking for sports science professionals capable of providing them with ideas and solutions based on intelligent observation and open minded perspectives;
3. High performance coaches are looking to build and manage effective sports science teams to support athletes preparing for elite level competition. The coaches demand that the sports science professionals involved in these team environments work co-operatively together under pressure with a common focus and with mutual respect and understanding of the respective disciplines. The industry needs professionals who can work in this team environment and work with – perhaps even learn from, other disciplines.

The long term commitment to sports education has in some way “backfired” for the sports science industry. We now have large numbers of high performance coaches who are quite comfortable with using heart rate monitors, reading lactate analysers, using digital video cameras, talking with athletes about nutrition and working with athletes on mental skills development.

These are skills that only a few years ago were the exclusive domain of university trained sports science professionals.

By upskilling and educating coaches over the past twenty years, the pressure is now back on the sports science industry to provide coaches with more innovative and creative ways of assisting them in their efforts to produce successful high performance athletes.

Multi Disciplinary sports science, performance science and integrated performance models are the current “buzz words” of the high performance sports industry.

However, the issue is more complex than throwing a group of professionals together and telling them to “work together” in some open plan office environment: it requires a significant commitment to thinking differently.

There are numerous obstacles in the way of developing a truly multi disciplinary approach to high performance sport: none the least being a change in the attitude of the practitioners and professionals to accept the limitations in single discipline approaches to success.

It also means opening the minds of the high performance sporting institutions who for so long have harbored and encouraged the development of the single discipline, “faculty” approach and the “over servicing by multiple departments”, approach to enhancing sports performance.

It will take a committed effort from the sports science industry to make this new paradigm work effectively and in doing so make a significant impact on the performance of high performance athletes.

The Future Possibilities:

• It all starts with the Universities and Academic system. Whilst the Academic system continues to produce single discipline sports scientists for the high performance sports industry, the traditional inter disciplinary barriers will be difficult to overcome;
• To remain industry relevant, Universities and other sports industry training professionals need to create new programs which teach Performance Science / Integrated Sports Science courses so that the next generations of sports science professionals are able to work effectively in this new paradigm;
• It is possible that a nation can lead the rest of the world in this area by breaking down these inter disciplinary rivalries and aim to produce performance scientists rather than physiologists or biomechanists or psychologists. Whilst single discipline experts and specialists are and will continue to be valuable to consult on specific issues, the current demand is for innovative sports scientists who can think with an open minded / problem solving approach to partner with coaches and athletes and help achieve their performance goals;
• Academic institutions can adapt to meet industry demands or risk struggling for relevance as the paradigm shift towards multi disciplinary sports science / performance science gathers world wide momentum;
• Academic Institutions should also consider forming long term partnerships with sporting institutions, national sporting organisations and other industry stakeholders and work together to provide the multi disciplinary focus that high performance sport needs. This should extend to providing final year under graduate or first year post graduate students with scholarship opportunities to work closely with elite sport and specifically with elite coaches;
• Coaches should be directly involved in developing research questions which performance science attempts to answer. As a result, sport benefits by being actively involved in research, the academic institutions benefit by answering research questions that have practical application and the coaches and athletes benefit through the direct practical application of current research to their training and competition programs.

Everybody wins.

Watch this blog for much more on this topic in coming months!

Wayne Goldsmith

© 2009, Sports Coaching Brain. All rights reserved. This post can not be reproduced in full or in part without the expressed consent of the author Wayne Goldsmith.

Seems like every coach has a video, a camera, a DVD player and some analysis software these days.

Coaches spend more time behind a desk, staring at replays and performance analysis data than they do actually working and communicating with athletes and staff!

Modern analysis techniques and equipment have given us the luxury of detail- the ability to evaluate, measure and analyse performance in far greater depth than ever before.

Most analysis techniques used in elite sport evolved from research methods used in the academic world, where a wide range of analysis tools are used to systematically investigate technique, movement, skills, decision making etc as part of a the study behind a journal article, research project or thesis. 

The problem with all this analysis is that analysis, by its nature is destructive. Analysis breaks down performances, techniques, skills etc into component parts or measurable events. It looks to identify what went wrong with an athlete or team and what problems, faults and mistakes led to a poor performance.

The biggest challenge in the analysis era is to learn to use what is ostensibly a destructive activity for a constructive purpose – the enhancement of performance.

Whilst the use of analysis is important to improve the understanding of sports performance, it must be remembered that in elite sport, unlike the academic or research world, analysis exists only to improve a future performance – maybe a performance which is only hours or days away.

So a researcher may think” “What can we learn from this analysis?”, an elite coach thinks, “What can we learn from this analysis that can help me win the game this week?”.

Typically the analysis / athlete feedback process goes like this:

• Coach (or analysis staff) analyses the performance.
• Coach and athlete meet to go through the analysis which usually involves pointing out the errors and mistakes the athlete made.
• Coach gives the athlete feedback on how not to make those same mistakes again. 

The problem with this approach is that it is thinking and working backwards – i.e. measuring and discussing a past event - this is more of an academic or research approach.

The nature of elite sport is to think and act forwards and to seek to improve future performances. 

So an alternate way the coach / athlete post analysis discussion might be:

• Player / athlete reviews and analyses their own performance.
• Player comes to the coach with three things they learnt from their analysis and with suggestions on how they can improve them.
• Coach provides guidance, ideas and suggestions on how these lessons can be used to advantage against the next opponent or in the improvement of the next competition performance.

COACHING LESSONS:

• Ensure that when communicating the information and knowledge gained from the analysis process to athletes that is done with an aim to improve a future performance rather than merely to identify mistakes in a past performance.
• Encourage athletes to learn how to use analysis equipment and software and to take ownership of their own performances. This includes ownership over the learning and development that comes from the analysis process.
• Coaches and athletes should use analysis with one eye focused on how lessons from the past can impact positively on future performances and not be analysis for it’s own sake.

Wayne Goldsmith

© 2009, Sports Coaching Brain. All rights reserved. This post can not be reproduced in full or in part without the expressed consent of the author Wayne Goldsmith.

A renowned swimming coach was walking up and down the side of the pool working with a world record holder. A younger, relatively inexperienced coach who was eager to learn, asked, “How do you know how your swimmer is going?” “How do you know when she is ready to do her best?”

The senior coach replied, “I just know“.

Testing does not replace the skilled eye or instinctual feel of an experienced and talented coach. It aims to provide measurement and objectivity to some of the elements of performance that coaches “see” and “feel” and “know”.

This article discusses some of the current issues in the testing of high performance athletes and looks at the crucial aspects of the measurement and evaluation of elite sports performance.

The testing process: Not a one off event!

Testing is not a one off event – it is a process that begins and ends with a test.

The testing process sequence includes:

• Coach determines the need for testing and discusses the test protocols with a sports science / sports medicine professional.
• Testing is scheduled and logistics, equipment, personnel etc. are organized.
• Pre test athlete education session organized (if appropriate).
• Testing is conducted.
• Results and data collected, collated and managed.
• Results and data evaluated.
• Results and data discussed with coach and athlete.
• Coach considers results and data and makes training program decisions based on the information.
• The next test date is scheduled.
• Athlete is retested to determine progress.
• Process repeats!

Testing is a useful coaching tool but it is one part of the overall process of athlete preparation and development.

Competition based testing

Of course, the best form of testing for high performance athletes in elite sporting programs is competition.

Competition provides the unique combination of factors that are only found on the pitch, on the track, on the court, in the pool or on the water during actual games and events.

However it is often difficult for the coach to be effective in competition based testing as he / she is focused on observing the athlete in competition conditions and perhaps even making strategic / tactical decisions based on those observations.

Therefore, it is essential that the coach identifies a reliable, experienced support team of professionals who can manage the details of competition based testing leaving the coach free to coach.

After the competition or perhaps even during rest periods, the support team can provide the coach and athlete with the detailed analysis of the performance and together work towards a strategy to improve competition results.

Success in Competitive Sport: Defined

The obvious measurement of success in competitive sport is winning!

However what is winning? It is said that the person who aims at nothing is sure to hit it! Therefore before designing a testing program, it is important to try and ascertain what coaches are trying to “hit” – what are they trying to achieve?

Successful competitive sport could be described as:

“The ability to maintain excellence in skills and consistently make the right decisions at high speed, while fatigued and in pressure situations” – Skills plus speed and decision making under fatigue and under pressure.

Winning often comes down to the players’ / athletes’ ability to perform basic skills effectively when they are tired and under pressure.

From this simple definition, it is possible to develop and effective testing program.

Why Test?

There are many reasons why a coach would want to test an athlete.

Once training and competition goals have been clearly established, a coach would test athletes:

• To provide information and feedback on the progress of the training / preparation of the athlete. Are we on track to achieve our goals?
• To provide information on specific elements of the athlete’s capacities and abilities. Is the athlete developing and improving?
• To determine areas of weakness or limitation: Are there problem areas or issues that need to be overcome?

How to Test

The perfect test is one where the athlete is accurately evaluated in the precise conditions likely to be experienced in competition and the results of the test directly relate to competition performances.

This is invariably difficult to achieve as there are numerous factors experienced in competition which are near to impossible to replicate in a training or testing environment.

For example:

How do you measure a goal kicker’s ability to kick a goal under game pressure when the only time they face game pressure is during a game?

How do you know if your players can execute attacking moves against opposition in pressure situations when the only time they get to experience these conditions is against an opposition in the pressure of a game?

Game / event simulations can provide athletes with the opportunity to learn how to execute skills in competition “like” environments but even these practices lack the real pressure experienced in actual competition.

Typically, testing protocols and methods are single discipline perspectives of one element of performance, e.g. tests based on physiology or biomechanics or psychology or nutrition or medical. The challenge for the coach is to effectively manage this narrow perspective to gain an overall understanding of the athlete’s abilities and capacities at the time of testing.

Who to Test?

Practically any athlete can be tested. Even young athletes can be tested for skill development and technical progress.

Young athletes can also be educated on how to develop the skills necessary to perform the testing protocols they are likely to experience as senior athletes.

For example, many tests require the ability to accurately maintain a precise speed, power output, pace or time. These skills can be taught to relatively young athletes as part of their development process and to prepare them to complete senior testing protocols as they mature.

Where to Test?

Field or Laboratory – the toughest question in the testing puzzle. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Field testing can be simple, easy, inexpensive and meaningful to the coach and athlete but can be difficult to control owing to environmental factors and a wide range of other complicating variables experienced in the training and competition setting.

Laboratory testing is often expensive, requires complex equipment and trained personnel to operate it and in many cases has the considerable challenge of making the test results meaningful and specific to the actual sports environment.

Tests for oxygen exchange dynamics (e.g. VO2 max) have generally been performed in laboratories as the availability of precision equipment allows for more accurate testing. However, the limitation in laboratory testing is in the capacity to reproduce actual sports specific training and competition conditions.

For example, the measurement of VO2 max on a treadmill, cycle ergometer or rowing machine in the lab is based on well established testing protocols. However, the lab cannot exactly reproduce the external environmental factors (run and bike – road conditions, weather, hills, wind resistance: rowing – water conditions, current, weather, wind, boat friction / water resistance) that athletes experience in training and playing.

A useful field test alternative to lab based endurance testing is the shuttle run or “beep” test.

In football for example, laboratory based VO2 max tests are of questionable value as it is rare that any player runs at high speed (without the ball) in a single direction for sustained periods of time without the added complication of dealing with opposition players. However, the lab based VO2 test may offer a useful measure of the underlying fitness characteristics of the player and perhaps provide an indication of their injury/illness status.

In the end, a combination of regular field based testing (because of the practical, easy and immediate nature of the testing) together with occasional laboratory testing (because of accuracy, reliability and quality) is a good option for most sports.

What to test?

Selecting what to test for is a complex issue for every coach. Universities and other professional organizations can provide the coach with a “lolly shop” of tests and toys all with the promise of quick easy solutions to performance challenges.

One of the biggest problems for coaches is that many do not clearly identify what it is they want to test. As a result, when a sports science professional suggests what is possible, the coaches respond like the kid in “lolly shop” and want a little of everything.

Deciding what to test starts with a simple philosophical question for every coach:

“What do I believe are the key determinants of successful performance in my sport?”

In all sports, successful competition performance is determined by the effectiveness of the coach and athlete to optimise their preparation in four key areas:

• Physical
• Mental
• Technical
• Tactical

For example, as a coach of marathon runners you decide that the key determinants for success in your sport are oxygen exchange dynamics and biomechanical efficiency at 80-90% of maximum speed. Once you have made this philosophical decision, finding the right tests to evaluate the athletes is relatively easy.

As a coach of a football team, your philosophy may be that the best players are skillful at high speed. Again the choice of tests is a simple matter once you have decided what you want to look for.

Another advantage of establishing your own testing philosophy is that “unless you stand for something, you will fall for anything”. Sometimes coaches fall for promises of magic pills and quick fixes from sports science professionals looking for subjects for a study or research project. The testing program should be a reflection of and consistent with the overall goals and philosophies of the coach, athlete and training program.

When to test?

Effective testing can be done at any time during the training or competition program dependingon what you are looking for. Tests of maximum capacity or peak abilities are generally best performed when the athlete is rested and unfatigued. Traditionally this has meant testing during or at the end of a rest or recovery microcycle.

Ideally, testing should be scheduled during each phase of training: pre season, mid season and late season to provide feedback on the athlete’s progress throughout the training program.

However, if you as a coach have determined that you would like to assess the impact of physiological fatigue on skill and speed, then testing tired athletes is consistent with your overall program philosophy.

Summary: The Ten Golden Rules of Testing for Coaches

1. Test for things that make sense. Testing VO2 max in lawn bowlers is not logical.
2. Test because you believe it will make a difference. Just testing for testing’s sake or because the equipment is available is not the most effective use of training time.
3. Test with a performance focused goal. Test elements of performance that you believe will make a direct impact on performance. Try not to get trapped in testing just to try and get a progressively better test result unless it is directly related to actual competition performance or the development of more effective training protocols.
4. Don’t ask for a single test – ask for a series. If you make the commitment to be involved in a testing program, ask for more than one test. One off tests rarely tell the whole story.
5. If you are working with sports science / sports medicine professionals, request that any test results are provided within 24 hours and that the professional allocates time to explain the results and their relevance to your program. This applies particularly if you have agreed to allow your athletes to be involved in a research project.
6. Think multi disciplinary. If the athletes are being tested through lactate analysis, also measure and observe technical changes to assess the impact of fatigue on technique and skills. If they are being evaluated using heart rate, note speed, technique and if possible assess psychological skills at the same time. Performance is multi disciplinary in nature – testing is generally single discipline in focus. Coaches need to see the wider picture.
7. Be visionary. If you as the coach see the need for a test to evaluate an element of performance which you believe is crucial to the success of the athlete, develop your own test! Ask a sports science / sports medicine professional to help you with the measurement side of things, but many great coaches use simple field tests that are meaningful to them but which may lack absolute scientific validity. Many scientific tests were originally ideas inspired by visionary coaches.
8. Keep records. Try to record all test results. Have assistant coaches, parents of athletes, injured players, reserve team players – anyone – trained to record (accurately) test results.
9. Measure what is measurable, control what is controllable, what can be measured and controlled is likely to be meaningful.
10. Take time to educate athletes about testing. In time, senior athletes can learn to do some or most testing protocols themselves. Athletes can learn to monitor their own heart rates, take their own times, count their strides, record their feelings…..and the better educated your athletes are to self manage / self monitor their own testing, the more meaningful the results are to them. Having educated athletes who can self monitor means the coach has the freedom to coach, observe and learn during the testing process.

As it is with your overall program, testing is athlete-focused and coach-driven. Manage the testing process so that you can provide your athletes with the best possible opportunity to achieve their performance goals.

Wayne Goldsmith

© 2009, Sports Coaching Brain. All rights reserved. This post can not be reproduced in full or in part without the expressed consent of the author Wayne Goldsmith.