Sports Science Killed the Coaching Star, Sports Science Killed the Coaching Star….

By Wayne Goldsmith | In Coach education

Heard that old song by the Buggles, “Video killed the Radio Star”?

We have our own version in sport – it goes “Sports science killed the coaching star, sports science killed the coaching star” - only problem is that in our version, we really did kill off all the coaches.

The world is desperate for quality sports coaches. Look at the coach education, coach development and coach training programs of most of the major sporting nations and the message is clear, “we need more coaches”. Governments and sporting organisations across the globe are throwing money at high performance coach education,training and development trying to recruit, train and retain quality coaches who are as rare as honest politicians in the world today.

So what happened to them all? Where have all the coaches gone? Why is there such a shortage of sports coaches all over the world?

We killed them with sports science!

Now before someone from the sports science community sends me yet another rude email about being a sports science “basher” – let me say I am not talking about high performance level here. At high performance level, having regular access to quality sports science and sports medicine support is a critical aspect of competition success. In professional and international level sport, sports science is vital to help athletes and coaches realise the full power of their potential. So to all you physiologists, biomechanists, nutritionists and psychologists out there, please take a deep breath, pour yourself a nice cup of tea, relax and read on.

I am talking about beginning level coaches, entry level coaches, community level coaches – coaches who just want to learn how to share their knowledge and their passion of the sport they love with some local kids. You know – the “soccer dad” who by day is an accountant but has been roped in to coaching the local under 7s because his own son plays in the team. Or the Mum who just wants to learn how to teach a group of 9 year olds how to improve their freestyle technique. Or the guy who has played rugby all his life and who now just wants to give something back to the sport by coaching the community under 11 team.

We have tens of thousands or maybe even hundreds thousands of people like this all over the world who just want to learn the basics: how to teach the core skills of the sport, a little about safety, some group management stuff and how to deal with parents. That’s what they want but….what do we throw at them????

The Sports Science based Coaching Course!

8 am Saturday morning, the XYZ Sport Coach Education Course, before session 1 on how to be a good coach, we introduce our guest presenter, a physiologist with impeccable post doctoral qualifications and innumerable research publications in refereed journals who proceeds to outline the role of phosphofructokinase in anaerobic energy production and how regular training has been suggested as potentially increasing mitochondrial volume density in rat tissue.

By the time they get to 10 am on Saturday morning, they are looking at each other thinking “what the heck has this got to do with coaching the Pleasantville Under Nine soccer team?”

And after two days of this, we say, “thanks for coming, now get out and coach”.

Let’s step back about 30 years and look how all this happened.

We needed to change. I remember how it was in the 80s. Coaching was not professional. It was an anecdotally driven industry with very little in the way of quantifiable practices, systems, methods or techniques. We had to change.

The old Eastern bloc, the Canadians, the US, Australia and others introduced coaching courses and coach education programs in the early 80s to take coaching out of the dark ages and introduce some more modern approaches through sports science, periodisation and planning, sports injury management and so on.

But….as it is with most change – we went too far. Coaching courses quickly turned from being coaching focused with a little sports science thrown in to becoming amateur sports science courses with a little coaching thrown in.

Have a look at the statistics for the number of potential sports coaches who attend beginner level coaching courses but never complete their accreditation or qualification requirements.

Have a look at the statistics for the number of sports coaches who never re-accredited or update their qualifications.

Have a look at the statistics for the number of sports coaches who never come back and progress to higher levels of accreditation / qualification.

Guess what? It is the same in every sport – in every country: they don’t come back!

Clearly we are doing something wrong.

This is the proverbial elephant in the room that every sporting system and every sporting organisation knows about. It’s time we did something about it.

How many beginner level coaches have we scared off coaching by throwing too much irrelevant and inappropriate sports science and overly complicating the whole coaching process, at too early a stage in their coaching career?

And now, some 30 years after the advent of sports science based coach education programs we are all paying the price – the result being too few quality coaches to work with kids all over the world who just want to play sport.

So what’s the solution:

  1. If you want to train marines, you have to train them to be marines: We train accountants to prepare financial reports, we train doctors to save lives, we train teachers to teach, we train plumbers to fix pipes, how about we train beginner level / community level coaches to coach and stop trying to train them to be part time, amateur sports scientists;
  2. Include sports science in coach education programs but ensure it is appropriate to the needs of the coaches involved. High performance level coaches working at national and international level with senior athletes – go for it – sports science, sports science and more sports science! But the guy who just wants to learn how to teach 5 year olds to kick a ball does not need any sports science at all;
  3. What sports science you include in coach education should be communicated simply, in practical terms and all of it should be relevant and applicable to the coaches needs. If they want to learn about metabolic acidosis, give them a web reference or buy them a book but if the goal is to educate, train and develop coaches, the name of the game is relevance;
  4. Teach sports science in a coach appropriate integrated way – not in the traditional academic, departmental, faculty style single discipline approach. Teach coaches to use sports science to solve problems and create new ideas – not just to coach and work with athletes “discipline by discipline”.

There must be a better way!

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.

Related posts:

May 25, 2010

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

16 Responses to “Sports Science Killed the Coaching Star, Sports Science Killed the Coaching Star….”

  1. Alexis on May 25th, 2010 9:13 am

    Its an interesting point you make Wayne.

    I think one of the biggest issues with this situation is that coaches are compelled to attend Courses that aren’t designed for them. Having run numerous Level 1 Coaching Principles and Level 1 Sport Specific courses I agree that for many of the coaches there the courses are not remotely appropriate. However the issue isn’t with the course as the course is designed as a stepping stone for coaches who want to progress ‘up the line’, the issue is that there isn’t an appropriate course (in some sports) for those coaches who get roped into coaches their son’s/daughter’s team.

    When I was involved with the South Australian Volleyball Coaches Commission back in the 1990s we actually wrote a book to fill in this gap called the ‘Coach’s Survival Guide’. It was specifically aimed at the ‘reluctant’ coaches who needed help with basic game management (from how to fill in a scoresheet to how to manage your substitutions) and drill design (how to make sure all the players are active). Perhaps this strategy could be more effective with the needs of certain coaches?

  2. Wayne Goldsmith on May 25th, 2010 9:44 am

    Hi Alexis.

    Totally agree. Like you I must have presented at 100 Level One courses – in everything from shooting to swimming, triathlon to Taekwondo, cycling to cricket and each time I see the syllabus I ask myself the same question – is this appropriate and relevant for beginner level coaches who want to remain beginner level coaches?

    Some sports like AFL in Australia for example have picked this up and are doing some great things – i.e. appropriate and relevant – for beginner coaches. Let’s hope more sports take up the challenge.

    To me, throwing concepts like ATP production mechanisms and vectors at beginning coaches is like teaching 8 year olds advanced weight training, plyometrics and how to develop their lactate threshold – it is all great stuff but is it appropriate and relevant for their stage of development.

    By the way, why not up date the “Coachs’ Survival Guide” as an e-book and let’s get it out there!

    Thanks again for the great comment.

    WG

  3. Marcos Apene do Amaral on May 25th, 2010 2:57 pm

    And also, we have to be conscious that for the majority of people that plays something or practice any kind of physical activity, sciense is by no means the objective or the main goal. All of those people are looking for a healthier lifestyle, nicer bodies and lots of fun.
    And of course, and we do have to admit, that being able to balance all the scientific knowledge to develop apporpiate training regimens are way better than throwing all donw to our “students”. Altough coaching is not only based on sports science and must not be (specially for the average Joe that’s 99,9%). Should be approached much more like a methodology to teach something than the reasons behind it that explains whats is being done.
    Hope you get the idea on my poor brazilian English, cheers, thank you very much, MAA

  4. Jamie on May 25th, 2010 7:38 pm

    HI Wayne

    Good post. I think one of the critical factors that gets overlooked in coach education is the ability to TEACH. As you pointed out in your post so much emphasis is placed on the physiology or the technical aspects but if a coach does not have the ability to teach they will never be a good coach.

    It seems that many university courses in the world are doing away with Phys Ed degrees and replacing them with Sports Science or Human Movement Science. The scary part about that is that the people who should be the most qualified to know what is the most important in coaching athletes are the ones restructuring their departments. Or perhaps they are under pressure to restructure to conform to the expectations of the modern sports world even if that is the wrong direction.

    Lets face it a “Sport Science” bachelors sounds cooler than “Phys Ed. But if I was interviewing a recent graduate for a coaching post I would look much more favourably on the teacher than the scientist.

    Many of the best coaches in the world started out as school teachers.

  5. ALan Sinclair on May 26th, 2010 8:24 am

    Hi Wayne

    Totally agree!! After a lifetime of coaching and attempting to train coaches it is sad to see how many fall by the wayside because we failed to follow the greatest coaching adage ever given …. KISS. (Keep It Simple Stupid)

    How about giving your point of view on the style of, and / or, relevance of online accreditation processes? I feel it goes hand in hand with this topic.

    I have an issue with online accreditation without face to face learning and see all the weaknesses you mention in many coaches trained in my sport (Hockey) post 1998

    Alan

  6. Russell Parsons on May 26th, 2010 10:15 am

    Several years ago I was attending a National Seminar in a specific sport; for 5 days we had excellent presenters talking about high profile programs and strategies, but by the final day, I had about run out of persistence.

    Final day of the conference: I attended two great presentations: one actually showed some examples of athletes doing things youngsters could incorporate in their programs (I still use these) .. in the other, the opening line of the US coach was: “I’ve been here five days .. some great presentations .. but, I’ve been thinking, when are they going to start talking about my kids?”
    (I’ve never forgotten the input of this excellent young coach; what he had to say and show was interesting, achievable, and stimulating .. he talked about and showed problems we all have and had suggestions to help resolve issues.)

    A very valuable 2 hours.

  7. Russell Parsons on May 26th, 2010 12:48 pm

    I certainly agree with Jamie’s contention that an ability to teach is vital to effective coaching, especially developmental coaching.

    To me there are no Junior Coaches (unless they/you want to be called “Junior”).

    There are Developmental Coaches (coaches who are concerned with, focus upon, developing basic skills, and thereby self-esteem).

    Currently I am in contact with an overseas association, and I find so often(with many groups and coaches I have met)that they want to start at the top; elite/advanced examples are vital, but if you want to build a program, be it national or local, you have to develop the base. One-off clinics with no regular follow-up are not the answer; throwing money at the problem is not the answer .. excellent teaching of basic skills and patient progression is a step in the right direction, and this, of course requires appropriate coach education.

    Coaches of elite athletes and their practices are not necessarily the appropriate examples.

    Basic coach education should deal with basic skills, and applaud acquisition of those skills.

    Perhaps the greatest coach I have had the privelege of working with made the following comment: “Few significant changes in technique take place after the mid-adolscent years” ..

    Developmental Coaches need advice, example, and shared resources directed towards teaching basic form/technique elements correctly and precisely, right from the start.

    Coaches of elite athletes want athletes “delivered” to them with such skills in place.

    The better Developmental Caoches are assisted, the better will be the product to be refined at aa advanced level; and, instead of waiting (hoping)all you life for a potential Olympic medalist, Developmental Coaches can enjoy their association with a multitude
    of self-esteem enhanced young people.

    Coaching Courses should help Developmental Coaches to help athletes.

  8. Wayne Goldsmith on May 26th, 2010 3:01 pm

    Hi Alan,

    Thanks for the comment.

    In regard on line coach education, I think using it in isolation to coach coaches is doomed to fail. Using it as one part of an integrated approach to coaching coaches – using a combination of web based content, video, audio, phone, email, innovative assessment tasks etc might work well.

    In the end it is about people and from my experience people teach people: programs do not teach people, laptops do not teach people, web sites do not teach people: people teach people.

    WG

  9. Wayne Goldsmith on May 26th, 2010 3:06 pm

    Thanks Jamie.

    As you might expect I have a lot of problems with University courses for coaches as they currently stand in most places – and for the same reasons you point out.

    Nothing against sports scientists – I am one after all – but if we are claiming that a course will produce coaches, then surely the vast majority of the course should be about coaching, teaching, learning etc and 20-25% about sports science, sports medicine, injury management etc.

    It is like creating a medical degree program but making 75% about running the business of a medical practice and 25% about curing illness, preventing illness, surgical techniques etc.

    We want coaches – let’s train coaches. We want sports scientists – let’s train sports scientists.

    Thanks again,

    WG

  10. Wayne Goldsmith on May 26th, 2010 3:09 pm

    Thanks Marcos.

    I think we need both the art and the science of coaching don’t we.

    We need to coach coaches to coach and we need some level of sports science to ensure that important aspects of programming and performance are measured, quantified and objectively evaluated.

    So the art and the science of coaching – working together in harmony is a great combination. Your Brazilian English is much better than my Australian Portuguese my friend. Great work.

    WG

  11. Wayne Goldsmith on May 26th, 2010 3:13 pm

    Hi Russell.

    Thanks for the insightful response.

    All change is personal – and change comes from learning. So we have to teach coaches what they need to / want to learn, make it personal and relevant, so they will use it to change and enhance the performance of their athletes and themselves.

    I think this is the challenge for all coach education programs – move from mass production, “one size fits all” type coach education programs to creating tailored, unique, personalised education, training and development opportunities to meet the needs of individual coaches.

    Great comment mate – thanks for sharing.

    WG

  12. Wayne Goldsmith on May 26th, 2010 3:19 pm

    Thanks again mate.

    Don’t know how many times I have gone through this with sporting organisations trying to develop coach education programs:

    Step 1 – Clearly identify your athlete development pathway and the real needs of the athletes at each step in pathway then….

    Step 2 – Create the coach education pathway to run parallel and complimentary to the athlete development pathway.

    This is not rocket science and it should make common sense to do it that way but……….

    Thanks again,

    WG

  13. Mike Hudson on June 3rd, 2010 3:44 am

    Wayne,

    Love the article – I am involved in coaching education in soccer and currently re-writing the community coaching courses for the Canadian Soccer Association – bringing the courses into line with our Long Term Player Development. What you suggest just re-inforces what we are trying to do – write content that is applicable and relavant to our cliental – the parent coach – far too often these manuals are written in a language for experienced coaches and bare little relevance to those who need the resource.

  14. Wayne Goldsmith on June 3rd, 2010 6:10 am

    Thanks Mike.

    I am a big fan of sports science but…………only when it is relevant and appropriate to the level of coach and athlete we are working with.

    What good are lactate analysers, heart rate monitors, GPS tracking systems and nutritional supplements if the athletes arrive late for training, execute basic skills poorly, don’t give 100% effort in their practices and are not engaged with the coach or the program????

    Get the basics right first – then let’s do all the clever stuff.

    Thanks again,

    WG

  15. John Driscoll on July 14th, 2010 1:02 am

    Wayne
    Only just seen your article – what a breath of fresh air and common sense!

    When I started out in coaching many years ago, the training was very practically based, with the emphasis more on “what to coach” rather than “how to coach”. Since then, in an eagerness to develop the skills of coaches we’ve seen a strong shift of emphasis to the “how to coach” in the majority of sports. That may have been necesary at the time but I fear we may have gone too far. Here in the UK the debates are as fiece as ever about the right balance between these two elements.

    Beyond the danger you mention of putting off lots of wannabe coaches with all the “ologies”, there’s a further risk. Those who qualify at the first level of coaching are not likely to progress any further or be interested in more CPD, if their experience in gaining the necessary award has not been great.

    Thanks again for a stimulating article.

  16. Wayne Goldsmith on July 14th, 2010 9:27 am

    Thanks John.

    I share your fears about professional development from first level. It is basic human nature. If your first experience of anything is too difficult, too challenging and not relevant to your needs, you will not try it again. If on the other hand we aim to make the first coaching education experience the best, most rewarding, most enjoyable and most relevant experience possible, we will have them breaking down the doors for more!!!

    WG