Coaches Don’t Ask Enough Questions - Here’s How To Gain Perspective

Sep 27

Scroll  to view all  below…

Feature by What Drives Winning

What Drives Winning features real conversations with top minds in sport centering around character development, priority alignment, team cohesion, behavior management and self-awareness.

In this coaching conversation, Brett Ledbetter sits down with Darris Nichols (Radford basketball) and Jordan Mincy (Jacksonville basketball) for a very real conversation around how to manage expectations and outside distractions.

00:00 John Mayer: Unwanted Visitors / The Bubble Chart 02:29 Fake Famous 04:26 "I'm Droppin' A Graphic" 09:16 What's Real vs. What's Fake 14:30 Visibility, Criticism & Expectations 17:38 Social Media Cleanse

Exploring a Technological Flip-Flop in Sport

by (University of Denver, Sports Sense) Jack Griffiths, Dr. Clayton Kuklick (Clinical Associate Professor, Master of Arts in Sport Coaching), Dr. Joseph P. Mills (Faculty, Master of Arts in Sport Coaching)

In this blog, we would like to share one of our most recent projects that involved exploring the use of a new sport technology intended to enhance both athletes’ and coaches’ performances. One of our coaches in our MASC program took interest to this topic from a sociological perspective from which they flipped the use of technology in such a way that it opened up an entire network of information that otherwise, to our knowledge, is unattainable with any other contemporary technological device.      

Generally, sport technology is used by coaches to gain information about their athletes which they subsequently use to make decisions about performance. Current trends in sport technology revolve around the use of heart rate monitors and accelerometers to gain information on athlete’s work rates, GPS to track locations, sensors to acquire specific information on skill techniques, and technical and tactical video analysis to generate information on athlete’s technical and tactical skills, to name a few. With using these technologies, it certainly gets exciting when they seemingly provide lots of very specific information about athletes’ performance, allowing for tracking progress and reinforcing certain ways of doing things in sport. But, could the information generated from these technologies focus attention too much on these specific and singular things where other aspects impacting performance might not be realized? Are coach’s decisions, intentions, and judgements limited to the information generated from the technology and perhaps without consideration for the athletes themselves? For example, information generated from technology and how it is used can impact coach-athlete relationships, engage constant monitoring and surveillance, and interact with athletes’ motivation levels to reach certain workloads, explore certain movements, or make decisions.

In our study, we flipped the use of technology so that rather than a coach being the gatekeeper and interpreter of the technological information, they were provided with oodles of information regarding athletes’ performance that they hadn’t otherwise considered. The technology explored was a system that provided athletes access to prompts, which then were anonymously stored and delivered as feedback to the coach. The key piece was that the athletes’ feedback were anonymous. After each practice and game, athletes scanned QR codes and answered prompts that revolved around:

• What do you want coach to know that you normally wouldn’t be able to say?
• What techniques and tactics are you struggling to learn?
• If you had one thought during training or playing, what would you want the coach to know?

Our findings showed how the anonymous technology unlocked the power differential between the coach and athlete where athletes provided information free of judgment and control, that otherwise would have been never told or realized, nor determined with any other contemporary technological device. Understandably, athletes started off slow with sharing information and didn’t know exactly what to ask for. But, in time they shared much information about their specific needs for enhancing performance, were empowered from their anonymous voice being heard by the coach, and were enlightened by how their coach changed in order to address the realities of the team that normally wouldn’t have occurred. The coach too found this anonymous feedback technology to be useful in opening up a pandora’s box of information pertaining to athletes’ performance and with providing a birds-eye view of different things that normally wouldn’t be considered as impacting athletes’ performance.

Tough love or verbal abuse? How about neither?

by Joseph Mills, PhD (University of Denver, Sports Sense) - Faculty, Master of Arts in Sport Coaching

Two years ago, the Washington Post ran a story of football coaches having to adapt to a cultural shift in appropriate behavior and discipline. Where, they asked, did the lines between tough love and verbal abuse, begin and end?

The “win-at-all-costs” mentality no longer has a place in youth sport, but hard coaching and making kids tough is still of course necessary. Learning the hard way. “We have to create adversity for our players and teach them that struggle is essential for growth” said Cara Morey, Head Coach of Princeton University’s Women Ice Hockey team in a keynote address at a recent North American conference of Leadership and Culture.

Or do you? Consider two athletes on the start line, B and C. They have identical physical, mental, emotional attributes but B is happy and C is not. C is anxious, under pressure, worried about what his abusive and/or tough love coach will say. “Will it be tough love today or verbal abuse, what will I have done wrong this time?” On and on, and on, go her anxiety fueled thoughts. B doesn’t think that, because she doesn’t need to. It doesn’t matter what she does, she is safe and secure, she can focus on the race. Who wins?

Let’s remove our sporting beliefs for a second, and now consider a human truth and fact. Happy people thrive, unhappy people don’t. Of course, that’s not strictly true of course, there are many exceptions, but the point is still the same. Happy people are more likely to thrive. More likely to develop, to perform, to excel. And unhappy people are much more likely to struggle.

So why… have almost everyone in sport, normalized the happy/unhappy development and performance relationship the other way round? Why do we see all manner of contradictions pervade sport?

• World-leading tennis players talking about their mental health struggles and “brutal” experiences of sport, while former tennis champions dismissively remind them playing tennis is a privilege, to step up and go get fixed by a psychologist.
• The now repeated almost weekly exposures of abusive coaches, and also the institutional mismanagement of abuse by national sporting organizations, that is the groups of people who organize the activities that they claim “teach a host of desirable social skills”: leadership, positive youth development [PYD], teamwork and so on.
• The fact that while British cycling had a world-leading scientific emphasis on “marginal-gains”, taking care of every single minute variable that collectively significantly advances performance, the one much larger variable they did not see was the bullying culture under Head Coach, Shane Sutton: more massive-performance-obstacle than marginal-performance-gain.

Sport in other words, has an ingrained cultural logic, as deep as a forest of Californian sequoia trees, that is actually counter to its aims, which makes little sense until you consider a deeper and broader view of sport.

Historically… the sport we know today, began when it was organized and given rules during the industrial revolution to increase health, divert people from monotonous factory tasks and presumably make a life of hard work seem normal. Sports have then a blueprinted design based on obediently following instructions, day-in day-out maximal effort, and never giving in [strength as resiliency or tolerating any-thing]: ever. A “horrible-do-what-I-say-shouty boss” maximal work-ethic, that everyone, including the media, thinks normal. Following instructions, aggression, passion, wanting, demanding, inspiring or forcing “it more” being the only attributes for success.

Not creativity, not inspiration, not freedom. Not flexibility, play, fun, art, beauty. Do you want me to carry on? Not spontaneity, exploration, originality, initiatives, mistakes, mis-interpretations, false starts, anxiety-free problem-solving, imaginations, imitations, deep motivation, thrill, trial and error, trying out possibilities, revising ideas, discovering new challenges and relationships, and bringing wide-ranging elements together. All of which are ironically the things that make sporting success far more likely.

The problem… is coaches do not see their coaching framework, that is the expectations framing and surrounding their athletes, counter their creative aims. “Be creative” is expressed as an instruction. “Have fun” is demanded. “Go for it” is forced. And all of them are undermined when an athlete makes a mistake, and the coach shouts, in an abusive or tough way, at the mistake.

Athletes are not securely and safely wrapped in judgement-free environments, they are insecurely-immersed in exceptionally harsh critical ones: tough love or verbal abuse.

And you want the greatest irony? Some coaches, likely those who do education for a qualification for promotion not the actual engagement of learning to be a better coach, are very quick to complain, cry foul or whinge when their education questions their beliefs. Which is exactly what they complain their athletes do! “Do I give them tough love or verbally abuse them?” I often wonder, knowing that’s what they demand of their athletes. I do neither. I wrap them in my version of a learning safety-blanket, and hope they see the enormous values to doing the same with their athletes.

Until burning resentment or crushingly low self-esteem become ideal performance states, coaching ethically is winning coaching. It’s not soft. It’s not weak. It’s not separate and distinct. It’s effective because it centers athletes on what’s important. It is exactly what it says it is. It’s winning.

It just needs a lot of [re]education of coaches to re-think or broaden their ingrained cultural logic. That’s what we do.

The “Art” of Coaching, Moves On…

by Joseph Mills, PhD (University of Denver, Sports Sense) - Faculty, Master of Arts in Sport Coaching

Most coaches are aware of the disconnects between science and the realities of sport, which is why they become experts in the “science and art” of coaching. Yet, as coaching researchers have noted, the appeal to art is confusing because firstly, art is so subjective, and secondly and as a result, because art is not tangible, practical or reliable enough to base important decisions on.

Put simply, art is too unknown. This blog explains how Denver University’s MASC program moves the art of coaching on, adding value to coaching that other programs don’t, or can’t.

Reality. Have you ever separated a granule of coffee from its cup? The red from the purple paint? Or the sharp edge of a knife, from the knife itself. Have you ever seen a brain walk down the street, without its body? Have you ever seen a human never engage at any point and on some level, with other humans? Of course, the answer in every case, is no.

Humans experience the world in connected ways. And yet, the knowledge driving sport and coaching is disconnected. It has to be. It comes from a laboratory for one, but even if the scientific knowledge comes from research in the real-world, that knowledge still uses laboratory assumptions. Not only that, but laboratory knowledge reduces. Again, it has to. If the units for analysis are too big or there are too many, something else could have caused the result.

An understated problem then because something “else” could be going on, something important, critical to know. Something that significantly impacts athletes. And as a result, and as every coach also knows, in sport the things that should happen, rarely do. And this fact, was also observed by a small group of French philosophers as far back as the 1960s.

As society settled after the shocking horrors and brutality of two global wars, people were free to develop new goods and services. Selling goods and services that, for the first time in history, were no longer essential. Nice to have sure, but not essential. Commercialism and with it, marketing/advertising flourished, and people convinced to buy goods and services they didn’t necessarily need.

Science as profit-driven as it is objective. Science was a part of that commercialism, and became as profit-driven as it is objective. And as a result, those things that should happen, stopped always happening. Sometimes they did admittedly, just not always, and certainly not with the regularity that they should.

These relationships between profit and knowledge, and resulting confusions/contradictions are impossible to deny. Science promises progress, and a better society because people “know more”. Yet it was also science that produced an atom bomb threatening the world’s very existence; also produced engineering techniques [likely] inducing climate change; and in sport today, as every coach knows, athletes seem more injured and mentally challenged than ever before. More research, more injuries, doesn’t make sense.

Moving on: post-structures. For the philosophers, the answer to these confusions was to move on. That is, to move on [i.e., “post”] from the belief that mainstream ideas [i.e., “structures”] always deliver. And to move on in a reliable, trustworthy, systematic way by  conceiving theories explaining everyday real-life, as the ambiguous spaces preventing mainstream beliefs from consistently working.

That is, theories providing a deep and broad overview of some of the thousands of subtle, unseen realities in everyday real-life. Realities too many and too complex for lab sciences to accurately measure.

Using theory as a coaching guide. The rationale for post-structural thought is then, pretty straight forward and reasonable. Sadly however, post-structural thought in coaching is far from common because it remains in academic ivory towers, either through mis-use [e.g., scholars speaking scholarly language only to themselves] or mis-reading [e.g., lack of understanding], and the essence of what post-structural thought offers coaches has to some degree, got lost.

Consider art, and Leonardo Da Vinci’s iconic masterpiece, the Mona Lisa. It is art, and we can look at it, but quickly move on. We know it is famous but do not see why, and it is notable to just tell people we have seen it. Listen to an audio “guide” of the painting, and our understanding changes completely. The three-quarter angle making her presence more significant; the ambiguity in her smile; her gaze returning to the viewer; the simple dress in a time of flamboyant fashion; the mystery of her identity. I could go on. But I hope the point is clear, the guide points us to see things we would not have seen on our own.

For coaches wanting expertise in the science and art of coaching, that art is better understood with a theoretical guide. And that’s what post-structural thought offers coaching. A theoretical guide of what was before complex, messy, and therefore, unknown at worst or misunderstood at best: everyday real-life, the space where all sport happens. And a space therefore, it is critical coaches know more about.

Where we add value is in the post-structures of coaching. Moving coaching from the “science and the art”, to a more trustworthy “science and theory [as art]”, which is why we receive so many positive testimonials. So if you want to move your coaching on a level, you know where to come. Now for our coaching tip…

Coaching tip: You know why the “what should happen in sport, doesn’t always” is so common. Rather than forcing a particular knowledge/practice to work. Stop. Pause. Take a step back, and consider if there is a broader, over-arching, or more realistic issue you might not be seeing.

It may well not be you or your athletes that are the problem, but instead the problem maybe the unrealistic [in your context] knowledge and practice. So change it up, do something different. Have the confidence to critique, challenge or not do the knowledge/practice. Even tried-and-tested ones. Just because everyone else does it, doesn’t mean you have to. Go for it. Be brave.

Forming - Storming - Norming - Performing

by The Team Building Company (Team Building Theory)  - Tuckman's Forming - Storming - Norming - Performing

This model was first developed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. It is one of the more known team development theories and has formed the basis of many further ideas since its conception.

Tuckman's theory focuses on the way in which a team tackles a task from the initial formation of the team through to the completion of the project. Tuckman later added a fifth phase; Adjourning and Transforming to cover the finishing of a task.

Tuckman's theory is particularly relevant to team building challenges as the phases pertain to the completion of any task undertaken by a team.

One of the very useful aspects of team building activities contained within a short period of time is that teams have an opportunity to observe their behaviour within a measurable time frame.

Often teams are involved in projects at work lasting for months or years and it can be difficult to understand experiences in the context of a completed task.

Forming

The team is assembled and the task is allocated. Team members tend to behave independently and although goodwill may exist they do not know each other well enough to unconditionally trust one another.

Time is spent planning, collecting information and bonding.

Storming

The team starts to address the task suggesting ideas. Different ideas may compete for ascendancy and if badly managed this phase can be very destructive for the team.

Relationships between team members will be made or broken in this phase and some may never recover. In extreme cases the team can become stuck in the Storming phase.

If a team is too focused on consensus they may decide on a plan which is less effective in completing the task for the sake of the team. This carries its own set of problems. It is essential that a team has strong facilitative leadership in this phase.

Norming

As the team moves out of the Storming phase they will enter the Norming phase. This tends to be a move towards harmonious working practices with teams agreeing on the rules and values by which they operate.

In the ideal situation teams begin to trust themselves during this phase as they accept the vital contribution of each member to the team. Team leaders can take a step back from the team at this stage as individual members take greater responsibility.

The risk during the Norming stage is that the team becomes complacent and loses either their creative edge or the drive that brought them to this phase.

In Practice

A perfect example of how this theory can be put to the test is within our NASA activity which forms part of our Crystal Challenge.

Forming – The team come together and are given the task. In this instance the scene is set, a crash landing on the moon, they have 15 items that they have to put in order of importance for them to survive in a harsh environment. The team begins to discuss the task at hand.

Storming – All team members have their own view on the order in which the items should be placed, the leaders within the group tend to take control however it is important in this phase that all views are listened to and acknowledged.

Norming- Following a lot of discussion, the team naturally move into the norming phase with one or two members of the group leading the discussion and putting forward the suggestions for the order that they have concluded with based on the general consensus. This is normally not those who have originally lead the discussion as they allow for others to put forward the conclusion, having already given their opinions.

This activity is based on effective communication and as a general rule all members of the group are fully engaged.

What’s your Game Idea? Tactical Periodization: Building a Way to Play, Supported by a Way to Train

by Clayton Kuklick, PhD Clinical Associate Professor, Master of Arts in Sport Coaching

“The important thing is to understand the <<way of playing>> that you want to develop, and from here, to connect some principles to others, and to hierarchize them”

– Vitor Frade in Martins, 2003.

Do you have a clear game idea of how you want your team to play? Okay, well maybe you have a game idea on how you want your team to play, but how close is it to the reality of how your team actually plays? What if we could uncover the methodology that integrates multiple aspects of team play inclusive of developing athlete techniques, decision making, team cohesiveness and tactics, and physiological conditioning specific to a game idea. Tactical periodization is a methodology, born in the mind of Professor Vitor Frade over 50 years ago at the University of Porto. This form of periodization is a break away from the conventional, more bio-physical based periodization models derived from Tudor Bompa (2022), Leo Matveyev (1981), or Yuri Verkoshansky’s (2009) work. Such conventional periodization models are framed around the ideas of fragmenting the physiological dimensions of performance to later piece them together, predominately focused on preparing athletes physically through exercises and training methodologies. In this way, these periodization models manipulate workloads in training to achieve a physiological “peak”, however without as detailed consideration for the periodization of technical skills, tactical decisions, team play, and their interactions with the physiological adaptations desirable to engage a broader “game idea.” Further, while existing periodization models are designed to reach an optimal level of bio-physical capabilities at a point in a given season (i.e., peak form), in team sports such as soccer, rugby, or lacrosse, could there also be a rationale for maintaining optimal or higher forms from the start of the season and throughout?

Vitor Frade’s (2003) tactical periodization fills this gap, as it is concerned with operationalizing a coach’s game idea through a set of conceptual and methodological principles that optimize technical, tactical, and physiological performances. At its essence, the logic of tactical periodization is to no longer use isolated physiological training as a means to prepare players to play the game, rather training is playing the intended game idea since day one. In other words, playing the game to be prepared for the game. This is an integrative physiology approach to training, where the collective and individual adaptability is driven by a training process where the team is interacting with the specific game patterns the coach is seeking. Each player in their specific position/role and each day designing the complexity according to the moment of the week or season. The purpose of this blog series is to present the tactical periodization methodology and its practical application. In this first blog, we present a framework for how to conceive a game idea with playing principles, from which in the next blog we will then further extend with practical methodologies and examples. We encourage the reader to apply their own interests and contexts alongside the tactical periodization concepts and principles presented in this blog post.

Conceiving the Game Idea: The Conceptual Principles

Conceptual game principles refer to “the play” or the collective intent of how the team is going to play. These principles entail “macro ideas” that guide the intent of team play in certain situations and are the main values about the way the team will attack and defend. To build this intended style of play, it becomes necessary for the coach to model the moments of the game and to have clear in his mind the macro principles that will display tendencies to achieve a collective intent. These principles should also consider the capacities of the players available to the coach.

As represented in the picture below, the situations of the game could be described as moments with or without the ball. Or, as another example, offensive organization, defensive organization, and/or transition moments.  

Such a basic model can be seen below in Figure 1:

In Tactical Periodization, the game model should not be thought of as a static outline of behaviors that become layered on to the team. Rather it is something that is built along the way. The coach is tasked with beginning with the macro references or the broad ideas of the intended “play”; from which the meso and micro behaviors will emerge as they interact with the macro idea.

So what is an example of a macro reference or game idea principle? First, the reader should conceptualize game idea principles as an interaction of intentional and regular patterns which the team and the respective players manifest at the different scales of the team during the different moments of the game (modeled in figure 1); these macro principles therefore should consider three key factors: intentionality, fractals and articulation of sense (Figure 2).

In terms of intentionality, we argue that the most dynamic and effective principles must be open to context but limited to certain criteria. In other words, the goal is for the principle to not impose restrictions but to infer some kind of organization, a balance between freedom and order, and provide a general guide for what to do in any given scenario. So, in many ways, they are a broad guide, and should contain three key dynamic considerations: individuality, creativity, and initiative.

To engage intentionality with a game principle, it should contain the following elements:

• Individuality: allows the players to express the principles in such a way that amplifies their strengths. For example, if we are in possession of the ball and want to achieve a game principle of “progression of the ball”, our team could preference progressing the ball on the right side where our right back and right midfielder connect passes well together.
• Creativity: allows the players to achieve the objectives of the game principle through innovative solutions to situations presented in the game. For example, it is okay for players to engage the game principle of “conserving” the ball in non-conventional ways, such as the midfielder realizing that by leaving his fixed position and dropping to the right of the two center-backs allows them to keep the ball easier because the opponent left winger is late to press the ball.
• Initiative: allows the players the authority to decide individually and collectively how to act and interact through the principles. For example, if the game principle of “progressing” is not possible then engaging the principle to “conserve” until the moment to “progress” is available. Essentially, the decisions are up to the player or players, which allows them to all be on the same page as a collective group.

Regarding the second factor, fractals refer to the different scales of the team and defined roles in which players interact within the different moments of the game at various locations. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. Scales are different plans of complexity of the same skills, movements, and behaviors that occur in different sizes: large scale (big spaces, many participants and possibilities for action) and smaller scale (smaller spaces, fewer participants and possibilities of action). Essentially, fractals entail a dynamic and bi-directional relationship within a system or series of interactions. As such, there is a global progression of the ball by the team from one side to the other implying locally that players progress the ball between each other, and vice versa, there is local progression of the ball between players to engage more players down the field implying a global progression. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems and outline how all the players are constantly involved with different roles to engage and achieve a game principle (Figure 3).

Three scales of the game that produce different roles for players to engage the game idea principle which are of importance to note: the macro, meso, and micro scales.

• Macro: general patterns of play that characterize the team and give it its identity. For example, in the situation above, everyone has the intention (i.e., intentionality) to “progress” (i.e., principle) the ball forward.
• Meso: intermediate patterns of play that bring the macro principles to life and create the dynamics of the team. The meso scale defines the roles to achieve the macro intention. For example, roles for engaging the “progress” game principle could include moving to open spaces, passing or dribbling forward, maintaining the distance between players progressing forward together, and providing options to advancing further or more rapidly.
• Micro: emerge as a function of the dynamics between the macro and meso principles and should be conceptualized as the “unpredictability to the predictability” of the play. For example, the individual actions that occur within the micro situation to achieve the macro pattern. This may include techniques for getting open, using one foot over the other for passes, angles of support, engaging spatial awareness, dribbling maneuvers, escape skills, etc. Micro level scales are all the individual behaviors in need of being performed to achieve the game principle.

Lastly, the articulation of sense is the “adhesive” that allows the game idea principles to be in constant fluidity so that it can properly resemble the “unbreakable wholeness” of the true nature of the game. The concept of “phases” presents a sequential characteristic and a linear logic towards the game. Whereas in the game, the moments of having and not having the ball, never happen sequentially, implying that their order of occurrence is not linear. Therefore, we can infer that all these moments are connected and interdependent to each other. The articulation of sense contends that the moments with the ball (offensive organization) should not be thought of as separate from the moments without the ball (defensive organization) because they in fact condition each other reciprocally. Designing game principles that are fluid and that can transition between the different moments of the game ensures a sort of continuity to the game idea which is necessary to be effective in the game. It also ensures a balance, which prepares the team to gain and lose the ball. Figure 4 demonstrates a graphical representation of how the articulation of sense can ensure a fluidity between moments and principles. For example if the team is engaging the “conservation of the ball” principle and they lose the ball, they can quickly work together to decide if they are in a capacity to: act immediately to recover the ball, organize to disrupt any further progression of the ball or protect their goal and prevent any goal scoring chances. Likewise, if the team is engaging the principle of recovering the ball and they are able to win it back, they can collectively and fluidly decide if they are in the conditions to: finish to score a goal, progress the ball to a different area, or conserve the ball in the current ball zone.

However, reducing the analysis and understanding of the game to the division of “moments” would be equally reductive and linear, as with “phases”, its just a simple replacement of the word. What’s key to promote through the articulation of sense is language and training activities that requires the players to engage the principles of the different moments of the game in a non-sequential way, in a similar rhythm to what will be faced in the game.

This process of modelization (i.e., the shaping of the game idea) is a critical step to conceiving the game idea through the design of tailored game principles that will guide the team and players decisions and intended way of play. As long as coaches keep the three factors of intentionality, fractals and the articulation of sense at the heart of their tactical periodization design, coaches can construct a fluid way of playing that’s easily adaptable, and a game that promotes the autonomy of players in a self-organizing manner. In the next blog series, we will explore methodological approaches which operationalize the game idea through specific, yet variable and fluid practice designs and trainings tailored for developing the technical and tactical skills, and physiological conditioning to optimize game idea principles.

What’s your Game Idea? Tactical Periodization: Building a Way to Play (Part 2)

by Gonzalo Obando & Clayton Kuklick, PhD Clinical Associate Professor (University of Denver, Sports Sense) - Master of Arts in Sport Coaching

“Many coaches know what they want. However, creating the process to build the game and make it evident during the competition is not an easy thing. And the richness of Tactical Periodization is exactly having found a set of methodological principles that, when contemplated, will allow such a team to express these ideas of the coach.” – Xavier Tamarit (2016)

This blog serves as an extension from our previous on Tactical Periodization, which is a training approach for sport performance that integrates multiple aspects of team play inclusive of developing techniques of play, tactical decisions, team cohesiveness, and physiological conditioning specific to a game idea. Our first blog introduced the process for generating your game idea that informs the coaching practices and activities that operationalize it. In this blog, we specifically address the methodological principles used for the operationalization the game idea, while blog 3 will present example practice activities that could be used to facilitate the game idea principles.  

Operationalizing the Game Idea: The Methodological Principles

To coordinate and “bring the game idea to life", Tactical Periodization is firmly rooted in the supra-principle of Specificity. Its fundamental nature to the entire process elevates its status to what practitioners refer to as the “supraprinciple”, because it is the most important factor to achieve a specific outcome: our game idea, our desired way of playing. This form of Specificity suggests that our way of playing can only be born in practice through specific training activities that directly promote our game principles and ideas of playing.

Specificity is therefore the most critical tool coaches have in order to train, teach, and practice their game idea. To achieve Specificity, the methodology introduces three methodological principles to ensure the coach can achieve Specificity in the training week, training day and training activity.

The “supraprinciple of Specificity” and the three underlying methodological principles, therefore, give rise to the weekly training cycle used to operationalize the game idea on a week-by-week, session-by-session and activity-by-activity basis, which is referred to as the Pattern Morphocycle. Unlike the conventional microcycle, which can be defined as the temporal space between two games in which training occurs in a linear progression and analytical manner, the Pattern Morphocycle should be understood as a fractal representation of the training process to acquire our intended way of playing. “Morpho” from the Greek word “μορφώ” can be translated to mean “form” implying that the style and structure of the training week is typically consistent throughout the season. Unlike the conventional microcycle that emphasizes peak forms and varied loading, the structure of the Pattern Morphocycle remains mostly unchanged during the training process to ensure a stabilization and continuity of performance. What does change in the morphocycle throughout the weeks are the tasks or played situations that bring us closer to acquiring our intended way of playing.

Through the deployment of the methodological principles, we are able to design the Pattern Morphpycle and most importantly achieve Specificity in our training process which enables: (1) the acquisition of our intended way of playing and just as importantly, (2) to recover adequately throughout the week in order to be prepared to perform in the next game. These two objectives are intimately interconnected, because the acquisition is only guaranteed by recovery and recovery is due to fatigue from the acquisition (which is necessary to progress in complexity).

Principle of Complex Progression in Specificity

Complex progression contends that the acquisition and qualitative evolution of a game idea takes place in a complex way and not in a linear one. Complex progression implies that during the training process, and likewise game scenarios, players can fluctuate from less to more complexity (and vice versa), but always in complexity, since playing the game is inherently complex. In this way, learning such complexities is thought to be a spiraling process as it develops around an axis (i.e., the game idea). The coach, therefore, must rank priorities to facilitate the acquisition and somatization of the idea of the game over time, because no matter how coherently the game idea has been systematized, the coach will not be able to transmit it all at the same time. Organizing priorities emphasizes the need to dynamically address macro, meso, and micro game principles in a patterned but non-monotonous way throughout the training week and session. This implies that the meso and the micro references only exist as such when they are in articulation (i.e. coherence) with the macro references. Like the leaf of a tree: the leaf is a fractal of the tree but only when it is on the tree, the moment it is removed from the tree it is no longer a fractal (Figure 4).

The main premise of the complex progression principle is that it helps organize the training week in relation to levels of complexity. Essentially, coaches will target variations of complexity (e.g., high, medium, or low / macro, meso, and micro) for each training day dependent on the readiness of the player to acquire the game idea; essentially it is gauging whether they are sufficiently recovered from the previous game day to acquire understanding of the game idea in large dosages or smaller dosages

Principle of Horizontal Alternation in Specificity

Horizontal alternation in Specificity safeguards the performance-to-recovery relationship of the player and teams by distributing different scales of the “intended play” throughout the week. The methodology identifies three different but interconnected types of muscular contractions: tension (i.e., eccentric contractions, the “braking and accelerating” moments of playing), duration (i.e., the eccentric and concentric contractions occurring over long periods of playing) and velocity (i.e., concentric contractions, the sprinting moments that occur in great speeds). Although we know that during any exercise, muscular contraction expresses these three characteristics jointly, we can, by manipulating the exercises, give dominance to one over the others.

Just as important in making the effort to acquire the intended principles of the game idea is the recovery dynamic to ensure players are fully restored and able to engage in the acquisitive process. To achieve this dynamic, this methodological principle addresses different levels of organization (i.e. macro, meso, and micro situations) during different days in the week for the players to understand the different scales of reference. This also implies the stimulation of the various types of muscular contractions dependent on the types of interactions and size of playing spaces. As coaches we must be aware of the muscular contractions that are associated with the acquisition of our way of playing. A team like Liverpool for instance, who is notorious for their pressing intensity, will inherently train situations of velocity and sprinting as they acquire the intentions and ideas of their pressing schemes. However, it will also be necessary for Liverpool to recover these structures by reducing the complexity or acquiring other principles of their game idea (i.e. using different sizes of playing space, few number of players, fewer minutes of playing or training other principles that emphasize different contractions). Through an alternation of stimulus in the tension, duration, or speed of muscular contractions in reference to our way of playing on one day, we are able maximize a given structure, while recovering the other less-dominant structures on that same day (Figure 5). As seen in Figure 5, the temporal distance between the two games is decisive for the configuration of the weekly pattern, what to do on each day and a means of establishing habituation or a “morpho pattern”. Therefore, even if the space in between matches is 5, 8, 3 or 6 days the principle of horizontal alternation is persevered, and the weekly training structure is kept as consistent as possible.

It important to notice within the “algorithm” of the Pattern Morphocycle, that players are not prepared to train in high complexity again until four days after the game (i.e., Thursday, the day of macro principles, the day of training most similar to the game day). This is because we don’t just seek a physiological recovery, but also a cognitive, emotional and collective recovery of the team as whole. Wednesday and Friday, apart from being days of acquisition of the game idea also serve as a form of recovery by simplifying the playing situations into less complex ones, a more individual form of acquisition which coincides with addressing the micro and meso principles of play.

Principle of Propensities in Specificity

Propensities refers to the creation and modeling of game contexts where interactions related to our game idea are executed. The aim is to allow for the chaos of the game to be deterministic (i.e., for your players, not opponents). That is, that the activity created by the coach does not lose its open nature, where players are called upon to decide and interact constantly, giving them a decisive role. Even within this open nature, it is a context that due to its configuration promotes certain purposes and intentions (our game idea principles) related to the game that is intended to be developed. It is the principle used in the methodology to create variability within training activities to promote deeper levels and more functional levels of collective and individual learning. In this way we are also able to create contexts that emphasize redundancy towards the principles of our play, training the same ideas but never in the same way (i.e. linear repetition), a condition that enriches the plasticity and adaptability of our players. The propensities in this way, serve as the specific activities for learning how to interact collectively under a certain previous intention (i.e. the principles of our play), applied to the different scales of play (Figure 6).

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation

by Leadership And Sport - Making You A Better Coach

What is intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport?

This article explains what intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is within sports and the importance to coaches and leaders. Some may also know this as internal or external motivation.

Motivational theories along with personality types can help sports coaches to further understand their athletes and what drives them. Our articles on the Drive theory and the Catastrophe Theory illustrates how motivation and arousal can impact sports performance.

The basis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has been useful to us over the years as we have noticed different drivers in performance between intrinsically and extrinsically motivated athletes and performers. We have also used this theory to help set aims and objectives with our athletes as well as using this to reflect on our own aims and ambitions. You may also be interested in our posts on the drive theory and the catastrophic theory in sport.

Sports psychology is an integral part of sports performance with most top sports teams now employing professional sports psychologists. From professional football teams to Olympic cyclists and rowers. Therefore, we feel all coaches should know what the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is.

You can read more about other motivational theories in our guide to sports coaching.

What is the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation?

Intrinsic motivation is when somebody wants to achieve a personal goal for themselves. An example of this is when somebody wants to complete a two mile run for pride and a sense of achievement. The runner will not achieve anything of monetary value or a reward but instead feels self-satisfaction. Other characteristics of intrinsic motivation are taking part for personal values, pride and/or enjoyment.

Extrinsic motivation is when a person sets out to achieve a reward or some sense of recognition. An example of this is a person playing football to win the local cup or to be signed up to a professional contract for money. Other reasons could be peer pressure or the sense of belonging.

What is the definition of intrinsic motivation?

The definition of intrinsic motivation is “stimulation that drives an individual to adopt or change a behaviour for his or her internal satisfaction or fulfilment”.

What is the definition of extrinsic motivation?

The definition of intrinsic motivation is “an incentive to do something that arises from factors outside the individual, such as rewards or penalties.”

Why is it important to understand the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation?

All those involved in sport aim to achieve a certain goal. Whether this is to be selected for the first team-squad, having a sense of achievement or to have a professional sports career.

Having an understanding of what drives athletes will help coaches to determine what motivates them to turn up to training.

Sports motivation is a widely researched area and all coaches should understand how to improve their coaching skills. Researchers say that athletes can show separate behaviour and motivation dependent on whether they are intrinsically motivated or extrinsically motivated.

Whilst rewards can increase an athletes’ motivation if they have little interest or are learning a new skill, a sense of enjoyment and belief can motivate athletes for longer. Therefore, by knowing this, coaches can begin to understand what their athletes’ hopes are and why they are taking part in the sport.

Our View

Not many level 1 and level 2 coaching courses study what intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is. However, more college and university programmes include this in their course.

Over our years of coaching, we have seen the importance of this principle being used by many sports coaches. Whether this is an education setting or in a competitive setting, we believe this fundamental principle is important to sports coaches.

Most, if not all top tier sports coaches use this principle daily to get the best out of their athletes.

Below are some key questions we have used to help determine intrinsic and extrinsic motivation:

• Why is the athlete taking part in sport
• What do they want to achieve long term
• What do they enjoy the most about sport
• What do they least enjoy about the sport
• Do they have a plan for where they want to be in the future?

These questions are only some of the examples of what sports coaches can use to determine the intrinsic and extrinsic factors.

Whether your athletes are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated will determine your aims and objectives when planning sessions and season objectives.

Key Highlights

• Intrinsic motivation is taking part for themselves
• Characteristics of intrinsic motivation can be pride, sense of achievement and purpose
• Extrinsic motivation is influenced by external factors
• Characteristics of extrinsic motivation can be receiving incentives and rewards

‍