Practical Coaching Reflections.
The purpose of reflecting on coaching sessions is of paramount importance to the development of the coach, and in turn the education of the athlete. Developing as a practitioner is closely aligned with stretching athletes and allowing them to reach the heights of their potential within their sport. Not only in sport does reflective practice underpin enhanced knowledge transfer, developing understanding of any pedagogy can be enhanced through reflection as both and academic or sporting practitioner. This is well supported by research, and it can be understood that when interviewing coaches in elite sport, who score highly as critical thinkers, with highly stringent and expansive, elite pre-dispositions, have reflective practice intertwined within their coaching model, in comparison to those with less perceived expertise (Cropley et al., 2020).
For this study, two training sessions were recorded for subsequent analysis and reflection. The sessions were purposefully varied to allow for the extraction of as many coaching concepts and as much theory as possible. Session one with “Coach A” being a one-hour session in football with a large group of talented male youth players. Session two with “Coach B” was more intimate, a one on one thirty-minute badminton session, with a competent open age female badminton player. Both coaches had a varying similarity and a plethora of naturally occurring differences to their approach, as is found in coaching, as it is so open in practice in an ever changing, multi-faceted environment. Subsequent analysis was then undertaken (utilising theCoaching Checklist) in the form of an observation sheet, alongside consideration Kolb’s reflective cycle (Kolb, 1984) to synthesise observations and make recommendations based on each coaches’ perceived strengths and areas for improvement.
Beginning with Coach A and the elite youth football session. Interestingly it was initially noted there was little introduction prior to the first drill of the topic, and specific focus, a reason for this may have been it is previously highlighted pre-practice what the focus is within their macro and micro cycles. The session was designed in a carousel approach, with smaller games for understanding (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982) in multiple groups, stretched out to larger practices within the same area with the removal of a limited amount of equipment. This aligns well with research into teaching within a similar age banding, which orchestrates the positive benefits on maintaining motivation within this type of session design where there is a low downtime between activities (Owen and Thomas, 2019). Coach A communicated in a multitude of ways, in large groups, break-off groups, drive-by interventions with individuals, although it was noted there was little in the way of a de-brief at the end of the session. Studies show that the development of psychological efficacy that occurs post session within the debrief is vital, and even more so in developing the coach-athlete relationship (McArdle, Martin, Lennon and Moore, 2010). The rapport that Coach A had with the participants within his session was generally exemplary. All athletes were receptive to any form of communication, and there was a clear bond between the coach and his athletes. That being said, importantly there were boundaries, the tone at which the coach communicated while the session was live was forceful, and impacting, without ever being overbearing. The tone was also plenty casual during downtime in the breaks, this being a vital time to develop social relationships with the players, to get to know them, understand their needs, and how to potentially tailor interventions to maximise returns (Jones, Armour and Potrac, 2005). Interestingly the coach had a tendency to praise for the whole group to hear, the positive re-enforcement interventions delivered throughout were boomingly positive and almost joyful, it portrayed a delight at the success achieved by the athletes, which can only further encourage individuals to strive for success. This positively authoritarian approach was pitched excellently to the group, it allowed for behaviour and attention to be reined in swiftly, as well as being demanding enough to command for “bravery” and “courage to play without fear of failure”, which permitted constant engagement and enjoyment from the players.
In terms of coaching styles which were observed, Coach A was very much centred around his athletes partaking in the games-based approach, with no evidence of any breakout skill-based practices throughout. Instead, there lay emphasis on guided discovery, for example asking his athletes how they can communicate what they want their teammate to do next with the ball when the pass it too them, potentially without even communicating it (with their weight of pass). There were plenty of question-and-answer interventions, allowing for the players to take control of their learning, and intrinsically analyse their performance. And finally, there were a multitude of occasions where observation and feedback were delivered to address needs. Whether this be technique based and feeding back of what technique was employed on a misplaced pass or observing tactical deficiencies in a players’ movement and asking them how they can correct this to maximise their teams’ chance at success.
Observing Coach B, the focus of the session was introduced promptly, and revolved around the development of recovery, and space, within the first 4 shots of each rally. The coach statistically backed this up with personal research which was communicated directly with the athlete which emphasised the importance of this sessions aim. This showed an understanding of the age of the athlete who would otherwise have been intuitive enough to wonder why, and also and understanding of the requirement in a single-athlete sport, that the coach-athlete bond may have to be a lot closer, to really improve the athlete’s skill level (Foulds, Hoffmann, Hinck and Carson, 2019).
Get Ben Pickford’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This was followed aptly by a warmup where it was evident that the coach was employing a positive re-enforcement approach to their session. Body language was constantly positive, upright and open, and this was backed up by an extremely positive tone and use of language. There were no occasions where the performers ability was questioned, perhaps to maintain a positive standing with the athlete to maximise returns (Light and Harvey, 2016). Practices were very open, and a games-based approach (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982) was employed, there was no evidence of skill-based coaching. It was very clear that the coach had an athlete centred coaching philosophy, where knowledge transfer was a two-way partnership, and it was up to the athlete to develop a deeper understanding of the game, their ability and evaluation of their performance.
Whilst addressing needs, Coach B focussed on the testing of his performer, aligned well with the use of the question-and-answer coaching style, to allow for a personal touch. There was a consistent abundance of prying questions, whether to test the athletes’ current understanding, or to challenge choice of shot, in a positive manor. This learning style may have been selected specifically for this individual, to align for what is best suited for the performers age and stage (Metzler, 2000). This democratic approach to coaching, is more suited to older, experienced athletes who need to break the discovery threshold to perform. Mosston and Ashworth (1994: 2002) depict development of this more mature, and experienced athlete via a different coaching style, one that probes, and places emphasis on autonomy of the athlete as opposed to relying on the coach for one-way knowledge transfer.
After exploring both sessions, coaching behavior, and both single and multi-athlete considerations it is clear there is no linear, foolproof approach to coaching. Although there are correlations which support more modern coaching methods, particularly to regulate engagement and maintain athletic autonomy. Both coaches incorporated games-based coaching, constraint lead approaches, and allowed for skill development through exploration within open practices. That being said, it is vital that within this approach the coach is still fully aware that they are the gatekeeper to development, their sessions are live and ever-changing organisms which the coach needs to be fully engaged in to allow for manipulation of constraints if necessary, to maximize outcomes (Orth, van der Kamp and Button, 2019), as was the case for Coach B, which was identified as an area of improvement. Subsequently it should not be considered poor practice to strip practices back and incorporate a blended approach to coaching which allows for respective, skills-based coaching, if the requirement is there to improve isolated skills or techniques, to allow improved execution within competition.
Reference List and Coaching Checklist available upon Request, contact me for further details.
