Guidance for the new physical preparation coach – Respect & research

In 1999 I wrote the first edition of the book ‘So You Want to Become a Physical Preparation Coach’. It was the first and only book of it’s kind at the time offering professional and business guidance to physical preparation coaches. Twenty years later this guidance is as relevant as it was then. However little advancements have occurred in the ensuing 20 years in the professional practices in our industry – physical preparation.

There is a lot about the legal profession I don’t like. For example their example to ‘churn’ work, which means to generate unnecessary billable hours. But here are a few things that I like. For starters their professional rates. Even the lowest, least experienced lawyer is billed a triple-figure hourly rate. But the one aspect I envy the most is their respect of seniority.

Now I believe respect needs to be earned, and more years in the industry does not equate or guarantee competency. But what it does do is allow a young, inexperienced professional the opportunity to study the track record of the more experienced person, and at the very minimum communicate with them with respect to what they have learnt about their professional journey.

I just got off the phone with a young ‘high-performance coach’. I recently was hired by an athlete form within a team he is employed to service, and he had respectively asked me to call him. So I did. When he asked me to outline what training I was doing in the various physical qualities, I asked a few key questions.

How many years have you been in the industry? A year or two. Right.

Have you heard of my name before? Ah, no.

Have you read any of my published works? Ah, no.

Okay. Now this young man lives within a 30 km radius of where I reside for parts of the year. His professional academic training was probably done in the same city mine way. He is on his way to a PhD, God bless him. But this is not how you optimize the opportunity you get when you dialogue with someone with my experience.

In relation to the strength training I am doing, he felt the need to understand it. Was it corrective exercises, as he had been led to believe from the athlete. Now I don’t use that term, and I don’t believe in it. The impact of an exercise is determined by the result on the body, not by a pre-determined label. Now Paul Chek and others did a great job of popularizing this term and concept, God bless them. But I don’t use that term. You can be doing one the most ‘classic’ ‘corrective exercises’ and it could be damaging the athlete. So how can we dialogue on terms we don’t share common ground on?

Was my speed work maximal or technique-based? Now we are in the few week of training and he knows that. My training approach to speed is well documented, from my presentation at the original SAQ seminar in New Orleans in the early to mid-90s to my collaboration with the late Charlie Francis. To my development and championing of the concept ‘reverse periodization’ through to my well-published content about how I make substantial change to athlete’s speed with sub-maximal efforts.

Now I may not be the smoothest person to talk to in circumstances like this. SO when the young man began to justify his questions with the ‘I just have the best intentions of the athlete in mind’ I could not help myself. If you knew what I knew about the athlete, if you could read their bodies like I can, if you knew what you and your colleagues were doing to them by act or omission that was damaging them and decreasing their athletic – you would either quit really quickly or get better really quickly.

So we then went to ‘I need to know what the athlete is doing in training because if they get injured I will get blamed’. Great theory, but again, if you knew what I knew about their injury potential and the relationship between what is being done to them or not being done to them in training and their injury potential, you would not sleep at night.

Then the request to meet in person next Tuesday to ensure we are on the same page. Now I don’t know about how others operate but warm feelings don’t pay the bills. Who is paying for the meeting? Should the client be expected to pay for what is ultimately going to be a coach education meeting? Should this young coach have a free consultation whilst many around the world put their money on the table by attending seminars or enrolling in courses with their hard-earned cash? I don’t think so.

I raised this point – if I was a second-year law graduate and I was talking to a Queen’s Council (QC) or equivalent, would I be asking them to justify and explain themselves? Probably not! I expect that junior lawyers would respectively take the opportunity to learn – irrespective of who was the primary contact with the athlete (and it is usually the junior lawyer!).

Now maybe I could have done what most might do and submissively answered his question. But in my humble opinion the way this industry conducts itself, including the lack of appropriate respect and deferment to those who have paved the way in this industry, is simply not good enough.

Now I understand the Australian class structure mentally, inherited from our English roots – we are all the same, no one could have risen above. However, that is simply not the case. There are more senior coaches, and some of them actually have something to learn from.

If you want to fulfil your potential, be the best you can be, if you really care for the best interests of the athlete – stop being so average. Step up to a level of professionalism that whilst absent in our industry, is something that would serve our industry.

When I arranged to sit with one of the USA’s most successful ‘strength and conditioning coaches’ Al Vermeil for the first time in the late 1980s I had done my research, and I took respectfully the opportunity to learn. When I collaborated with him regarding an athlete in the Chicago Bulls, I didn’t ask him to explain himself, and I didn’t go to the clichés of ‘I just want the best for the athlete; or ‘we need to be on the same page’; or ‘I will get blamed if they injure themselves’. I could go on ad nausea of these examples. So I am not preaching from hypocrisy. I did exactly what I expected you should do.

Even if the industry doesn’t change, you can change. You, the new professional in physical preparation, can and should be better. And this is just one way to do this. However, the teacher is not likely to appear if the student is not ready….

There is a better way – Part 2: Don’t look to ‘strength & conditioning’ to get your skill development

In the late 1980s a European coach brought me a North American winter sport gliding athlete and told me that the athlete lacked certain skills and asked that I create them in the gym. I did my best to keep a straight face, assuming that this was an isolated case and I would not likely face too many conversations of this nature. Unfortunately the reverse has occurred. The world has moved further towards the belief that the North American ‘strength and conditioning’ movement will solve all athletic problems. It won’t. Rather, it’s creating them.

To place this message in context, let’s get on common ground with vernacular. Influenced by the seminal works of Hungarian turned Canadian Tudor Bompa, I divide athlete development into four categories – technical, tactical, physical and psychological.   How important is technical or skill development? Not only do I rank it number one, the timing is critical. There is a possibility that the window of adaptation is highest at the younger ages and closes over time.

How do we develop skill? By rehearsing the specific skill. I mean the SPECIFIC skill, whether taught in part or whole. How many times has the athlete executed the skill in the training session? How many times has the athlete executed the skill in their career to date?

What I am NOT referring to is the use of ‘apparently’ specific exercises to develop the skill.

There are optimal strategies of skill development that progress the athlete from non-intense to more intense execution, from non-stressful to higher stress execution, from low volume to higher volume execution and so on. Failure to optimally implement skill develop impedes skill develop.

However one of the greatest killers of skill development in western world sport is the imbalance between technical (skill) development and physical development (read ‘strength and conditioning’ if that helps). With the continual lowering of the age at which young athletes are expected to join physical preparation programs, this alone is reducing their skill development. There was a time in the North America (probably in the 1960 ad 1970s) and in Australia and New Zealand (the 1970s and 1980s) where there were no formal ‘srength and conditioning services’ provided to the young athletes. I suggest these times were more balance in their time allocation relative speaking to skill development.

I predict that in the decades to come we will have ‘strength and conditioning’ programs in primary schools (ages 6-12 years), and I imagine this process may have begun. I suggest this will contribute to a further decline in skill development.

Physical preparation coaches are not taught, by and large, how to teach sports skills, nor are they taught how to balance the time and energy development of the four areas of athlete development. They are taught a narrow content of ‘this is how you do strength and conditioning’. Unfortunately sports coaches for the most part are no better educated, and have accepted the handover to the ‘strength and conditioning’ coach.

I have seen many examples where a teenage athlete will spend as much time in the gym as they will in their technical AND tactical development. This is not consistent with my interpretation of their relative needs.

What I do readily acknowledge is that the early advancement of the physical qualities gives athletes and coaches the perception of superiority over their opponents, in the same way an earlier maturing athlete feels superior to his less developed yet same ages peers in sport. However this short-term elation almost always gives way to the disappointment of the realization that the long term limiting performance factor is the skill development.

To guide you in the first instance, I suggest that ‘physical development should not exceed skill development’. At least not until you believe that athlete needs no further improvement in skill. Because once they default to physical dominance, it is less likely that further skill development will result.

Not only is the western world spending too much time in the strength training gym, there is also an unfounded believe that to have a ‘tool’ in the hand of the athlete will provide superior results in skill development. For example, you do not have to have resistance bands in your hand to optimize skill development. In fact, for the most part, doing so will impair skill development.

A long forgotten tenant of skill development is the caution towards the use of external loading to develop a skill based sport adaptation. The challenge with this is the reality that if athlete may modify the actual technique that should be developed to a modified technique aimed at overcoming or dealing with the external load. The key to any application of external load in a skill development drill is the wisdom to know how little volume you need to get an adaptation, and what the threshold of volume would be that might result in an inappropriate adaptation. This level of coaching wisdom is rarely found. In the interim I suggest you stay away from it.

To give a very specific example, the development of the ability of a number 2 in rugby union to throw a ball accurately into a lineout does not (and I suggest for the most part should not) require the use of resistance tubing. Rather I would prefer to see higher volume skill training, supported at an appropriate time with low volume non-specific strength training (when I say non-specific I mean not as specific as mimicking the action) at an appropriate time in their development. Yes there are a number of subjective comments in this guidance, such is the ‘art’ of coaching.

Ideally I would like to see a shift back towards the prioritization of skill development, and the reduced exposure of all athletes, and in particular the young athlete, for formal ‘dryland’ or ‘strength and conditioning’ training. What is happening is not good enough, and the athlete is paying the price. The good news is there is a better way. The question remains – will you go there?

 

Note:

For those athletes and coaches who are concerned about the direction of training and want to believe there is a better way – congratulations. There is a better way. I have spend the last four decades discovering better ways to train, and we teach these better ways when we work with athletes or coaches. The KSI Coaching Program aims to provide you with the tools to train athletes and others in their highest and best interests, with no interest in what the dominant trend is or will be in the future. Learn more about KSI Coach Education here https://kingsports.net/courses/