WHAT YOU DO
How do coaches bridge science-real-life gaps,
if they don't know how real-life works?
Coach learning and development is driven by sciences, technologies and systematic programs: strict control, cause-effect, precise measurement and general laws. Yet athletes develop and perform in the real—ambiguous, nuanced, messy, always-changing and "social"—world.
The more precise the science, the more "real-life" is left out it has to, for that science to be effective, which may explain sports many paradoxes: such as the current debate whether to coach ethically/responsibly or coach to produce winners.
British Cycling, for example, had a scientific focus on "marginal gains" at the same time it was alleged to have a culture of fear of bullying: more "massive- performance-obstacle" than "marginal-performance-gain"!
Until 'burning resentment' and 'crushingly low esteem' become ideal performance states, ethical coaching is winning coaching. But while performance enhancement remains scientific and consistently leaves out deeper understandings of everyday real-life, it's hard to see this undermining paradox changing.
We are the only scholar/consultants offering coach learning and development in "wide-sports-science" to enhance development and performance, flexible, fluid, ethical and winning: hence our continually increasing number powerful testimonies.
The best course I've EVER taken!
Anonymous University of Denver graduate coaching student
WHAT THEORY GUIDES YOUR
AND THEN YOUR PRACTICE?
This class, more than any other on the program, has
changed what I thought possible.
Rachel Foster, Masters of Coaching student, University of Denver
The players [do] all the stuff [science] where nobody knows... some have
proved it works and some have proved it doesn’t. The ones that prove it works
are usually sponsored by the guys who say that it does. Is it smoke and mirrors?
Arsene Wenger, Ex-Head Coach Arsenal F.C. (22 years)
Explaining the "smoke and mirrors"
As every experienced coach knows, what worked before or worked for the "best", rarely works again. Fitting all the nuances, ambiguities and messiness of behaviour into any coaching model, system, model, program or plan is like fitting square pegs into round holes.
In even the best systems, there simply aren't enough "this-is-the-right-thing-to-do-in-this-situation" buttons to press! Rather than looking for certainty in an uncertain world then, coaches could be better served by increasing their awareness of that uncertainty.
The French post-structuralists theoretical tool-kit, that explain in deep ways how everyday real-life works, guide coaches' navigation of the "smoke and mirrors", the "intangibles" or the "unexplainable bit": a coaching X-factor.
After all, most coaches know science needs adjusting when applied in real-life, but they've never had a theory guiding their adjustments before. No longer should coaching be described as “part-science/part-art” but “part science/part theory": seeing-more, thinking-broader, adapt and doing better.
NOT A NEW KNOWLEDGE, A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR USING KNOWLEDGE
DOING BETTER: HOW DO COACHES...
... use technology, numbers and data to advance their athletes, when those
athletes are human beings and not machines?
... get their athletes to "adapt-to-unique" situations if the "best" planning models or programs (e.g., coach session template, LTAD) or science always tell them what they should do?