Coaching can be conceptualized as a collaborative, action centered interaction that enables a learning environment, performance improvement, goal achievement and enhanced experience of life in a professional and personal context (Mallett, 2005; Spence & Grant, 2007). Philosophy can be broadly defined as the general study of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, body, mind and language (Werkmeister, 1959). The broad field of philosophy played a large role in shaping coaching practice as far back as Ancient greek philosophy which shared a common goal with coaching to enable a person's quest to become their best self.
The method of philosophy solves problems by questioning, being critical and thus implementing a systematic - perhaps evidence based - approach to rationalize an argument among one’s peers. One of the reasons why coaching is an intriguing profession is that everyone’s philosophy is somewhat unique to them.
Coaching process.
The process of designing and delivering an effective training program can be described as both a science and an art. If you give the same athlete to two qualified S&C coaches, you will likely receive two different programs. Differing approaches does not make either coach correct, critically the philosophy behind the design should lean on evidenced based principles of training (science), while the prescription of these will be context driven (art). That said, a coach’s 'philosophical' interpretation of the context does not give them poetic license when the science is robust. Ultimately, a coach must earn the right to validate their artistic component through knowledge of training principles and evidence based practice to safeguard against intuitive and possibly erroneous judgement.
As a product of experience managing the multifactorial elements that inform context towards athlete’s physical development, I strive to keep the S&C coaching process simple. Planning effective programs can be simple, but not easy. I believe the process is progressively made simple by critically evaluating the interrelationship of the ‘what’ ‘how’ and ‘whys’ in practice. If the cardinal rule of training is consistency, my ‘why’ is quite simply to facilitate processes and behaviours that support this rule. As an occupational habit dealing with many sports and training ages, my ‘what’ to coach naturally leans heavily on effective streamlining of evidence-based reviews of sport / athlete profiles including a 360-degree view from relevant stakeholders to inform practice. Information gathered helps me to meticulously design bespoke periodized annual plans through innovative program spreadsheets practically formulated to collect, analyse, interpret data in a broader aim to manage training and monitor workload relative to key variables associated with performance and injury resistance protocol.
Periodization is the systematic physical development of an athlete through training phases with separate aims advancing to a planned enhanced state of readiness during a competitive season. Classic linear periodisation strategies would involve initiating the program with high volume, low intensity training followed by a steady inverse relationship of these two variables through general, specific and competitive phases. First, general and specific are relative concepts. That is, squatting is specific to squatting but considered general for max velocity sprinting. However, to use Fig. 1 as my narrative for training University level athletes with low training ages, it is important to note that the successful outcome (e.g. speed) of a periodised plan is dependent on the foundation of general training. Therefore, I believe that before an athlete can benefit from specific training, they must develop well rounded general qualities. It is important to note that general does not mean generic or that the transfer of training effects is non existent until relatively more specific training is underway. My aim as a coach is to highly individualize programming by targeting specific gaps in general qualities relative to the athletes. These qualities are then monitored to ensure systematic improvements relevant for enhanced physical capacity for performance / injury resistance.
Figure 1: An adapted form of Al Vermeil’s hierarchy of athlete development has been used in part to illustrate a general narrative for my coaching process for an intended outcome (i.e. speed). Key qualities relative to sport and athlete can be tested, prioritized and monitored accordingly over a period to be ready for competition. In many cases, laying a good foundation near the bottom of the pyramid can increase the pinnacle at the top.
Coaching style.
‘Tell me and I will forget. Show me and I will remember. Involve me and I will understand.’
Confucian proverb
I am well aware that athletes don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. Therefore, I base my 'how' to coach on developing an athlete centered, positive learning environment that is conducive to enhancing the benefits of quality training. Furthermore, I believe it is important to progress through natural stages of collaboration to develop an involved athlete through the coaching process. Overtime, I aim to develop the coach / athlete relationship as a partnership in the which the athlete is the driver and the coach a facilitator. In some aspects, I endeavor to be a coach who has the questions that allow the athlete to find their own answers.
'Help me, help you!'
I believe in order to achieve competence, athletes need structure in the form of agreed guidelines and rules. It is important to note that compliant athletes who consistently follow agreed requirements at a baseline level will achieve a degree of progress. However, the more engaged, involved athlete who adheres to optional independent work will benefit with more informed programming decisions and improved readiness for sports performance / reduction of injury. Ultimately, the level of service provided will be determined by the level of athlete engagement. Given the data driven nature of advancing sport science, the more information a coach consistently receives from an involved athlete; the better the program; the more reliable and enhanced return in positive outcomes. My experience thus far has been that I guide compliant athletes, whereas I am guided by engaged athletes. Like any successful team, those who support each-other for the shared common goal progress optimally. One of my aims as a coach is to facilitate an environment where these behaviours are nurtured and directed.
References:
Baker, D., 1996. Improving Vertical Jump Performance Through General, Special, and Specific Strength Training.Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10(2), pp.131-136.
Werkmeister, W., 1959. Philosophy of Science, the Link between Science and Philosophy. Philipp FrankPhysical Science and Physical Reality. Louis O. Kattsoff. Philosophy of Science, 26(4), pp.374-375.
Mallett, C. J. (2005). Self-Determination Theory : A Case Study of Evidence-Based Coaching. The Sport Psychologist, (417), 417–429.
Spence, G. B., & Grant, A. M. (2007). Professional and peer life coaching and the enhancement of goal striving and well-being: An exploratory study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228896