It’s an interesting thing- how we, as coaches of physical preparation, might qualify our efforts.
If we focus only on the gross abilities- which is certainly the case amongst the majority- then the measure is obviously the degree of improvement in short sprint times, jump height/distance, strength numbers, limited injuries, etcetera.
What we also know, however, is that these numbers can be very impressive yet not fully realized on the field if the other aspects of preparation are underdeveloped (tactics, technique, psychology, and so on).
If we then, as I choose to, integrate SPP methods alongside the GPP that the industry generally limits itself to, we will ensure a greater reliability of the training efforts realizing themselves on the field.
Difficult it is, however, to qualify these efforts (SPP in the physical preparation) because the skill coaches are also drilling aspects of this during spring ball, camp, and seasonal practice. Consequently, who’s to say that one aspect of the coaching is having a more meaningful impact than another.
As I have discussed, the SPP drills that I incorporate into the training take place during the times other than spring ball, camp, and season in order to fill the voids. Again, how we might qualify this approach is much more feasible in the theoretical and local sense. By local I mean amongst a particular coaching staff who unanimously agrees that a particular course of action makes great sense despite what outside observers may think.
To the outside observer, however, a number of conclusions will always be drawn.
I think what’s most important is that the awareness of what it takes to assist the athlete in his/her most complete and long term development is possessed by all coaches.
To this end, I’d like to think that everyone agrees on the following criteria of what the training program must fulfill:
- evolution (month to month, year to year)
- individualization (by player, position, needs, etc)
- systematization/sequence (mindful of events within the annual plan, what biological systems must be strengthened first in order that others may be strengthened next, etcetera)
- transference (are the athletes being trained according to the bioenergetic and biodynamic structure of the sport demands, and are practices following suite)
- orthopedics (are the training means filtered through a cost:benefit based not only upon the individual athletes state but also the sport demands)
- coaching tactics (are we multi-faceted enough in our communication ability and creative resource to ‘get through’ to all of our athletes)
- and so on
We can all debate over this exercise and that exercise, and this method of planning and that method of planning; however, in the end I’m not sure that anyone is truly qualified to physically prepare athletes if they do not adhere to the criteria listed above.
As to who is running the (insert your favorite adjective here) program- perhaps not enough information is available to those outside of any particular program to draw the most objective conclusion.