In regards to football, where the performance quality is relatively subjective, how do you objectively assess whether sport form is in fact improved, especially considering that sport form can be considered individually, but is also highly reflective of the collective whole?
Thanks.
Yes, you have described the challenge in quantifying the most meaningful results.
My means of measuring improvements in sport form exist as measuring improvements in positional specific biodynamic speed/power/strength under the framework of alactic capacity.
Between what I measure via more quantifiable efforts and the feedback, regardless of its subjectivity, that I receive from the athletes- I know to a certainty that their motor potential necessary to heighten sport form has been increased.
The remainder of the idea is less certain as, per your reference, the extraordinarily predominant tactical component of the game, in addition to the team sport dynamic, creates a situation in which a heightened motor potential will not necessarily be realized as a measurable improvement in sport form if the statistically significance is not clear.
So between what I determine to train and measure and what the athletes tell me via subjective response- I possess, in my view, the most meaningful information.
My career as an Athletic Preparation Coach began about 15 yrs ago. I was rather lucky to have spent a great deal of time under the guidance of Ian King. He was probably the person most responsible for the term athletic preparation. He looked at things more as a whole versus it’s sub parts. Until I really started to understand how the process worked, I was a strength coach. Now I would consider what I do athletic preparation.
I think the problem with traditional American sports is that the role of the strength coach is primarily based on numbers. Although they are indicators of performance, who cares if your guy can power clean 450 lbs if he is slow and stiff as a board? I look at how well they play the sport, injury rate, and indicators other than “What’s he bench?” I also look at post season recognition and scholarships more as a indicative of what we do. That’s not to say every player plays beyond high school, but it’s a good indication that your program is heading in the right direction. Success breeds more success.
I will give an example of last season in bantam minor hockey. A kid I train is on the number one team in the world for their age group. I think they have lost less than 10 games in 4 years. They have won major tournaments in Russia, Sweden, and the Worlds in Quebec. The athlete has always been one of the best. I have worked off ice for the past 3 years with him. His scoring rate is going up as he goes up levels. That tells me something. He did zero of the teams “program”. I trained him based in theory from a previous conversation I had with Charlie. It is so contrary to what most North American hockey coaches do. The end result; in pre season he doubles the capacity of all his teammates in all testing. He did zero “aerobic based” training. He never missed a game due to injury or illness. He only failed to score in 2 games out of 70+ games and carried a 2.30 pts per game average.
Results like these are my prime indicators. Not everybody is a scorer, so I use other things like how many times did you lose physical battles? Did they tire? Were they consistent? I love nothing more than seeing one of the kid’s who shouldn’t make “IT” defy coaches and skeptics. I know I did my job when the 5’8" 180 lb middle backer gets a D2 scholarship. That’s the best feeling. That’s when I know I am not just an S&C coach, but an athletic preparation coach.