Thoughts on Charlie Francis and soccer

[svincenz]

@no23

Just to elaborate a little on the application of technology in sport.

In particular I want to speak about two words ‘application’ and ‘enlightenment’.

The application of Technology is hugely important in sport.
Note I said ‘application’ as opposed to ‘use’. Many people use technology in sport, very few apply it. Even rarer is to find someone who applies it properly!

How many people know of coaches who have jump data, speed data, etc and never use it or apply it. It’s simply isolated data. (I won’t go into data management here)

It is ignorant to ignore technology and some mistakeningly assume the great coaches like Charlie didn’t use technology, they forget Charlie was one of the first to embrace both EMS and Omegawave in sport. In fact I know Charlie spent many hours discussing both of these technologies and what they were telling us.

But Number Two made the important point that Charlie while didn’t need it, he used it to confirm things, to support his thought process and for enlightenment. But he did use it when he had the chance, (including Omegawave), to test theories and concepts. But he embraced it for what it was.

The best coaches I know all have experience of technology and all use it to test concepts and for further enlightenment if you will.

Back to application. Application of a technology, like Omegawave means, using and applying it to the situation and continuously reassessing the results.

I don’t have time to go into it in huge detail, but this area is IMO the most important area and issue facing Team Sports at the minute.

no23,
good points, but many clarifications are needed. What is the technology you are referring to? (you made some examples, but then I missed the point, my fault, probably).
If you don’t define that, we are talking for nothing. Omegawave? ARP? An algorithm for the analysis of data would be technology (it is)?
The main problem is with the interpretation of data, as you said, because it requires a framework. In absence of framework, we are in a similar cul de sac as that currently faced by scientists working on the interface genome/medicine. Lots, tons of data, but many problems in the interpreation.
Now, as I wrote before, we don’t still understand a lot of things (and we won’t for a lot time) and therefore the implementation of technology is not automatic. If, let’s say, such a reliable algorithm were available, its simple implementation for determining training loads, emphasis and so on would be straightforward. If a reliable and 100% effective “cure” for, let’s say, overtraining were there, its application would be as straigthforward as the application of Quinine for malaria.
Talking about expertise vs technology without a context is naive.
Said that, Charlie was a great expert.