(The most creative blog post title I have ever come up with!)
An interesting paper was published a couple of weeks ago, entitled “Adding texture to the art of constraints-led coaching: a request for more research informed guidelines” (Kennedy & O’Brien, 2024). I thought it presented an interesting challenge to the CLA. To follow up this, Rob Gray presented an interesting video critiquing the article and highlighting several things he disagreed with. I think regardless of your standpoint, the article is worth a read, and the video is worth a watch.
The article had some good bits and some I’m not so sure about, as did the video. But either way, I think it has been thought provoking and stimulated some good conversations. For transparency, I know the lead author of the paper personally, and he has some fantastic insights. I have also been watching Rob Gray’s videos for years now. I really like the CLA, and my journey into skill acquisition started with ecological dynamics (see here). Currently I don’t know where I stand, but articles like this, and Rob’s respectful critique really support my sense-making and wayfinding. These are my thoughts in a blog, not quality controlled like a research paper, and almost certainly won’t get as many views as the video, but I’ll share them nonetheless.
What guides decision-making?
To start with, I will share this extract from the paper:
“Despite the reassurances of leading academics that coaches would develop expertise through an exploratory trial-and-error learning process in which they become better at 'choosing which constraints to use, how much to manipulate them by and how long to leave them in place' (Renshaw, Davids, Newcombe, & Roberts, 2019, p. 94), further guidance may be beneficial to help coaches avoid a process of throwing constraints against the wall to see what sticks.“ - (Kennedy & O’Brien, 2024)
I would hardly suggest the authors are calling for a “deterministic solution” here like the video says. “Calling for something that’s not really possible” because the coaching environment is “unpredictable” is burying your head in the sand. You can't give specifics on what constraints to use (I agree), but the paper specifically asks for "guidance" on what constraints to use, rather than specifics, or a “deterministic solution”. When it comes to constraints manipulation, there are literally thousands of things that a coach can do at any given moment, so how does a coach make this decision?
The idealised movement technique may guide some coaches, rightly or wrongly, and this guides their decision making on what drills or tasks they implement. It is fine to not agree that there is an idealised movement technique, and that drills are a poor way to effect change/development. But even if a coach adopts an ecological dynamics approach and refutes the idea of an idealised movement pattern, and constrains to afford, what is guiding them in designing what constraints to manipulate? They may not be aiming to coach their athlete to a specified movement pattern, but what are they coaching too? What guides their decision-making process when implementing constraints.
Coaching is complex, and it's hard, and often you are making a best guess at what to do (see the reflective practitioner), but it is not a random guess. If it was just a random guess – then how would anyone become a good coach? This brings me to valid environments, and I refer to a paper by Wilson and Kiely (2023), and “zero-validity environments”:
“in zero validity environments there are no coherent, identifiable, ‘learnable’ patterns.”
Coaching, at times, is highly unpredictable. But coaching expertise can be developed (Ashford et al., 2024; Côté & Gilbert, 2009). For expertise to develop, the environment must, at least sometimes, offer validity. Again, I refer to the work of Wilson and Kiely (2023):
“Phenomena in high validity environments, in contrast, do reveal consistent patterns of behaviour; patterns that can be learned through repeat exposure. The development and refinement of skilled intuitions require high-validity inputs... Context-specific dimensions of professional sports practice, accordingly, can be conceptualised as existing on a zero-to-high validity continuum.”
These ideas have been explored in-depth by Abraham (2015), whose thesis was about exploring coaching as a decision-making process, which also drew on the work of Kahneman and Klein (2009). The key point for me, however – whether a coach chooses to believe a) that there is an ideal technical model, or b) ecological a functional, self-organised movement solution will emerge, coaching is still a decision-making process. Coach a) would make decisions around what drills/activities to prescribe, for how long, what to say etc. Coach b) would make decisions about, as the paper says, “choosing which constraints to use, how much to manipulate them by and how long to leave them in place” (Renshaw et al., 2019). In my interpretation, Kennedy and O’Brien (2024) are asking/calling for guidance on this decision-making process.
In his video, Rob makes the valid point that all coaches learn through trial and error. I agree with this – coaches do learn from trial and error. Expertise cannot develop without experience (I have touched on this idea here). But I also think that only relying on experience is potentially harmful. As Abraham and Collins (2011) write:
“experience is the major source of coach learning and that this learning often occurs through a process of reflection. However, work in sport psychologist development by Martindale & Collins (2007) highlights the dangers of learning solely through experience, since the reflective practice underpinning experiential learning is only informed by a set of conditions distinctive to that individual’s own experience.” For further reading on this point, see (Martindale & Collins, 2007).
Andy Abraham has suggested in conversation with me that knowledge of the sport is key for guiding the use of constraints, guiding this experiential process. Taking an example from Rob Gray’s video: “I work with coaches all of the time, we put a constraint in to try and push their movement pattern in a certain direction?” This indicates that technical and tactical understanding of the sport is key to guiding the implementation of constraints, otherwise how does a coach know what direction to push a movement pattern? There must be a desired end zone (not necessarily a specific end point), even if that end zone is not a specified technique?
I think this is where James Vaughan and Mark O’Sullivan’s work is fantastic. Simple and effective frameworks to guide coaches with the design of CLA activities – particularly the through/over/around model (O'Sullivan et al, 2021; Vaughan et al., 2021). And these are frameworks applicable to many sports other than the one they were designed for - football. I think about through/over/around when supporting rugby coaches. I know it is used in Gaelic games too, as per Kevin Mulcahy's work, and undoubtedly others. This is perhaps something the authors of the paper could have cited, and in contrast to the video, indicates that providing guidance is possible.
The role of errors
Maybe Kennedy and O’Brien (2024) definition of an error is accurate for some, but not one I would necessarily work to. As Rob says, it isn’t about movement patterns, it’s about movement outcomes (successful shot, accurate pass etc.). But to say that there are no such thing as errors - I find hard to agree with that. I agree, we don’t intend to make specific movement patterns. But is there no such a thing as a movement error? With ED, we are focused on movement outcomes not movement patterns. If a movement outcome is “undesired”, does this constitute an error? (Genuine question)
Rob says: “The goal of the CLA is to move an athlete away from an undesired movement pattern”, and goes on to question if there is such a thing as undesired skills, but claim the goal of the CLA is to move an athlete away from an undesired movement pattern? I get that skill and movement pattern are not the same, but a coach must have an understanding of what is desired or undesired? Is this what guides the use of constraints?
Another point Rob makes: “Maybe it’s a functional movement pattern for them, even if you don’t like it!” What if it is not about whether the coach “likes” it or not, but it is about health and longevity? If a coach recognises that a movement pattern for an athlete, while it may be functional in the short-term, is injurious long-term, should they not try and change it? Is it bordering on unethical to persist with a harmful movement pattern, when the coach knows this? The argument could be made that the athlete will eventually change their movement pattern to protect against recurrent injury, but I find this negligent. What if the injury is serious (like an ACL), or recurrent smaller injuries (like repeated hamstring tears), and it/they have a negative psychological effect, they can no longer attain high levels of performance and they lose their contract. Do we blame the athlete’s inability to adapt or self-organise to his/her individual constraints, or should we take some responsibility as a coach to step in and make a change? Simply – what if they (the athlete) find out too late? (cc: Derek Panchuk).
Finally: “We’re just assuming that’s a bad movement pattern, maybe it’s going to be an effective movement solution for them.” At what point do we make that decision? Do we wait until they have torn their hamstring for the third time, for example? An understanding of biomechanics (optimal movement solution for an individual, and understanding of harmful ones), (muscle) physiology, and psychology (of injuries) seems pretty important in this situation, and would, in my mind, override the skill acquisition gospel on how to learn to move. Skill acquisition is not coaching.
The key point here is that coaching solely from a deep understanding of, or an overly strict adherence to skill acquisition theory is limiting. It is important to understand physiology, psychology, and biomechanics, as well as have a technical and tactical understanding of the sport. Assuming skill acquisition is the magic key or the “north star” for a coach is highly questionable in my view. Coaching is a complex decision-making process, where ALL bodies of knowledge have a role to play:
“If coaches are to operationalise PJDM against coaching intentions formulated through a process of nested planning, a considerable knowledge base is required. Therefore, the need for coaches to hold a broad base of conditional knowledge is a critical prerequisite of where coaching interventions depend on informed decision making to best achieve the coaching intentions established (Abraham & Collins, 2011; Cruickshank & Collins, 2013).” - (Collins et al., 2022)
Abraham and Collins, 2011
Just my thoughts. As always, happy to chat. Thanks to the people who have spared some time over the last two weeks. Genuinely, healthy disagreement is where it's at!
References
Abraham, A. (2015). Understanding Coaching as a Judgement and Decision Making Process: Implications for Coach Development Practice University of Central Lancashire].
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011). Effective skill development: how should athletes' skills be developed? In D. Collins, A. Button, & H. Richards (Eds.), Performance Psychology (pp. 207-229). Churchill Livingstone. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-06734-1.00015-8
Ashford, M., Taylor, J., Newcombe, D., MacNamara, Á., Behan, S., Phelan, S., & McNeill, S. (2024). Coaching adaptive skill and expertise in Premier League football academies—paving a way forward for research and practice [Perspective]. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1386380
Collins, D., Taylor, J., Ashford, M., & Collins, L. (2022). It depends coaching – The most fundamental, simple and complex principle or a mere copout? Sports Coaching Review, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2022.2154189
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An Integrative Definition of Coaching Effectiveness and Expertise. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching - INT J SPORTS SCI COACH, 4, 307-323. https://doi.org/10.1260/174795409789623892
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol, 64(6), 515-526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755
Kennedy, A., & O’Brien, K. A. (2024). Adding texture to the Art of constraints-led coaching: a request for more research-informed guidelines. Sports Coaching Review, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2024.2395135
Martindale, A., & Collins, D. (2007). Enhancing the Evaluation of Effectiveness with Professional Judgment and Decision Making. The Sport Psychologist, 21(4), 458-474. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.21.4.458
O'Sullivan, M., Woods, C. T., Vaughan, J., & Davids, K. (2021). Towards a contemporary player learning in development framework for sports practitioners. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 16(5), 1214-1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211002335
Renshaw, I., Davids, K., Newcombe, D., & Roberts, W. (2019). The Constraints-Led Approach (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/97813151023519781315102351
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C., Potrac, P., López Felip, M. A., & Davids, K. (2021). Football, Culture, Skill Development and Sport Coaching: Extending Ecological Approaches in Athlete Development Using the Skilled Intentionality Framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 635420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635420
Wilson, P. J., & Kiely, J. (2023). Developing Decision-Making Expertise in Professional Sports Staff: What We Can Learn from the Good Judgement Project. Sports Medicine - Open, 9(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-023-00629-w
Comentarios