Results for category "Sports"

14 Articles

Being least subtractive

Andrew Gillott
Oct 14, 2015

A few weeks ago, someone sent me a link to a talk by Paul Reed Smith for TEDx MidAtlantic.

Paul Reed Smith is first and foremost a luthier and he talks animatedly about building beautiful guitars and how he aspires not to create an instrument that adds something to the playing of the musician, but one that takes away as little as possible. Every component of the guitars that Reed Smith uses is chosen for its Least Subtractive™ properties.

“6 in, 5.8 out…”

A little way in to his narrative, Paul tells us about a musician who changed the way he played when he found a ‘less subtractive’ guitar to those that he had owned before.

And that made me think that this musician had previously had to adapt his playing to an instrument that reduced his efforts; diminished the emotion he put in; left some nuance go unrewarded. “6 in, 5.8 out…”.

I have just returned from working with an inspiring group of coaches and athletes in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. They have created a unique environment in which athletes from nine combat sports train under the same roof, five days-a-week. The project caters for athletes aged 7–29 years old, often in the same room at the same time. What binds each and every athlete to each other are their stories: they live side-by-side in a community devastated by drugs, crime and gun violence.

This project is producing some world-class fighting talent. The coaches’ aspiration is to build what they understand to be a ‘high performance’ environment to house the precocious few. They readily acknowledge that it will take a great deal of money to build an exclusive new facility, replete with the equipment and services that we expect to see in much of Western Europe and around the world.

They already have athletes that display all the characteristics we might associate with ‘high performance’. Not least, a small boy who is 10 years old but looks much younger. Let’s call him Menino Pequeno. Menino Pequeno has been doing Judo at the project for two years. During warm-up, he moved quickly, deliberately, completing more reps than his peers. He rolled from one end of the gym to the other, left and right shoulder alternately; it’s harder on the left so he challenges himself to do just as many on the hard side. His movements were, crisp, full of energy, focussing on technique, composure, speed. When paired with a much larger boy who was there for the first time, Menino Pequeno coached him through every movement, grip and throw. He missed out his own turns to allow the new boy more time to practise. And he smiles a lot. Because he’s having fun.

At some point while I was there, I saw it clearly. Or rather, I heard it… “6 in, 5.8 out…”. I didn’t just recognise this phrase that surfaced my consciousness- I understood it.

They don’t need to Add. They already have something unique and wonderful, a community of athletes working hard together under a shadow that dims every one of their otherwise brilliant, fizzing lights.

They need to Take Away. Take away the things that take away. Do the simple things, well. Build the Least Subtractive™ environment they can.

Of course, this may in time also lead them to build something bigger and better. Sure, they may bring in extra equipment and who knows, perhaps they attract some specialist staff along the way to better support…everyone. In a Least Subtractive™ environment, nobody will have to worry about what and who is Talent. Or when or why, for that matter. Instead, although there may still be roadblocks on the streets of the favela, the path will be clear for everyone to get to where they want to get to. Together.

The Value of “Working Out Loud”

My Journey Understanding Practice Design & Learning

Mark Upton
Oct 12, 2015

Below is a blog post I published almost 6 years ago. Having stumbled across it again recently it was an interesting reflective exercise to contrast my understanding and thinking then compared to now. Pleasingly it has reinforced I continue to learn and evolve as there are quite a few things I have written below that I now see differently. (note: it’s not for me to tell you what they are but we can help with your own learning journey)

Although not my intention when writing the post 6 years ago, the bigger theme is the value in “thinking/working out loud” by regularly blogging (or journaling) half or fully formed thoughts & reflections on things you are pursuing personally or professionally. Keith Lyons and Julian Stodd have both inspired me in this regard. I’m particularly interested in this approach as a legitimate method to evaluate learning over time. Also on my mind is John Stoszkowski and his recent research highlighting the potential benefits of social/informal learning IF accompanied by adequate critical thinking and reflective skills.

Working out loud in a public forum requires a unique form of courage – to embrace vulnerability and humility. These characteristics may underpin “expert learning” (?) and having people of this ilk in coaching and support roles seems vital in helping players and athletes be their best.

(the above could be something for you to explore and discuss further at our up-coming #relearn event)

For those interested, below is the blog post from late in 2009 (it is based around Australian Rules Football but should be relevant for most team sports)…

Our game continues to evolve in complexity and so does the amount of tactical knowledge players are required to take the field with. No longer does the most technically talented team dominate (although that is always a good base!). Port Adelaide in 2004, Sydney in 2005 and Hawthorn in 2008 are examples of premiership teams that have triumphed against more “talented” teams. I believe they all executed superior team play and tactical knowledge that complimented their technical skill and the intangible factor of a “hunger for the contest” that can never be under-estimated in a physical game such as ours.

Just consider in the past few years some of the tactical elements of our game that have come to prominence:

  • Zonal Defending — both in general play and when the opposition are kicking in. This can extend from a few players up to an organised 18-man zone
  • Player Roles — more defined expectations of areas they will cover and their responsibilities offensively and defensively
  • Forward Line Systems — deliberate patterned or “choreographed” movements that create space and allow 1v1 situations. Random movement by forwards is no longer good enough
  • Ball Movement Patterns — movement out of defense, preferred areas to enter from and into the forward line, strategies for when ball movement becomes slowed or opposition have numbers back
  • Stoppage Structures and Systems –patterns of moving the ball from a stoppage
  • Game Scenarios — winding down the clock when in front, stopping an opposition run-on, changing the tempo of the game

I am a firm believer that the “what” and “how” are two critical competencies of coaching. Let me explain how these relate to the elements listed above.

For the coach taking charge of a new team, or looking to change the game plan of his current team, he must define his approach to the elements listed above and many more. This is the “what” of coaching. The “what” concerns your game plan/style of play and your philosophies towards these. It is vital that the coach be well researched and knowledgeable in the modern game so he can make an imformed decision about what methods he believes will create a successful style.

Once those methods are decided upon we come to the “how” competency — “how” are you going to effectively coach these elements? The amount of knowledge transfer and on-field training that is required to have all these aspects ingrained well enough to withstand finals pressure is enormous. The key factor in achieving this will be the quality of the teaching/learning environment you create. Hence the crux of this post and my belief that this is where the next competitive advantage exists for any coach willing to learn and commit to some of the processes required.

A favorite quote of mine comes from Tex Winter, a basketball coach known for being the modern teacher of the triangle offense that the Chicago Bulls and Los Angeles Lakers have used to claim many championships:

”It is the way we teach, not what we teach, that really counts”

Lets now work through some of the areas that need consideration to achieve an optimal teaching and learning environment:

  • Training drill design
  • Training session design
  • Training progressions/sequencing
  • Feedback & instruction during training

(there are more things that could be added to this list but I will start with these as broad headings for now)

1. Training Drill Design

Ok, the first one here is training drill design and I have it listed first because it is probably the most important.

I think for the last 10 years most coaches would be aware that drills or activities need to be designed to replicate phases or scenarios from the game . This does not necessarily mean 18 v 18 match simulation. It can relate to a kicking drill that exposes players to the types of kicks they most often use in a game (a good exercise is to go through a game and note down all the different types of kicks that are used in a game — you will be surprised how many subtle variations there are). It could be a “breakdown” drill that works on the first phase of ball movement when the the ball is won in the defensive 50m area. Where possible players should be put in situations where decision making and technique execution mirror game-like conditions (remember skill = decision making + technique execution). Game-Sense, Teaching Games for Understanding, Game-Based Training, Simulation Training etc are terms you probably would have heard to describe this type of training and drills.

Assuming you have drills that expose players to match situations, the other important concept to apply is called “constraints-based” coaching or drill design. By manipulating constraints in a drill you can effectively “guide” players towards the correct tactical solution, or adjust the complexity of the drill to overload players when appropriate. Constraints can be categorised under 3 headings — task, performer (ie player), and environment. Task constraints are probably the most known and used and these can include such things as field size, playing numbers (both in terms of density and numbers advantage), scoring and rules (ie must handball after taking a mark in the midfield). Constraints based coaching often allows “implicit” learning to occur which can be the best form of learning for some skills. If a players learns something “implicitly” it generally means the coach has not directly instructed the player on how to achieve the movement or tactical solution. Instead, the imposition of a certain rule in a drill could guide players towards finding the correct movement or solution through trial and error. Implicit learning has the added advantage of being more resistant to competition pressures (as it avoids “paralysis by analysis”) but is generally NOT appropriate for complex tactical situations such as a strategy for moving the ball inside 50m when opposition have flooded numbers back. This sort of scenario requires “explicit” learning to occur where the coach will give specific instructions about how to achieve the task.

2. Training Session Design

After covering training drill design some may think that the quality of learning that occurs and difficulty in a training session will be purely about the drill design. This is not necessarily the case. Even better learning and transfer can occur by considering some of the following principles when planning your training session and the drills to be used.

A concept that can have an influence on the complexity of the session is the order of your drills. By continually “switching” from open game-like drills to more closed technique based drills and back again will challenge your players capacity to adapt quickly. This can reveal how well learnt certain skills are and enhance the learning as well. Similar benefits can be achieved by going from an in-close drill such as a handball game on a small field to a full-field game.

Also related to drill order in sessions is what drills you do first and last in sessions. Traditionally the first drill after the warm-up will be a kicking or handball drill that is not overly taxing from a decision making point of view. A better option on occasions is to place your most game like drill first. This will demand players be able to quickly “switch on” — as is required on match day. The ability for players to execute the game style and skills in this drill without having the opportunity to “ease” into the session will again be a good measure of how much learning has occurred. Another option is to consider what drill you place last in a session, particularly during pre-season when fatigue can set in towards the later stages. Exposing players to performing under fatigue is actually a constraints-based approach as mentioned earlier (under the heading of “performer” constraints). Defensive principles are generally what fall away first under fatigue in a match so drills that have a defensive focus are always good to place at the end of sessions.

A final thing to mention on the order of drills is that new concepts or concepts that players have had little training exposure to should be incorporated into drills early in the training session when players are mentally and physically fresh. It is likely that these concepts have been explained using video or whiteboard in the pre-training meeting so the sooner they can be put into action on the training track the better.

Another effective training session design is one that I like to call the “choose your own adventure” session (anyone else remember reading those at school?). In this type of session the first activity should be something pretty close to a normal game ie full field with normal rules. Do this for 10–15 minutes and then during a 5 minute break make a quick assessment of what concepts were breaking down in the game. Based on those you then choose the next drill or two “on the fly” that best expose players to the problem concepts. These drills should have been done before by the players and well known so they can move straight into them (it will also require good organisation to set up any cones, balls, bibs etc). Once the drills are complete go back to the original game used at the start of the session and see if the identified concepts are executed better. This method of session design is based on the “whole-part-whole” process normally used to train technique-based skills.

3. Training Progressions/Sequencing

When teaching a system of play — be that ball movement patterns, player movement in the forward line or defensive systems — a critical aspect of the learning process is the progression or sequencing of drills to develop that system. The most common approach is to use “breakdown” drills first to train specific elements of the system in isolation so that players get plenty of repetition and teaching. An example of this could be working on forward movement patterns with just 2 forwards before introducing more forwards. Once players begin to master these breakdown drills then the next progression is to start training larger “chunks” of the system and see if the specific principles can still be executed. It is at this point that the coach must accurately assess the appropriate time to progress again into more complex drills (and maybe start to overload the system) versus continue to use breakdown drills.

Again constraints-based coaching can be applied here to vary the complexity of the drill. A typical example of this is the gradual increase in opposition numbers and player density when training ball movement patterns from defense. Initially you may have something like 5 v 3 in the back line and 5 v 3 in the midfield and progress to 6v6 in both defense and midfield. If you started with the 6v6 option it is unlikely any pattern or success of ball movement would be frequently achieved. This makes it difficult for players to physically experience and learn the principles that lead to good ball movement patterns. On the flip side, if you never progress to the most difficult scenarios that players will face in matches then they will always be vulnerable to those scenarios come game-day.

4. Feedback & Instruction

So far we have covered drill and session design along with how to progress these. Whilst these are critical for providing the learning experience for the players, the aspect of how a coach teaches during on-field training can determine the rate at which the learning occurs. What are some of the teaching methods that need to be considered? Most centre around instruction and feedback to players either during drills or between drills. Lets look at a few of the techniques you can apply.

Freeze the play — “the coachable moment”

This is the critical one. The most powerful method of feedback and instruction comes when players are immersed in the experience, ie during the training drill. Being able to identify “the coachable moment” during a drill requires that you understand the principles of what you are coaching and what makes it work or break down. When you recognise this moment a very powerful form of teaching is to blow the whistle and have players “freeze” in their exact positions. By then telling or questioning (I will expand on these next) players can receive feedback on their play (be it correct or incorrect) whilst still having the “feel” of what just took place. This is much more effective than reflecting on this moment at the end of the drill or using video footage in the following days. Important in using this technique is to ensure everyone on the field can hear the point you are making, which can be challenging on an AFL size field. Also avoid over-using this technique — a couple of times per drill would be ideal as otherwise players will start to become frustrated with the stop-start nature of the drill. Players generally just want to “do it”, not talk about it.

Tell v Question

Whether communicating about concepts with players before, during or after a drill you typically have a choice between two distinct approaches — tell the players what the solution is versus questioning and making them come up with a solution (which may not be the same as yours!). The “tell” method is a traditional approach that originates from the dictatorial-style coach who likes to be seen as all-knowledgeable. This method is not as effective as the “questioning” approach but does have its place when time for feedback and instruction is limited and/or the playing groups game understanding is not yet at the level where they can “solve the problem” (if this was the case it is worth considering if the concept(s) being covered in the drill are too advanced for the playing group).

The “questioning” approach is almost always a great form of teaching, especially in the “coachable moment” as detailed above. I think there are two forms of questioning that you may use depending on how advanced your playing group is. One is the “guided-discovery” questioning which tends to lead the players thinking towards the solution. An example of this might be to ask — “johnny, we want to do x in that situation so what might have been a better option to achieve this?”. Immediately you are guiding Johnny by giving him the answer to what he should have been thinking. He then has to work out what the better option may have been. The other method, which requires a greater ability for players to critically reflect, is “open-ended” questioning. In this method you might ask — “Johnny, what did you think about that play in relation to how we want to move the ball?”.

Either method of questioning is useful for learning as players actually have to process information which makes for a learning experience that “sticks” better than using the tell method. The other thing that I have noticed is that when players answer incorrectly to the questioning they seem to learn better — somewhat counter-intuitive to what you may expect!

If you can master the areas of designing game-based drills, manipulating constraints in the drills and using the questioning methods at the appropriate moment, you will have created a fantastic on-field environment for players to learn.

Terminology (action words)

The use of terminology is important for both on and off-field communication with players. I will focus here on terminology as it applies to instruction and feedback during training. Terminology can be very powerful for quickly conveying detailed concepts with the use of very few words. This makes it useful for coaching “on the run” efficiently. I have been involved in a team where a single term actually described a complex ball movement pattern requiring decisions both on and off the ball. Terminology should ideally invoke strong visual representations of the action it is related to. It should also be “action” or “doing” words — for example “scan”, rather than “awareness”, might be a term to use with players when they are in defensive transition and have to identify positioning of opposition players. Terminology can be useful when coaching technique too and can avoid “paralysis by analysis”. An example of this might be to use the term “snowflake” when you want the ruckman to provide a tap that softly lands in-close, as opposed to going into the biomechanical elements of how this is achieved.

Letting players come up with terminology and have ownership is a great way for them to embrace it and use in their communication on the field. It is vital though that whoever decides on the terminology — players or coaches — that it is then used consistently across the playing and coaching group. Players will be confused, and hence restricted in their learning, if varying terminology is used to describe a certain action.

Technology — video and headsets

Technology has a lot to offer both on and off the field in terms of teaching. I thought it was worth mentioning just two applications of technology to assist feedback and instruction on the field.

Video is obviously a powerful teaching tool when used appropriately. Many individual sports like golf and swimming use video replay of technique immediately after a repetition to enhance feedback or even provide “feedforward” before the repetition. Team sports are more challenging and Australian Rules is no exception. However at the higher levels the video analysis software products are getting to the point where they can provide real-time replays within a matter of seconds. Coaches can be spread all across the field and have certain actions immediately “coded” so that they can be replayed immediately if necessary. These replays can be viewed on a laptop or even sent over a wireless network to an iphone — opening up a lot of possibilities for quickly showing video replays to players on the field. Video can be combined with the tell or questioning methods of instruction and, apart from using the “freeze” method mentioned earlier, is the best way to put players back “in the moment”. Often the video footage is taken from a high vantage point and can reveal off-ball movement and availability of space clearly to the player — helping in their conceptual understanding of “why” a certain action may or may not be appropriate. Still, the challenge with using video on the training field is the ability to do it quickly and efficiently when time is at a premium.

Another piece of technology that can be useful is communication systems that can be worn by the player, such as headsets. The coach can talk to the player through the headsets which is often clearer and more effective than trying to shout instructions to players across a field as large as Australian Rules. Again the ability to communicate this way should just compliment existing instruction and feedback techniques. They are ideal for questioning and prompting players as the play unfolds. For example if it was being worn by a midfielder and the ball goes into their forward line and they are out of the play, you may prompt by saying “what should you be setting up for next?”. Whilst they may not be able to communicate back depending on the system you use, you would hope their actions reflect setting up for defensive transition in anticipation of the opposition winning the ball. Be careful with using the communication system to directly tell players what they should do next as this is not developing their game intelligence and instead they will rely on you as a crutch to make decisions for them — something that is obviously not going to happen on match day!

We have covered four aspects of the teaching/learning environment as they relate to on the field — training drill design, training session design. progression/sequencing and instruction/feedback.

relearn | a rethink of learning

we believe its time to rethink learning and development in sport and we’re finding that this view is shared by more and…

born of frustration

Al Smith
Oct 6, 2015

“stop, stop talkin bout who’s to blame, when all that counts is how to change” Born of Frustration by James

England’s recent failure to progress beyond the “group of hell” at the Rugby World Cup has prompted the usual round of recriminations but perhaps more surprisingly a significant number of calls for restraint and balance in assessing the progress made by Stuart Lancaster’s England side and the future of a man who appears to be universally liked within the game.

It is doubtless of little solace to Lancaster and his side that judgement has fallen somewhat kindly on them in the immediate aftermath of their very public purging as their ambitions were bent on a very different ending. So quite where did it all go wrong? Did the players simply need to be better coached or are there deeper issues at play in the way that players are developed in the English game? If coaching and learning are indeed at the heart of the answer, then the problem is a complex one that won’t lend itself to the usual recipe of solutions.

Whilst Lancaster has been rightly commended for the seismic shifts he’s made to the culture in his England side the reality is that these changes are in large part disconnected from the rest of the game. It would not have done for the England coach to suggest that a home tournament be no more than a stepping stone on a longer, tougher and more fruitful journey to sustainable success but this is just the predicament that England Rugby now finds itself in and the decision about what to do next could not be a more important one.

Players are the product of the culture from whence they came and this current crop of England stars were bred in a wider sporting world that has dazzled with data but has been largely bereft of beauty. To turn that ship around requires equal doses of foresight and fortitude as well as a recognition that future solutions must be born of and fit for people operating at all levels of the game and must celebrate a diverse culture that includes thriving provincial rugby clubs as well as players who are thriving overseas.

The route to an answer for rugby, or for any other of England’s troubled sporting teams, does not however lie in the abandonment of the analytical advances that have given us new insight into the workings of the human body, the interaction of man and technology or the biases that bewilder our best judgement. Data in itself is not the issue but in its wielding there are problems a plenty. The illusion of certainty that comes with the worst abuses of data analytics can be a powerful force for authoritarian control and the protection of historical hierarchies by those compelling people to subordination and compliance with the allure of the algorithm. Its tempting even to suggest that this is a problem predicated on patriarchal power given that the growth of women’s team sport (exemplified most recently by the success of the England Hockey team) seems better adapted to the need to balance art and analytics, but that is perhaps an argument for another day. Whilst many cultural barriers to change remain deeply entrenched, it is becoming clear that even in the most ambitious of data driven performance domains common sense and human holism are returning to the fore.

In the wider context of sport development in the UK, the question that must be addressed is whether young players are layering the right kind of learning on to the storybook of experiences that they are led through as they journey the ranks of their sport. To meet this challenge, leaders must keep one eye on the present and one eye on the purpose for this is where learning meets its destiny. It is increasingly apparent that the long game here requires a different kind of thinking to the prevailing view as this is a challenge akin neither to pyramid building nor the provision of public transport despite a common need to see past the immediacy of what happens next and into an ambitious version of the future.

For too long the solutions to the human challenges of our times have been drawn from the toolbox of the mechanical makers who figured out how to execute a perfect plan with precision processes to deliver products rather than develop people. However, there is now a new kind of maker in town with both the attitude and the aptitude to meet the prevailing needs of the social age. The future of learning deserves to be co-created by passionate people who put holism and humanity at the heart of what they do.

Whether the decision makers who pass permission to those who seek to shape that future for sport recognise the need to turn and meet the prevailing tide or choose to bunker down and protect what looks distinctly like a crumbling edifice to the ways of the past will in large part write the history of the likes of Lancaster and his men. We can only hope that they’ll be remembered for the right reasons.

relearn | a rethink of learning

we believe its time to rethink learning and development in sport and we’re finding that this view is shared by more and…

Learning Design – Playgrounds, Affordances & Variability

Mark Upton
Sep 21, 2015

In an effort to convey our ideas, and taking the lead from others we are learning from at the moment, there may be value in working/thinking out loud. Hence the contents of this and future posts…

One of our key underpinning theories is Ecological Dynamics. Within this theory is the concept of “affordances” — the opportunities/invitations for action on offer in a particular environment. Affordances are relative to the action capabilities of a person so certain objects, surfaces, spaces etc afford different actions for different people, ie a medicine ball affords throwing for an adult but probably not for a young child. A key underpinning of affordances is perception-action coupling. Affordances are also closely associated with “embodied” decision making I covered in a previous post.

In our mind, a coach plays the role of a learning designer (or even a “learning dynamicist”- perhaps need to follow up on that thought later!), creating learning spaces. A key part of this design is the incorporation of affordances for players to explore. This is not unique to sport of course – tremendous thought goes into designing spaces for children to engage in movement learning, including playgrounds like the one pictured at the top of this post. I took this picture in my local park. The children in the background playing football are my son and some of his school friends. I thought this provided a nice contrast of 2 different learning spaces with varying affordances – the playground affording equipment to swing or rock on, and behind this the grassed open space, ball, goals and “players” creating many affordances such as striking/controlling a ball and evading other players. (You may also want to check out our posts on a visit to the park and Boston park games).

Through affordances, the playground and football game offer choice, challenge and variability to participants. In research by Prieske et al (2015) looking at the attraction of challenging affordances in a playscape, they found that children were not necessarily drawn to the most challenging affordances, but they did explore and engage in the wide variety of affordances on offer. In other words they sought out variability. Prieske et al mention previous work by Nebelong (2004) and his assertions about the importance of designing opportunities for variable action…

Nebelong (2004), a landscape architect who argued against common standardized playgrounds, gave a similar advice, based on related grounds.

“I am convinced that ‘risk-free’, standardized playgrounds are dangerous — just in another way from those with obvious risks. When the distance between all the rungs in a climbing net or a ladder is exactly the same, the child has no need to concentrate on where he puts his feet. Standardization is dangerous because play becomes simplified and the child does not have to worry about his movements. This does not prepare him for all the knobby and asymmetrical forms he is likely to be confronted with outside the playground and throughout life. (p. 30).”

Hence, the above considerations suggest that in designing playgrounds we need to create variation. By doing so, we would take into account the differences in action capabilities among children and also follow theories about how these capabilities can improve.

I’m sure you can see the applicability to learning design in a sporting context. By building in a range of affordances and enabling young players to explore, we will see the variability so crucial to learning. Equally, we will help players to become “perceptually attuned” to the dynamics of a sporting arena. Just as the child has no need to concentrate (be perceptually tuned in) when play equipment becomes standardized and repetitive, neither does the young player in a learning space that contains repetitive drilling. When they can execute the same pass to the same position every time, without having to worry about opposing players intercepting the ball, their perceptual sensitivity suffers. Equally, a well-designed learning space will demand heightened perceptual sensitivity and in the process help players to (often implicitly) become attuned to the key information in the environment that can be used to guide actions – “attunement to affordances”.

Whilst the above may be common sense for some coaches and others involved with learning design, it is clearly not universal. In fact a recent conversation about coaching in a category one English football academy highlighted the significant amount of practice time spent on “technical grooving”, in essence the “dangerous standardization” of a learning space mentioned by Nebelong. Whilst grooving and standardization maybe suitable for exploiting a complicated system such as a machine, they are not appropriate if we want to tap into the adaptive capacity of a human – a complex system. This is a common theme and highlights the lack of understanding of the concepts mentioned above, a lack of theory of the learner and the learning process, but on a positive note, a massive opportunity to do learning design/spaces so much better.

My thinking about how much more creative learning design could be in football was further fuelled over the weekend when visiting this new trampoline park pictured below.

final touches being applied to a well-designed learning space

Whilst absent in this photo, imagine over 100 children of various ages engaged in exploring the range of trampolines, foam pits, balance beams, dodge ball cages etc. These affordances have been skillfully built into a space that just a few weeks ago was an empty industrial warehouse. Observing the children in action affirmed their tendency to seek out variability — rarely engaging with one area/piece of equipment for long or in the same manner. Adult supervisors were on hand to guide and intervene if necessary, but the key work of the adults had already been done “behind the scenes”. As Al has mentioned previously, this in no way lessens their role…


What I saw reinforced what can be achieved with quality learning design – engagement, aspiration (challenge) & connection (socially). This is going to be a key part of our approach in shaping an offering for people and organisations who are striving to be their best and/or helping others to do so.



Nebelong, H. (2004). Nature’s playground. Green places. May, 28–31

Prieske, B.; Withagen, R.; Smith, J.; et al. (2015). Affordances in a simple playscape: Are children attracted to challenging affordances?
Source: Journal of Environmental Psychology Volume: 41 Pages: 101–111


A need to “relearn”?

Mark Upton
Sep 15, 2015

Self-Directed Learning is almost certainly at the core of the future of learning – @trenducation

This is quite a powerful statement. What emerging evidence might provoke such a strong statement? Is it relevant to learning in sport?

Well, in the last few weeks we have come across 3 examples…

Paul Cortes describing his self-directed journey in understanding and effectively implementing a games-based coaching approach.(

I sought out books on the topic at hand and read as much as I could. I followed coaches and sports scientists on twitter and went through my timeline each morning, reading their discussions and favoriting the links they shared for further reading. I watched coaching DVDs and noted the drills that fit the criteria of a gamelike drill, ones that include not only the action, but the perception as well. I began building a bank of those drills that I now use in my practices. I found other blogs that share the philosophy and emailed with various coaches back and forth. I started my own blog, HoopThink, not because I felt like I had anything special to say, but because I’ve always enjoyed writing, and I wanted to get feedback from other coaches. I also learn a lot when I write things down. I’m too self conscious to keep and write a journal, but yet I’m willing to publish something for the masses to see. Go figure.

Also, Julius Yego the new world-champion in the Javelin event…

I do not have a coach, my motivation comes from within. My coach is me, and my YouTube videos

And finally, Kit Dale, Australia’s first world-class black belt in Jiu-Jitsu.

So here I am, Kit Dale, 28 years old achieving a Black Belt in 4 years without world-class coaches, without world class training partners and in a country that has never produced a World Champion Black Belt. I’m living proof that you don’t have to have the best coach, nor the best training partners or facility or a million different techniques. All you need is an intelligent approach, an open mind, and a belief system stronger than your loudest critics.

3 great stories of self-directed learning. But is it the future? Is it THE answer? When it comes to learning, what is the role of the coach? or the coach developer? or the sporting club/organisation? or research and theory? These are questions that are in need of a forum…

We are trying to create that forum through an event called “relearn” – a space for anyone to contribute to shaping the future of learning in sport, at any level.

We would love to have you involved, so please take the first step to finding out more and contributing by following the link below…


relearn | a rethink of learning

we believe its time to rethink learning and development in sport and we’re finding that this view is shared by more and…

Technology & Data – what is it good for?

Mark Upton
Sep 11, 2015

To avoid the answer given in Edwin Starr’s “war”, what needs to be considered?

Some brief thoughts on the use of technology and data to help people be their best in sport (also relevant to management and organisations in general)

  • Any technology that enables people to connect and share on their terms, when they otherwise wouldn’t have, has great potential to facilitate learning. This is exciting!
  • Let the player/coach/employee/team decide what data & analysis is relevant to help them develop and get better (creating a poweful synergy between autonomy & mastery).
  • traditional performance management systems, as typically used by HR departments and now creeping into sport (eg via EPPP in English Football), promise much but often deliver little value (and at worst become a distraction). This might be in part because of the next point…
  • If using data to constantly and exclusively judge/assess/(de)select/reward/punish/compare people — be careful! A toxic culture, characterised by survival rather than growth mindsets and behaviour, could soon emerge.
  • Related to the above in a team sport, this is even more problematic when the data is based on actions/events in isolation, ignoring the fact relationships and interactions (dynamics) are what need to be understood – on and off the field. Performance Analysis will continue to under-deliver until it is based on a sound theoretical framework of performance/skill acquisition/learning, and understanding of the “psychology of data”. This is the responsibility of both coaches and performance analysts.

When all is said an done, the potential for technology and data to make a positive contribution to helping people be their best is unquestionable. However we must be wary of the fine line that is currently being trod, as a few recent examples have highlighted the threat of doing more harm than good.

To end on a philosophical note… if we keep in mind that trying to control others through use of technology and data should be avoided, then we can progress with great hope and optimism.