High-quality coaching is widely acknowledged as being an important component of high-level sporting performance.1 In most sports, the national governing body (NGB) runs coach education programs to help develop coach’s effectiveness through improving their knowledge base and session delivery.2 To support the development of coaching knowledge and practice, Cushion,3 suggested that the coaching process could be modeled in 2 ways, namely models for coaching or models of coaching. Models for coaching focus on the idealized representation of how coaches should operate, while models of coaching reflect what coaches actually do in practice.
Most coach education program are broadly based upon models for coaching. The central doctrine of these program is that competent coaches should be able to design an effective training program that physically prepares athletes for optimal competitive performance. In the early 1960s, Matveyev developed an annual planning process, known as periodization, which consisted of systematic, sequential cycles, or phases, of training.4,5 The theoretical basis for periodization emerged from Hans Selye’s general adaptation syndrome model.6 In short, general adaptation syndrome proposed that the body adapts to stressors, for example, physiological adaptations to the physical demands of training.4 The success of athletes adopting periodization, combined with the presumed underpinning scientific basis, gave periodization both a creditability and legitimacy.7 This work gave impetus to a bioscientific approach to planning and coaching practice, whereby morphological adaptations to any given training intervention follow a predictable time course.8 Consequently, periodization became almost universally accepted as a planning modality and enshrined in coach education programs.9,10 Indeed, wider research focused on physiological adaptation has made substantial progress in describing the “what” and “how much” features of sport-specific training planning.11–13
Periodization was developed to optimize athlete performance on a specified date,14 for example, the Olympics. While periodization remains the dominant approach to determining training program, over the past few decades there have been challenges to the methodology. Many sports compete across a season of fixtures rather than a single event or tournament. These competitive seasons are often long, leaving a short preparation phase that is inconsistent with Matveyev15 training principles. Traditional periodization develops multiple components of fitness simultaneously; however, some training stimuli can be incompatible, for example, strength and endurance.7 Furthermore, periodization details the cyclic ordering of training phases, usually within an annual cycle, consisting of variations in emphasis on specificity, volume, and intensity, to achieve optimal performance during the competition phase.16 However, most studies claiming to investigate periodization are short-term rather than covering a full training and competition cycle. In a review of periodization research, Kataoka et al,7 found only 2 studies that covered a period of 12 months: one on untrained participants, the other a retrospective analysis of elite performers. Out of the 100 studies they reviewed, 88 lasted between 4 and 18 weeks, not long enough to evaluate the sequential cycles of periodization. These short-term studies were more about programming or micromanagement, of a training program than the periodization.4 With the majority of studies orientated more toward programming, there appears to be an absence of evidence supporting the effectiveness of periodization.8
To date, the available literature on planning can be divided into 2 categories (1) knowledge for planning, how planning should happen, that is, periodization and (2) a knowledge of planning, that is, how, and what coaches actually do in practice. Much of the knowledge for planning has focused on generating bioscientific, physiological, and technical insights that can be used to underpin the development of “effective” training plans.17 The concept of periodization represents knowledge for planning that has become the mainstay of training theory within sport science and coach education programs. The underlying assumption is that coaches who work with performance-orientated athletes will use periodization as part of their planning process. Frequently, when expert coaches’ perceptions of their practices are studied, attention is most commonly placed on what they do, rather than why or how they do it, for example, the training or coaching process.18–20 In the case of planning, attention has mainly focused upon programming rather than periodization, whereby periodization is the macrolevel for example, weeks and months and planning is the microlevel, for example, sets, reps, and intensity.7 While this has provided invaluable information on the what and how behind the programming of athletes training, somewhat surprisingly the why has been largely ignored. Despite leading coaches often being innovators of training practices, ahead of the contemporary sport science knowledge, they are seldom involved in the research process.21 Retrospective analysis of these coaches often focuses their programming of training, rather than their planning process. Indeed, the practices, knowledge, and experience of coaches who work with consistently high-achieving athletes with regard to the entirety of planning, have received sparse attention and are not reflective of the research literature.22
While research has advocated the use of periodization to describe and guide planning, further investigations are required to understand the processes and factors that facilitate and inhibit coaches in their planning process.23 Thus, this study set out to investigate the planning processes of track-and-field coaches working with high-performing athletes. The aim of this interpretive study was to examine the breadth and scope of coaches planning processes, to increase our understanding of the how and what track-and-field coaches plan for, that is their knowledge of planning and to understand their thoughts and meaning-making in relation to their everyday approaches to planning.
Methods and Materials
Participants’ Information and Selection Process
Twenty-eight highly experienced, high-performance coaches, based in England (female, n = 1; male, n = 27) participated in this study. In collaboration with NGB staff from England Athletics, the sample of coaches were selected from 2 (endurance and throws) of the 4 coaching disciplines (throws, jumps, sprints, and endurance). These were 2 cohorts that were of most interest to the NGB at the time of the data collection. Opportunistic and purposive sampling24 was utilized to support the recruitment of participants by drawing on the combined sporting networks of both the lead researcher and the NBG officer. Second, the 2 disciplines had the greatest the number of qualified and active coaches in the United Kingdom at the time of data collection. The coaches recruited met the following criteria: (1) actively coaching in athletics, (2) held a minimum of a level 2 UK Athletics coaching qualification (coaches holding a level 2 award or above, are permitted by the NGB to plan, implementing training sessions and coach athletes independently), and (3) working with athletes toward the achievement of a performance goal. As there were no restrictions on the coaches’ age, sex, geographical location, the number, or level of athletes they were coaching, this data was disclosed voluntarily by the participants. Institutional ethical approval was gained prior to data collection.
Table 1 details the coaching qualifications held based on the UK Athletics coaching qualification pathway. Level 2 coaches are those who have specialized in a specific event, level 3 are event-specific performance coaches, and level 4 are senior coaches who may coach across more than one event group. Table 1 also provides information on the performance level of the coach’s athletes by drawing on McKay et al’s,25 participant classification framework denoting tiers 1 to 5 athlete classifications; recreational, developmental, national, international, and world class, respectively. Coaches ranged in age from 36 to 77 years of age and had an average of 19 years coaching experience (range 5–50 y), at the time of the initial data collection period (Table 1). The composition of the sample included 10 coaches from the throwing disciplines and 18 coaches from an endurance running background.
Participant Coach Information
| Pseudonym | Event group | Level of coaching qualification held (UK athletics) | Highest level of athlete(s) coached | Approximate no. of years spent coaching |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *EN1 | Endurance | 4—Senior coach | Tier 5 | 40 |
| EN2a | Endurance | 4—Senior coach | Tier 3 | 30 |
| EN3 | Endurance | 3—Performance coach | Tier 4 | 15 |
| EN4 | Endurance | 4—Senior coach | Tier 4 | 25 |
| *EN5a | Endurance | 4—Senior coach | Tier 5 | 5 |
| *EN6 | Endurance | 5—IAAF coach diploma | Tier 5 | 21 |
| *EN7 | Endurance | 3—Performance coach | Tier 5 | 15 |
| EN8 | Endurance | 2—Event group coach | Tier 4 | 12 |
| EN9 | Endurance | 2—Event group coach | Tier 4 | 25 |
| EN10 | Endurance | 3—Performance coach | Tier 3 | 30 |
| EN11a | Endurance | 2—Event group coach | Tier 3 | 15 |
| EN12 | Endurance | 4—Senior coach | Tier 4 | 30 |
| EN13a | Endurance | 2—Event group coach | Tier 2 | 8 |
| EN14 | Endurance | 4—Senior coach | Tier 4 | 40 |
| EN15 | Endurance | 4—Senior coach | Tier 5 | 50 |
| *EN16 | Endurance | 2—Event group coach | Tier 4 | 8 |
| EN17 | Endurance | 3—Performance coach | Tier 3 | 15 |
| EN18 | Endurance | 2—Event group coach | Tier 4 | 15 |
| TH1a | Throwing | 3—Performance coach | Tier 3 | 10 |
| TH2b | Throwing | 2—Event group coach | Tier 4 | 20 |
| TH3 | Throwing | 4—Senior coach | Tier 4 | 20 |
| TH6b | Throwing | 3—Performance coach | Tier 4 | 14 |
| TH7 | Throwing | 4—Senior coach | Tier 3 | 20 |
| TH9 | Throwing | 4—Senior coach | Tier 3 | 50 |
| TH10 | Throwing | 3—Performance coach | Tier 2 | 10 |
| TH11 | Throwing | 2—Event group coach | Tier 3 | 10 |
| TH12a | Throwing | 2—Event group coach | Tier 3 | 10 |
| TH13 | Throwing | 3—Performance coach | Tier 4 | 15 |
Note: Since data collection, UK athletics has changed the way they describe each level of qualifications (October 2023); The highest level of athlete(s) coached is based on the participant classification framework by McKay et al.25
aCompleted one full interview. bCompleted 2 full interviews. No letter = completed 3 full interviews.
*Coach with athlete(s) on a funded program at the time of data collection.
Research Strategy and Philosophy
Adopting a qualitative approach to this study, allowed the research team to investigate and probe coaches on the multitudinous factors that are involved in their planning processes and to generate rich insights into the meaning-making, experiences, and understandings of the participant coaches about their planning practices.23 The design and analysis of the study reflected the research team’s interpretivist paradigmatic position. An interpretivist research approach holds to the view that research is a subjective, interactive (or transactional), and co-constructed activity involving both the researcher and the researched.26 Rather than trying to develop objective truths and predictive theories about what planning is or ought to be, we sought to explore the experiences of coaches.27 Thus, we approached the analysis and interpretation of the coaches stories from a “one of many” ways rather than from a “best or right way”28 (p15) to describe and implement planning processes.
Data-Generation Procedure
In-depth semistructured interviews were used to generate the dataset for this study. In-depth interviews are excellent tools for gaining rich insights into the meaning-making and perspectives of the participant coaches. Indeed, this type of interviewing allowed the research questions to remain the primary focus of the discussion, while also encouraging participants to share any other factors that underpinned their decision understandings of their everyday planning practices.29 An interview guide was developed and piloted with a small sample of coaches. Following this process and the making of some minor modifications, the final interview guide comprised 6 sections. These were: (1) demographic information, (2) coaching background, (3) coaching knowledge, (4) planning knowledge, (5) experiences of planning for athletes, and (6) reflections on planning processes. The data generated were from a broader study, generating 68 hours of data, that explored how the participant coaches attempted to navigate their planning processes and why they did this in the ways that they did, generating original insights into the previously unseen and sparsely documented social and relational aspects of coaches planning in track-and-field athletics and the interconnections between those facets.
The use of cyclical interviews over an extended period provided a number of advantages.30,31 These included (1) generating rich insights into the participants meaning-making in relation to their planning activities, (2) systematically examining the participants accounts over time using a variety of different probes and follow-up questions, and (3) rigorously identifying patterns and differences in the meaning-making across a substantive sample of track-and-field athletics coaches.30,31 We approached the data analysis process from a nonevaluative position. That is there were no best practice guidelines or framework in which we assessed the conformity of the responses about their planning. The focus was on exploring their meaning making and their understandings of their practice. The interpretation of the data did not consider there was a preferred response. Thus, we carefully designed the interview framework to ensure that questions were (1) framed in a neutral way, (2) asked about specific situations and behaviors, and (3) encouraged reflection on their own experiences of what they intended and what they felt happened subsequently (during and between interviews) supported the interrogation of the coaches accounts for consistency and ensured that the responses were genuine reflections of their actual experiences rather than socially desirable answers. By adopting this approach to the data generation process, it afforded greater time to actively listen to, and reflect upon, the experiences of a large sample, to inform more meaningful probes, follow-up questions, and systematically examine and understand their insights into planning other potential methods of data generation (ie, questionnaires).31 Alongside active listening and attentiveness to participant responses, elaboration (eg, Can you tell me more about that?), clarification (eg, Could you provide an example for me?), and detail oriented (eg, Who was with you when that happened?) probes were used to secure in-depth accounts of each participant’s experiences and meaning-making.32–34 At the close of each interview, participants were asked an open question which aimed to prevent the omission of any pertinent data that was not previously discussed within the interview (eg, “Are there any other factors, not previously mentioned, which you feel are important to your approaches to planning?”).35 All interviews were conducted as one-on-one interview using a flexible interview guide that drew on the research objectives, and analysis of any previously undertaken interviews with each participant. Each coach was invited to participate in a maximum of 3 interviews that were scheduled to occur periodically over the course of a full UK athletics season (September–August).
Each interview was recorded using a digital recorder. Transcriptions were completed as soon as possible after each interview, drawing on the intelligent verbatim approach.36 The transcribed interviews were then imported into QSR-NVivo (version 12, QSR International) to assist with data organization and analysis.37 In keeping with institutional ethical guidelines, pseudonyms were used; dates changed; and identifiable events, competitions, locations, place names, or people were removed from the interview transcripts to support anonymity. All participants were coded by 2 letters and a number. In total, 72 interviews were completed (face–face interviews, n = 17 and telephone interviews, n = 55), which generated a total of 68 hours, 25 minutes, and 42 seconds of recordings.
Data-Analysis Process
We drew upon the principles of a phronetic iterative approach to qualitative data analysis.24 This approach was chosen as it supported the analysis of individual coach’s experiences of, and the mechanism that have shaped the coaches perspectives planning.24 During the data immersion phase, the lead author familiarized themself with the transcripts by relistening to the audio recordings and reading the interview text to develop an in-depth, rich understanding of the coach’s experience regarding planning. The lead author conducted the analysis process of moving back and forth between data generation (interviews), initial and emergent readings of the data (emic analysis), consulting relevant theory (etic analysis), and the sharing of the analytical insights with critical friends (coauthors) and the participants (during second and third interviews).38 Once the recurring patterns of meaning-making (primary themes) were generated from the interviews, they were then discussed between the lead researcher and the research team to examine the interpretations and meanings. These themes were then further explored and challenged during subsequent coach interviews to, identify, and detail the most shared and recurring patterns used by the coaches to describe their perspectives on planning. The research team, acted as the “critical friends” in the analysis process, supporting the process of distilling the interview data into conceptual categories to make sense of the coaches experiences and perceptions of their planning processes to develop Figure 1.24
—The scope of coaches’ planning process.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 19, 11; 10.1123/ijspp.2023-0467
Results and Discussion
The presentation of the findings in this paper are part of a larger study that explored how and why the participant coaches attempted to navigate their planning processes in track-and-field athletics. The key findings of this study indicated that (1) all coaches described the use of traditional periodization as part of their planning process; (2) all of the coaches engaged in a richer, more complex planning process than is depicted in the current literature; and (3) most of the coaches felt that more optimal performance benefits could be achieved by planning beyond the physical dimension. That is, they planned for far more than the physical training programs of their athletes. Through the analysis of the interview data, 3 key interconnected high-level planning themes were developed in response to the research questions (see Figure 1).
The narrative from these coaches recognized the need to take account of much broader factors and the complex and sometimes messy interplay of these competing factors in their planning. They also recognized the important role of subjective information, such as context, interactions, and personal and sporting biographies, as valid and important—athletes are not just a passive body to be trained. Figure 1 provides further insight into the scope of the planning process that comprised each theme, indicating the connections between them and how the coaches articulated the key features that are characterized within the headline themes.
Physiological
The study did not look to examine the programming, or microlevel detail of individual sessions of how the plan was implemented. As such, concepts such as training intensity distributions39 were not considered in the analysis of coaches planning processes, as it is a retrospective analysis of what was done. It therefore includes both the planned and unplanned aspects. Rather, the study examined the processes that coaches drew upon to periodize the training framework and how this was positioned used within their overall planning process to aid athlete performance and development. Thus, in the physiological theme, the coaches shared their understanding of what periodization work they do and how it sits within the broader framework of planning. This theme comprised 4 broader but interrelated elements that were part of the coach’s overall perception of what their planning practice entailed: the training framework, historical athlete data, setting and determining performance goals, and their challenges to drawing on periodization to aid their planning process.
Constructing the Training Framework
I try to block it out into a base-ish phase, a more specific phase, and then the competition phase. We tend to transition from one to the other—they’re not specific blocks; we try and gradually move from one to the other. (EN18)
I use the framework of periodisation, but I don’t really get into all this sort of macro-cycles and meso-cycles. I think, for me, it sometimes can become a little bit too confusing and a bit too complex. (EN16)
I’m going to have to work back there in terms of the blocks that I use, which is competition phase, pre-comp, special prep, and general prep. And then just once I know what that totality is, I can then break it down into how many cycles am I going to use in that period? And, within those cycles, how can I then just alter training load, dosages etc weekly sometimes, even daily depending on what is happening. (TH 1)
Historical Athlete Data
I look at what type of athlete they are ... about their track record or profile of the athletes I’ve got, in terms of how much training they’ve done before, previous injury, what they can cope with. (EN18)
The first thing is I would ask them if they’ve got a training diary. And then I would get the training diaries going back as far as they’d gone. I would look for patterns that occur in their training and racing ... really scrutinize their previous training and racing ... I try to identify when they were running their best, was there any time when they look as though theywere stale because they’ve maybe done too many races, and when injuries and illness happened, etc. And I would really analyze up to that point in time, what had made them run well or not. (EN1)
Importance of Setting and Determining the Performance Goal
It starts with racing. So, for me, it’s always racing. So what’s the target for the winter? What’s the ultimate goal for the summer? ... The training is all focused on producing that end goal. (EN14)
So if we take the Olympics as the target then I look at the date and the performances needed, then in broad brush strokes I work backwards mapping out the seasons leading up to this and a progression in distances needed. (TH13)
Challenges to Implementation of the Periodized Plan
... I think the bit that stuck out to me was you had to be mentally agile as a coach. You had to have that kind of—I always say golden thread, the lads take the mick out of me—but a golden thread of what you’re actually trying to achieve then have (to change) or if it’s slightly different, like, it’s ok, because you’re still trying to kind of work towards that end goal. I do have that drive for the athletes to help them reach their potential, but I’m happy to kind of meander my way through to get there. So, I’m a bit more fluid with my approach to it (planning). (TH11)
That’s why I never plan individual sessions out in advance. You know, I plan it out the day of the session maybe the day before, having thought about where they’re at or thinking about what happened in a race or last session. Rather than saying, “Well, you need to do this next week.” (EN1)
I used to plan months ahead for athletes. I’d do big annual plans. And then something happens in week 2 ... I’ve learned it has to be really flexible because it is likely to change ... . (you)just have to kind of react to that and make changes. (TH10)
There is a destination and a plan is specific journey for that athlete, but I’ve learned that the details of the steps on that journey evolve as you progress along it—it is never as simple as the book says. (TH13)
Psychological
As I said before, you know, getting to know the athlete and the psychology of that athlete and how their minds think is really critical, because it affects how you deal with them. (TH13)
... I think everybody is different ... people react differently to training, mentally and physically. And to the number of races, the type of races to run. And I think the coach’s job is to get all that mish-mash, put it together, and work out what is best physically and mentally for that runner. (EN1)
It was strongly acknowledged by all the coaches that there was a planning requirement for them, which stretched beyond the physical training program. The planning undertaken for the psychological was formal in nature, without being written down and not widely shared among key stakeholders. The coaches described how they deliberately attempted to enact strategies to support their athletes psychologically. As noted throughout the discussion below, some of these were planned well in advance and deliberately introduced at specific times within the training framework (ie, precompetition routines, training sessions, reshaping of athlete perceptions), while others were planned much closer to the time of delivery, such as how they would respond to the situations they encountered in context (ie, personal characteristics).
Competitive Performances
I do preparation competitions at my training base, where we simulate those competitions, so we’ll do a call room scenario. They’ll know about the competition beforehand. They’ll only have two or three warm-up throws. And it’s all about them practising for those big competitions ... they’ve really changed the way they behave when the stress is on them and I’ve seen a lot of things I’ve never seen before. (TH10)
Training (Precompetition)
I use some of the sessions . . . . A bit of mental toughness really. You know, we’ve got a particularly steep hill in the woods that we use ... you know, even if they’re on their knees, you know, they’re not going to give in. They’ve got that mental toughness . . . . But I think that’s quite hard to develop. (EN18)
I don’t tell them anything like a total lie in the sense that they’re going really well when they’re going absolutely rubbish, but, you know, there are times when I might just try and raise their spirits a little bit and say to them maybe it was better than it actually was or provide a rationale that is acceptable to them. (EN4)
[It’s] that level of belief and level of positivity that you’re building for that week before [the competition], then carries forward through to the competition that [the athletes] feel invincible ... you might just change the weights three or four times in a training session to something that they’re definitely comfortable with at that time. So they’re blasting it out and it’s feeling good. (TH6)
Whenever we’ve got a big competition coming up, the four weeks beforehand, I make sure that in his program he’s got the 6, 7, 8 [weight of implement]. It’s not so much that he works any better than anything else. But, for him, he believes that’s the thing that does the business and that will really bring him to perform. (TH13)
If I stopped a session short, I wouldn’t necessarily share the reason for that. You know ... You’re doing it because you want them to be really confident or not be too down about something ... so you know you think about what to say and give them what they need to hear, you know, “You’re flying. You’re great. Let’s get ready for the championships” and it’s more a psychological thing to do that than a physical. (EN1)
But you have got to tap into that mental preparation and resilience, in terms of picking her up and lifting her psychologically to keep her involved in the sport. So the main thing, what we’ve actually done is focus on process goals. You know, instead of actually, basing her performance on where she comes she needs a little bit more process goals, where we can say “Well, ok. Didn’t come 10th but, you know, you were being competitive.” (EN16)
Competition Schedule
as the season approaches, athletes themselves are looking for pointers about form and that can affect their confidence ... You know, so you’ve got to be careful about where people race and putting them into races at the right time ... . But they’ve got to have confidence in what they’re doing in training. (EN5)
So we’ve pulled back a bit on it, just pulled her out of races basically. I could have said “You’re doing them” and she would have done them, but ... . She was in tears before the north-easterns. And it’s just expectations, within her family and the club and she was expecting to win ... she doesn’t want to let anyone down, you know. (EN3)
As a coach, I’m more prepared to expose [Name] to risks than I am with [Name], because [Name] psychologically can actually handle the setbacks, whereas with [Name] it can just sort of rest there for a week or two and knock her back, so then you have to rebuild her confidence up and stuff like that. It’s very difficult to develop those psychological skills in the athletes. (EN16)
Personal Characteristics
... you know, as a coach then you’ve got to, “Well, look, to me that was worth a second and a half faster” because if you don’t tell them that, they go home and write it down, it plays on their mind. “That was a crap session.” You know? Well, it wasn’t, but I think you’ve got to try and get through to the athletes as well; ... . .So it’s all about mind games, coaching, a lot of the time. (EN4)
I need to work with them, talk to them and manage any training so they can come out the other side in a better place you know, especially through bad times when things aren’t going well ... but it is so that when they go into the next race, that, they’re in a good place and we can get it right. (EN7)
When it comes to them ... . It’s how they deal with the failures. And let’s face it, in athletics, no matter how you look at it, athletics is essentially a large series of training and working very hard and feeling tired and all the other stuff that goes with that, followed by a significant number of failures, followed by—if you’re really luck—a few successes. (TH10)
And, as a coach, I was never adequately prepared for this (psychology) And it’s part of your planning as well, because you have to when you create a plan ... . A lot of coaches write a session ... . But then you have to sit back, think about, and look at the impact that has on the athlete—it never gets spoken about, but good coaches do that too. (TH3)
Athlete Behaviors
there’s kind of a common mindset here- that’s probably the entry point (to the group) really. You know, if you’re just playing at it, they probably wouldn’t fit in with the team ethos that there is. There is nothing wrong with that, but it would be my choice to work with that athlete in a different way. (EN6)
If you want to coach athletes at a more successful level, you can’t do it without having smaller groups but also, it’s very important that the group, as a whole, work together in harmony ... . (EN15)
And the thing is, within a group, you can’t let an individual destroy the group. And you’ve got to look at the group dynamic and ensure that it is working well, it is not just about the individual. Doesn’t matter who it is. (TH6)
... And I can do that one-to-one or by simply sending one or two athletes out discreetly in the group. Because athletes talk within the group quite easily. And also they have observations about the other athletes within the group—that is vital in supporting my planning. (EN15)
Social Development
the simplest answer to that would be for the athletes to be as good as they can be ... . But actually I don’t restrict that to athletics. I’ve had a number of athletes who have undoubtedly benefited by being athletes—or, you know, training and being part of a coaching group and having, if you like, a coaching family—who have then benefited in their lives in other ways and 100 have gone on to do other things. (TH7)
And I’ve given them [his athletes] the example mind map of another athlete ... . I don’t know if it’ll work but, for me, where I’m coming from is it’s helping them, it’s empowering them to take ownership of what they want to try and do ... . And for me then to look at it, it shows me what they see as important. (TH1)
... But the other part (for the athlete) is about learning how to behave as an ordinary, decent human being, which is part of what we do as coaches, because we want them to be fine people rather than just fine athletes. (TH2)
You get a kid that’s shy and won’t look at you ... . He looks at the floor. Shoulders are down. You know, he’s got no real self-confidence. And then you take him on. You get him straightened up. You get the shoulders back; you get the head up. They’re willing to look you in the eye. They’ll shake your hand. You see that whole grow-up path of ... . Of young kids growing into adults and ... . I enjoy giving them life-skills to cope with stress and pressure and being able to hold their own with anybody. (TH6)
They man-manage their own week, centered around their own work patterns, their schooling, or university. They can man-manage themselves. Then, their attendance to the club—I expect to see them a minimum of twice a week, sometimes three. We communicate on Skype or by telephone. And it’s got to be a two-way thing, where I have to call them about things, as much as they have to communicate to me. (EN15)
The coaches in this study recognized and intentionally planned proactively, accounting for nonphysical factors within their own coaching context (ie, psychological, and social) and attempted to effectively support the athlete’s development and performance. The complex, interacting nature and breadth of the coaches planning processes detailed in this study agrees with the conceptual framework provided by Pol et al.18 Pol et al advocated that traditional approaches to planning training (eg, periodization) have ignored that physical components are coupled with the social-psychological nature of performance. The coach’s perception of their planning processes advocated a process encompassing the social to the biomechanical and beyond, holistically accounting for the physiological, psychological, and social factors. The planning processes of these coaches appears to provide support to Pol et al’s,18 depiction of an interacting and cyclical relationship of the performer and their environment. Furthermore, the coaches planning experiences also support the suggestion that these traditional siloed areas are relational, in that they are continuously influencing, shaping, and guiding each other within the overall scope of the coaches planning process.
The planning process that the coaches undertake is about adding “value” to the athlete across 3 broad areas (ie, physiological, psychological, and personally and socially). These coaches planned through an investigative process, encompassing the symbiotic components of the biopsychosocial performance. They articulated the multitude of interrelationships between the physical, psychological, group versus individuals (both biologically and culturally), society and the environment. That is, the coaches recognized that different facets make up an “athlete” and for the physical planning process to be operationalized and function effectively they must adopt an athlete centric focus. Unlike the planning for the athlete’s physical development, planning for psychological factors or the personal development was generally, but not always, characterized as something that could not be fully planned out in advance. Operationally, planning was sometimes short term and dependent on the coach’s ability to decode and read the athlete, situation, and the environment within the framework of their overall planning. Similarly, to Ritchie et al’s,41 work on tapering, there was one common exception within the planning for the psychological development of their athletes which allowed the coach to preplan well in advance what they wanted to do. This was in the lead up to a major competition. Coaches reported that in this situation they felt able to proactively plan to influence how the athlete thought and felt.
Hamel and Gilbert42 (p486) suggested that, in general, sport coaches are becoming more “sensitive to the ecology of the athlete.” The coaches explicitly recognized the importance of viewing their athletes holistically. This enabled the coaches to plan for the athletes on an individual level. Similarly to the work of Anyadike-Danes et al,22 who acknowledged the important role of nonphysical factors to maximize athlete performance, we found that coaches were cognizant that their role extended far beyond the need to improve the fitness of their athletes (ie, psychologically, socially, and emotionally) in an attempt to foster a more favorable environment in which to development athletic performance.
Underneath the iceberg (the physical training plan) there’s another great big bit of ice, isn’t there? What we do as coaches is think about everything in there—we’ve got probably 20 different things under the water that they (athletes) don’t even know about, maybe they do not want to know either—and probably don’t even appreciate that they are there. (TH10)
Limitations and Future Research
Our study has provided valuable insights into the extent and content of coaches planning practices; however, no study is without limitations. In the context of this study, it is pertinent to acknowledge that the perspectives presented are always those of the coaches, their reflections on their own planning practices and their individual intentions and the meanings they attached to their actions. It is important to note that we did not observe the coaches planning process in situ. This may be viewed as a limitation of the data as we did not capture the dynamic interplay between intentions and actions in real-life situations. To counter this argument and to mitigate against social desirability in the data, it must be noted that it is not possible to record all the reality experienced by an individual. As noted in the method, through prolonged engagement in the data generation process, trust was built to allow for interrogation of, and challenge representations and intention of their planning. In addition, the recruitment and engagement of 28 participants from across the athletics coaching sector, afforded us the opportunity to see the clear insights, lines, connections/consistencies, and shared understanding between the coaches regarding how they viewed planning. The depth and rigor of our data generation process is not possible with other approaches, for example, questionnaires. Finally, in line with our interpretivist positioning, we were not looking to establish a one “truth” about planning. Thus, as noted earlier, the model presented in this paper is an attempt to present the shared understanding of what the nature of planning really entails and means to these coaches.
Additionally, the heterogeneity of the participants should be acknowledged with 18 of the 28 coaches recruited from the endurance discipline and only one female coach able to participate in the data collection process (3 females were initially recruited). The recruitment process did not target a specific sex of the participants. As this sample is generally representative of the wider coaching population in athletics (both sex and level of qualification held), it would be pertinent to explore, the experiences of females coaches who work with high-performing athletes in an attempt to develop a more nuanced understanding of their experiences. Finally, it should be acknowledged that (1) the coaches within the study were all working with high performing athletes and (2) the majority of these coaches (those outside of funded programs; Table 1) worked on their own to complete their planning and enact their preferred planning process. Future work should examine if these findings are representative of the planning process of coaches (1) at different performance levels and (2) whose athletes consistently perform at high levels. It would be of interest to explore whether the successful coaches across other sports were the ones able to see beyond the reductionist framework of periodization, that they are indoctrinated into through coach education.
Practical Applications
Within the context of understanding track-and-field athletics coaches’ practice, these findings have implications for the learning and development of coaches at all levels. We acknowledge that there is a need to support coaches with knowledge acquisition related to scientific principles of training and physical adaptation. Yet, the coaches in this study recognized that the plan is only one small element to the overall concept of planning and that the physical training plan would have a much greater chance of succeeding if there is detailed planning for the wider social dynamics and interactions that are present in coaching practice. Coach education providers should look to integrate these perspectives into their education programs to raise the awareness of these factors in their planning work. Indeed, we would suggest that their needs to be a departure from how coaches are currently educated on planning and what it entails, in order that they are better equipped to move away from viewing planning as a one-dimensional process. This would support coaches to recognize the level of engagement required to plan for more optimal performance environments and athlete development. We suggest that these findings have the potential to increase the awareness of the breadth of skills required by coaches—fundamentally changing the way planning is viewed, and what it is to be an effective coach. It may also be pertinent for mentoring programs to engage with the perspectives presented here, with the potential to encourage more nuanced thinking about planning to support positive changes in coach’s practice and athlete performance. Novice coaches in particular could benefit to by being exposed to these factors within the education programs, helping to develop an awareness of the foundations on which to develop their practice. Consequently, the presentation in coach education literature, of what effective planning entails should be broadened and moved beyond purely the mechanical prescription of future training parameters, to embrace the reality described by our coaches.9 Finally, raising awareness of these planning processes, the importance of understanding individuals’ intentions (what is planned for) and the context of their actions (why), can support the design of better training programs and influence training and performance outcomes.
Conclusions
The aim of this study was to examine the extent and content of coaches’ planning practices in real-world high-performance athletics coaching environments. We found that coaches’ planning extended far beyond the traditionally depicted linear process; in fact, it was far more complex and multilayered. Our results show that coaches are cognizant that planning is a more extensive process than the seemingly smooth, flawless (reductionist) process of periodization that is presented in the literature and coach education programs. Ultimately, our research suggests that while physiological considerations are important, they do not dominate coaches’ planning processes as much as previously thought. This broader approach to planning to develop athlete performance provides a novel viewpoint that could influence future practices in sport science and coaching. For sport-science practitioners who work alongside coaches of high-performance athletes, embracing the novel insights from this manuscript may improve their ability to work collaboratively with coaches. In raising their awareness of other modifiable and planned variables that coaches believe could support training adaptation, positive changes in athletes’ performances may be achieved.
Acknowledgments
Northumbria University ethical committee approved this research. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. The authors express their gratitude to the athletics coaches who participated in the study.
References
- 1.↑
Johnson SR, Wojnar PJ, Price WJ, et al. A coach’s responsibility: learning how to prepare athletes for peak performance. Sport J. 2011;24:265.
- 2.↑
Nelson L, Cushion C, Potrac P. Enhancing the provision of coach education: the recommendations of UK coaching practitioners. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2013;18(2):204–218. doi:
- 3.↑
Cushion C. Cushion modelling the complexity of the coaching process. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2007;2(4):395–401. doi:
- 4.↑
Cunanan AJ, DeWeese BH, Wagle JP, et al. The general adaptation syndrome: a foundation for the concept of periodization. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):787–797. doi:
- 5.↑
Lorenz D, Morrison S. Current concepts in periodisation of strength and conditioning for sports physical therapist. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015;10(6):734–747. PubMed ID: 26618056
- 7.↑
Kataoka R, Vasenina E, Loenneke J, Buckner SL. Periodization: variation in the definition and discrepancies in study design. Sports Med. 2021;51(4):625–651. doi:
- 8.↑
Kiely J. Periodization paradigms in the 21st century: evidence-led or tradition-driven? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7:242–250. doi:
- 9.↑
Kiely J. Periodization theory: confronting an inconvenient truth. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):753–764. doi:
- 10.↑
Afonso J, Nikolaidis PT, Sousa P, Mesquita I. Is empirical research on periodization trustworthy? A comprehensive review of conceptual and methodological issues. J Sports Sci Med. 2017;16:27–34. PubMed ID: 28344448
- 11.↑
van Erp T, Sanders D, de Koning JJ. Training characteristics of male and female professional road cyclists: a 4-year retrospective analysis. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020;15(4):534–540. doi:
- 12.
Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø, Seiler S, Tønnessen E. The training characteristics of world-class distance runners: an integration of scientific literature and results-proven practice. Sports Med—Open. 2022;8(1):46. doi:
- 13.↑
Tønnessen E, Sylta Ø, Haugen TA, Hem E, Svendsen IS, Seiler S. The road to gold: training and peaking characteristics in the year prior to a gold medal endurance performance. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):1796. doi:
- 14.↑
Harries SK, Lubans DR, Callister R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear and undulating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(4):1113–1125. doi:
- 16.↑
Bompa TO, Haff GG. Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training. 5th ed. Human Kinetics; 2009.
- 17.↑
Issurin VB. Benefits and limitations of block periodized training approaches to athletes’ preparation: a review. Sports Med. 2016;46(3):329–338. doi:
- 18.↑
Pol R, Balagué N, Ric A, Torrents C, Kiely J, Hristovski R. Training or synergizing? Complex systems principles change the understanding of sport processes. Sports Medicine—Open. 2020;6:28. doi:
- 19.
Stoszkowski J, Collins D. Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. J Sport Sci. 2015;34(9):794–802. doi:
- 20.↑
Bailey RP, Madigan DJ, Cope E, Nicholls AR. The prevalence of pseudoscientific ideas and neuromyths among sports coaches. Front Psychol. 2018;9:641. doi:
- 21.↑
Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø, Enoksen E, Seiler S, Tønnessen E. Crossing the golden training divide: the science and practice of training world-class 800- and 1500-m runners. Sports Med. 2021;51(9):1835–1854. doi:
- 22.↑
Anyadike-Danes K, Donath L, Kiely J. Coaches’ perceptions of factors driving training adaptation: an international survey. Sports Med. 2023;53:2505–2512. doi:
- 23.↑
Kinnerk P, Kearney PE, Harvey S, Lyons M. An investigation of high-performance team sport coaches’ planning practices. Sports Coach Rev. 2021;12(3):253–280. doi:
- 24.↑
Tracey SJ. Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. Wiley-Blackwell; 2020.
- 25.↑
McKay AKA, Stellingwerff T, Smith ES, et al. Defining training and performance caliber: a participant classification framework. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(2):317–331. doi:
- 26.↑
Howell K. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology. 2013. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/an-introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-methodology. Accessed March 5, 2024.
- 27.↑
Potrac P, Jones RL, Nelson L.Interpretivism. In: Silverman D, ed. Research Methods in Sports Coaching. Routledge; 2014:31–41.
- 28.↑
Mills JP, Campbell S, Kuklick C. “It isn’t as clear as you think”. The post coach: another step closer. Sports Coach Rev. 2024;10:784. doi:
- 29.↑
Josselson R. Interviewing for qualitative inquiry: a relational approach. In: Josselson R. Interviewing for Qualitative Inquiry: A Relational Approach. The Guilford Press; 2013:206.
- 30.↑
Miller J, Glassner B. The “inside” and the “outside”: finding realities in interviews. In: Silverman D ed. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage; 2016:51–66.
- 31.↑
Ives B, Clayton B, Gale L, Taylor W, Leeder TM, Nichol AJ. “I’m not the police”: practical strategies for sport coach mentors to develop trust and trustworthiness. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2023;10:1015. doi:
- 32.↑
Gale L, Ives B, Nelson L, Potrac P. Trust and distrust in community sports work: tales from the “Shop Floor.” Sociol Sport J. 2019;36(3):244–253. doi:
- 33.
Merriam BS. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass; 2014.
- 34.↑
Potrac P, Hall E, Nichol A. Fear, anger, and loneliness: emotional pain and referee attrition in English grassroots football. Sociol Sport J. 2022;39(3):298–308. doi:
- 35.↑
Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage; 2009.
- 37.↑
Hutchison AJ, Johnston LH, Breckon J. Using QSR-NVivo to facilitate the development of a grounded theory project: an account of a worked example. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2010;13(4):283–302. doi:
- 38.↑
Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018;11(1):101–121. doi:
- 39.↑
Casado A, Gonzalez-Mohino F, Gonzalez-Rave JM, Foster C. Training periodization, methods, intensity distribution, and volume in highly trained and elite distance runners: a systematic review. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(6):820–833. doi:
- 40.↑
Abraham A, Saiz SLJ, Mckeown S, et al. Planning your coaching: a focus on youth participant development. In: Nash C, ed. Practical Sports Coaching. Routledge; 2014:16–54.
- 41.↑
Ritchie D, Allen JB, Kirkland A. Where science meets practice: Olympic coaches’ crafting of the tapering process. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(10):1145–1154. doi:
- 42.↑
Hamel T, Gilbert W. Holism in sports coaching: beyond humanistic psychology—a commentary. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2010;5(4):485–488.
- 43.↑
Huggan R, Nelson L, Potrac P. Developing micropolitical literacy in professional soccer: a performance analyst’s tale. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2014;7(4):504–520. doi:
