Bridging the gap between science and practice—this is the main objective (or at least it should be) for sport scientists. Instead of adopting minimalistic perspectives or addressing issues entirely disconnected from real-world training scenarios, where available training time is highly limited, researchers involved in sport science need to be aware of the actual challenges faced by practitioners in their daily routines. Long journeys to compete, congested schedules, and progressive increases in physical demands during training and competition, especially in speed and power activities, are some of the most critical issues that coaches frequently handle in elite sports.¹ Of course, studies in sport science do not always take these constraints and barriers into account, which is understandable given the comprehensive nature and complexity of the field. Nevertheless, research focused on elite sports should not be conducted without considering these aspects. A recent survey involving 106 coaches from various sports and countries investigating issues pertaining to training processes highlighted this point: “If training research continues as present, the field runs the risk of not only becoming detached, but increasingly irrelevant to those it is trying to help.”^2(p2505)

This is the moment that survey studies become essential, as they provide a unique opportunity to better understand the real difficulties faced by practitioners and can effectively address these issues in future interventions. Surveys are also highly relevant in terms of practical applications. Specifically, and for example, these studies enable us to identify and examine the training practices regularly utilized by coaches. A good survey can promote the adoption of more effective evidence-based approaches, aligned with the current literature on some specific topics (eg, resistance- or speed-training practices).^3,4 It is no coincidence that surveys are among the most widely read studies and have recently gained increased acceptance in prestigious sport-science journals.^3,4 Despite their apparent simplicity, surveys can be performed using high-quality methodological approaches, prevalidated questionnaires, and innovative data-analysis procedures to enhance consistency and accuracy in data processing. These options are readily available to researchers, covering a variety of factors related to coaching practices.

A recent survey published in IJSPP³ explored the beliefs and strategies of football practitioners implementing high-speed and sprint-training sessions in their programs, applying a mixed-methods approach that integrated descriptive statistics, mixed-effects models, and multinomial logistic-regression techniques. Beyond its novel characteristics, this complex statistical modeling enables the independent analysis of distinct “domains,” described in the study as “who, why, when, what, and how.” More important, this method facilitates the exploration of questions that are highly relevant from an applied standpoint, such as the lack of consensus on the conceptual constructs defining sprint-running exposure, as well as the methodological procedures employed by practitioners to monitor these metrics during match play. Furthermore, this sort of detailed analysis reveals that there is a broad spectrum of methods considered effective by practitioners for developing these physical qualities. Interestingly, some of these methods (eg, game-based training) are largely regarded as at least “moderately effective” for enhancing sprinting abilities, which partially diverges from the current literature on the topic.⁵ Although Dello Iacono et al³ acknowledged the inherent limitations of their study (eg, the use of a convenience sample and the exclusion of perceptions from other stakeholders such as the players themselves), there is no doubt that their findings provide a solid foundation for guiding practitioners and informing future interventions involving team sports and high-intensity running exposure.

Surveys focusing on highly specialized samples (eg, Olympic coaches) are also generally well accepted in the field.⁴ This type of study can, among other benefits, provide practitioners with valuable insights into specific topics applicable across various sports in which certain physical abilities, such as speed and power, play a key role (eg, football and rugby).⁴ In addition, based on these studies, researchers can design more realistic projects capable of addressing the actual priorities of elite athletes. Notably, in a survey conducted with Olympic track and field coaches, Loturco et al⁶ emphasized that identifying the practices commonly employed by leading sprint coaches—who work with the fastest men in the world—may help practitioners from various disciplines develop more effective neuromuscular training programs. Once again, in these studies, challenges related to sample size are expected, given the exceptional characteristics of the sample (ie, Olympians). However, the knowledge gained from such studies can offer unique perspectives to the field that would otherwise be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Therefore, journals and editors should recognize the potential interest and the confidence that these studies could inspire.

Although this is not necessarily a call for surveys, we encourage researchers interested in pursuing this type of research. As long as surveys are well designed and well conducted, we are prepared to welcome these submissions to IJSPP, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of the challenges faced in elite sports.