skill Self-reflection, which was seen as important by more than of the coaches, and a 2
skill which the players could be better at. For a number of coaches, a measure of 3
progress within video-based practice was the point when the players were able to use 4
video feedback effectively without the presence of the coach (self-observation), as 5
the following quote reveals:
6
It’s important to ask ourselves, as coaches, whether we are committing 7
enough time to the development of the players’ self-reflection skills, to 8
helping them become independent learners. I believe we need to unlearn 9
what we have learned as coaches in this respect. Look at your Messi’s or 10
Ronaldo’s … they are making decisions on the pitch, in the moment, while 11
we have players who can only follow game plans. By encouraging players to 12
sit down with the video, independently, away from us, make some notes, and 13
come and discuss it, I feel we could make greater progress. This isn’t easy, 14
and may require coaches to change the way they work … maybe take less 15
control, take some risks with their role rather than just blaming the player for 16
not doing exactly what they say … it will feel a bit uncomfortable for some 17
coaches but how else do you see this moving forward? (C4).
18
4.13 Dimension 3: Delivery Climate 19
The final dimension within study 1a concerned the factors relating to the 20
delivery climate surrounding video. It was acknowledged by all the coaches that 21
video-based practice was strongly influenced by the learning environment 22
surrounding video (referred to in this study as the Delivery Climate). The six sub-23
themes in this dimension were Peer-to-peer evaluation, Coach behaviour, 24
Psychological understanding, Individual differences, Psychological support, and 25
Coach education. These themes and sub-themes are illustrated in Figure 1.3 (below).
26
The driving force behind this climate was the coach himself and more 27
specifically, the coach’s behaviour during video-based practice. In the interviews, 28
59
coaches discussed the way their coaching approach shaped their VFB work, and in 1
particular, how the player’s perception of their behaviour was a key aspect of how 2
they responded to video work. The benefits of creating positivity around the video 3
sessions were raised. If the coaches’ approach to the work was perceived positively 4
rather than negatively by the players, then players were more likely to benefit from 5
the work. This was epitomised by the themes Needs to be seen as a positive learning 6
tool by players and confidence builder if used supportively. There was recognition 7
from a number of coaches that for the video to be more effective than it was at the 8
moment, it needed to be promoted and accepted more as a source of support rather 9
than a source of pressure. A ‘supportive’ approach was associated with improving 10
players’ confidence levels, as this coach stated:
11
The coaches might have all the information at their disposal, but you need to 12
create an atmosphere that encourages players to be positive, and go out and to 13
be free to try things ... with too great an emphasis on getting results or not 14
letting you down … the players’ motivation reflects a need to avoid failure 15
rather than a desire to approach these sessions with a positive learning focus 16
(C4).
17
However, a number of coaches recognised that the players may possibly hold 18
a negative perception of their approach to video feedback at present. This perception 19
was linked to other coaches’ use of video as a punishment tool with players, captured 20
in the themes No impact if used for punishment and Long-term negative impact if 21
used for punishment. An example of this use of video included deliberately 22
highlighting players’ mistakes in front of others to embarrass them. This approach, 23
however, was seen as a “throw-back to an old school coaching philosophy” (C8);
24
more prevalent in the previous generation of coaching. There was a perception that 25
60
the younger coaches coming through the system may be bringing a more positive 1
approach to VFB work. As coach one stated:
2
The younger, up-and-coming coaches tend to use video a little in a more 3
relaxed way, with a learning focus. The older coaches, who are seen as a bit 4
old school, find it more difficult to adapt ... either using it really negatively or 5
just can’t be arsed using it at all. The players pick up on that for sure, and it 6
is very difficult for them to get involved in learning in a positive way if it’s 7
always thrown back in their face in a way that tries to embarrass them ... you 8
alienate [the players] (C1).
9
The coaches in the present study believed it was important to alter players’
10
negative perceptions, citing the damaging effect of this approach on their motivation.
11
It was important to be mindful of over using punishment and criticism, as it reduced 12
the trust the athlete had in the coaches’ video delivery and inhibited their motivation 13
to learn. For one coach, this involved trying to strike a balance:
14
Avoid saying ‘you shouldn’t do that’ – even with the older lads - it can be 15
quite harmful for their confidence and belief, and who knows what they are 16
capable of really? However, give them too much confidence and they can get 17
sloppy, and stop improving, or even get big headed. You need a balance. I 18
would definitely favour positive over negative. We forget that these are 19
teenagers really trying to be men, but all respond better to positivity than 20
criticism (C6).
21
The coaches also discussed the impact that working with other practitioners 22
could have on the delivery process, represented in the theme Coach-Support staff 23
relationship. For the coaches, the practitioner role was one which brought a different 24
set of skills and abilities than the coach to the delivery process: “I think good 25
delivery is built around these two people – the coach and practitioner – and might 26
possibly hold the key. But who does what depends on the relationships within that”
27
(C2). The psychology practitioner role, in particular, was recognised by half of the 28
61
coaches as one which could help to maximise the impact of video-based practice.
1
Specifically, it was suggested that the involvement of a Sport Psychologist in this 2
process could help open up new understanding to the coaches and their support staff, 3
as explored in the following quote:
4
I have had good chats with our psych about this, and it has helped me see and 5
understand some of the factors involved from the player’s viewpoint. We are 6
planning to get him more involved. Maybe I need to step back, and not be 7
the one leading all the time, maybe get others, like my assistant or the psych 8
involved? I’m not sure how that might work, but it’s worth a go, because this 9
(video) could be gold dust but it’s not really making the impact we think it 10
can at the moment, or at least that’s my take on it (C7).
11
For one coach, this role could focus on creating a positive learning 12
environment around the video work, and possibly even leading the delivery; a role 13
traditionally seen as the coaches: “I wouldn’t like to say who the best person to 14
deliver video is because the role of the coach as expert, some might question. A 15
practitioner with expertise in psychology might be more beneficial for the players, 16
more objective” (C11). However, it is important to note, that the majority of coaches 17
interviewed within this study saw the coach-role as the central one within the 18
delivery environment.
19
Finally, a number of coaches suggested that the psychology practitioner could 20
also work closely with the performance analysis practitioner to improve their 21
knowledge. This integration between the Psychologist and the PA Practitioner could 22
have a more integrated approach to the work, as one coach stated: “The analyst 23
probably already has a better basic knowledge of performance than the psych, but the 24
psych understands the impact better. This combination would be ideal for the coach”
25
(C5).
26
62
The importance of encouraging players to communicate openly in front of 1
their team-mates was captured by the theme Peer communication. More than just 2
communicating, the coaches wanted to develop players who were able to critically 3
assess their own performance in front of others, and also critique the performance of 4
their peers on the team. As one coach stated: “I look to improve their 5
communication in public, out in the open, not in private … you molly-coddle them 6
otherwise” (C3). Another coach stated: “For one of our younger players to be able 7
to turn round and admit that he didn’t do as well as he could with a header or pass in 8
front of the group that would be a significant step forward [in the video work]” (C7).
9
It was acknowledged, however, that developing a climate where players were 10
comfortable critiquing each other’s performance was a challenge:
11
We are fighting against the culture of football a little here, as honesty is in 12
short supply the further up the ladder you get. That doesn’t mean our job [as 13
academy coaches] is to send players up who are selfish and self-focused, but 14
to send players who can be honest and have a positive impact on the teams 15
they play for. That’s what first team managers want but sometimes don’t 16
have available to them … honest players who will call each other out on 17
performance (C3).
18
19
63
1 2
Trust between the coach and player was recognised as an important 3
relationship factor within video-based practice. There was a sense that if trust had 4
been established within the group, and the players learned to view peer-critique as a 5
productive rather than disruptive process, then this could be a very positive process 6
within video-based practice. For one coach, this process took time to develop:
7
Coach behaviour
Delivery Climate
Figure 1.03. Perceptions of the role of the ‘Delivery Climate’ in video feedback practice amongst English professional youth football coaches. Key: Pos+ = Positive; Neg- = Negative
9 Helps coach reinforce positive processes 4 Need to be seen as pos+ learning tool by players 4 Confidence builder if used supportively 6 Pos+ atmosphere around video important 2 Coach should support more, pressure less 2 Positivity enhances player motivation 6 Positivity raises player expectation 4 No impact if used for punishment
3 Long-term neg- impact if used as punishment 2 Fear of coach criticism inhibits learning 3 Neg- impact if coaches focused on own needs 2 Neg- approach reduces trust in coach 1 Still effective despite coach criticism
6 Need to understand psychological impact 5 Psychological potential untapped to date 3 Poor psychology wastes good analysis 2 Can’t read player emotions to video at times 5 Coaches need better psychological knowledge
3 Link delivery to players’ needs 2 Requires sensitivity at times
2 Be careful with underperforming players 7 Understanding learning styles key to delivery 5 Most effective with receptive players 5 Link to developmental needs of player
2 Need trust in coach-support staff relationship 2 Improve psychology knowledge of analyst 6 Sport Psych could maximise impact 3 Psychological & technical emphasis equal 2 Sport Psych needed to develop pos+ climate
2 Provides coach with manipulation check 2 Aids coach professional development 6 Adapted communication after self-analysis 2 Natural to watch self on side-lines 2 Encouraged coach to adapt style
3 Gauges player understanding of coach philosophy 3 Limited video education for coach
2 Coach philosophy reflects poor education
Psychological understanding Support staff role
Individual differences Coach education 6 Honest communication between peers is key
10 Need to accept responsibility in front of the team 4 Peer critique important despite neg- mood 8 Need to be able to give neg- feedback to peers
Peer-to-peer communication
64
I think last year we took a step towards the right learning environment for 1
video, not a massive step, but a significant one. The players aren’t at the 2
stage where they are able to dig each other out yet, but that it may be a useful 3
tool when they get to senior football. They have been surprised that they 4
could do it and still respect each other. We said that whatever was said in the 5
room stays in the room, and that was the starting point for our honesty in 6
those sessions. The small breakthroughs we had were worth all the hours of 7
work that we did with the video (C5).
8
A number of other factors focused on how the delivery climate could be 9
improved within video-based practice. The theme Coach education represents the 10
impact the coaches felt the video could have on developing their own thoughts and 11
behaviour. This was a natural by-product of using the video for player development, 12
and was seen as highly beneficial by the coaches. These benefits included providing 13
them as coaches with a manipulation check (regarding how they were coaching) and 14
helping them adapt their communication or delivery style in a positive way.
15
However, the coaches in this study also felt that they would benefit from greater 16
education regarding the delivery of video feedback with youth football. As one 17
coach stated: “We don’t train enough people along those lines...we prepare coaches 18
to deliver technically but not to regularly reflect on their coaching” (C8). Another 19
coach felt that the limited available coach education in this area was becoming a 20
barrier to VFB effectiveness:
21
The coach has to understand the psychological processes. …what the coach 22
does is important, there is no doubt about that…it’s the coach that creates the 23
environment for them to learn from. The problem is when the coach thinks 24
he is the key to the problem and that he has to drive everything. He creates 25
the environment for them to learn, and he has to understand what’s going on.
26
If he doesn’t then learning is limited by the coach (C2).
27
65
The importance of gaining a better understanding of the psychological impact 1
of video was raised by the coaches in this study, epitomised in the sub-themes Poor 2
psychology wastes good analysis and Psychological impact untapped to date. Not 3
knowing how the players were responding was therefore difficult to cope with, as 4
this coach illustrated: “You are not even getting a response from some of them at 5
times, if I can’t see it in their faces, I don’t know what’s going on. This worries me 6
as a coach” (C1). VFB was also perceived by the coaches as a tool which “worked 7
for some players, but not for others” (C4). Finding a way of monitoring and 8
evaluating impact was also an area of video research where coaches felt progress 9
could be made. One coach questioned whether, at present, coaches really understood 10
player responses to VFB well enough to ensure impact was positive. He stated, 11
The danger comes when we all always sit down together and prepare as a 12
team because that’s how it’s always been done and we know no better…the 13
coach assumes that everyone likes it, and some [players] are sitting there 14
thinking ‘God, I wish I wasn’t here, I just want to get going or it’s too much 15
for me, it’s too heavy emotionally’. We don’t do it right yet for groups or 16
individual players…rather than just assume it’s going to work because we are 17
ignorant to a better way, it needs thinking through with more subtlety and 18
testing to find out what really works, so we can put things into the process 19
that help the players to branch out, take that next step for themselves. I think 20
we’ve all been guilty of seeing things in black and white, when they are in 21
fact much more complex than that (C3).
22
The coaches in this study suggested that delivery could be tailored better to 23
meet the individual differences within the team, in terms of development level, 24
learning styles and situational issues they may be facing. Under-performing players, 25
for example, might require a greater level of sensitivity and support at times. If video 26
could be introduced earlier to players, the players may have adapted to using this 27
66
technology by the time they reached the senior academy level, possibly removing or 1
reducing some of the barriers to learning that the coaches were now facing during 2
VFB work. The following quote illustrates this connection:
3
I think if you get them young enough, if you have it that learning what they 4
need to do to make it to the big time, and video is positive not negative, then 5
that mind-set is taken on by the players all the way through their 6
development, and it is easier to maintain their enthusiasm and convince them 7
to keep being honest when some of their team-mates start to lose focus and 8
play up (C7).
9
However, a perception which was held by a number of coaches was that 10
although it was important to create a positive climate around the video work, 11
delivery could still be effective despite a negatively perceived climate. Every team 12
contained receptive and unreceptive players and it was clear to some of the coaches 13
which of their players would get the most out of the video. These receptive players 14
possessed qualities were felt to have separated them from their peers, (e.g., a greater 15
level of self-awareness) and these qualities meant they would find a way of using the 16
information productively, as one coach illustrated:
17
There might be 5 or 6 players in here giggling, enjoying the banter…but there 18
is often one kid who is focusing intently on it, watching himself, and you 19
know he’s analysing it properly. His team-mates might even be giving him a 20
bit of stick for watching the video on his lunch-break … he might be over-21
analysing a bit…we don’t know … but I bet I can pick out the individual 22
players that I know I can trust to self-analyse…stick the video on, leave them 23
to it, and know he will get something from it … he’s often the exception and 24
he’s often the kid that makes it, maybe because of this attitude and passion to 25
get better (C1).
26 27
67
This final quote brings the results of study 1a to a close. The following Chapter 1
reports the perspectives of players (Study 1b) before critically discussing the 2
knowledge gained from these two allied investigation.
3
68
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 Study 1b: Results