Just like in any industry, the best man (or woman) may not always get the job. This is certainly true in professional football where there certainly are some unqualified, or no so good staff in the game - fitness coach, physio, scout, analyst, or otherwise.
However...
Ex-pros are exactly that - retired players that spent their formative years playing the sport, and were not (until recently) able to continue studies, therefore it may be unfair to pigeon-hole them all. Just because these guys may not have masters degrees or all the fancy certifications does not mean that they are not eager to learn new things or continue with their education now that their playing career is over. They also have a wealth of experience from doing. They know how it feels to be a young player who struggles physically in the 1st team, what it is like to suffer a career threatening injury, and they probably have had years of working with many different fitness coaches themselves.
The fact that I appear to be taking this stance may surprise you, but I feel in situations like this from time to time it is good to see the flip side. We all know how poor the state of sport science can be at some clubs. Think about the two extreme backgrounds of people that may apply for jobs at these clubs. It could be argued that the ex-pro, whilst potentially lacking the depth of scientific knowledge behind "best practice", could at least get some buy-in from the coaches and players to a less perfect (but improved) training program. The young sport scientist, fresh from his master's degree on the other hand, may have good knowledge and ideas but may have little idea of how to apply this effectively in the professional setting and thus get zero buy-in and have no real positive effect on the team. This was me a few years ago.
The above are extreme examples, and yes I am playing devil's advocate. Although I played, I have the background more like the latter situation above. There are many excellent sport scientists with little to no football background who are successful at what they do. At the same time, there are ex-pro players out there that are doing an excellent job. It goes both ways and we should see both sides and learn from them rather than assume and criticize.
Although football fitness coaches can come from a variety of
backgrounds and may be all different shapes and sizes,
I am not putting my money of Ronaldo making it as one!
Posts
This is a great post Mr.Gray, and though I fit into the latter who's still trying to find his way through, I mostly agree with you (I'll explain why I say "mostly").
ReplyDeleteYou are right in regards to us science dweebs lacking the knowledge of application, especially when it comes to the planning and executing football-related coaching drills. When I lacked football0related experience (and still do), I just presumed conditioning programs can be like that used in america; all intervals and plans without the use of the ball. This is folly, players don't like this, and football is very sport-specific. Understanding how to get the coaches on your side and even the players and how to structure everything around the coaches plan is important.
Before, I used to think the S&C coaches should be on the same level of importance as the other coaches. Do way, he coaches are the main staff, and we are support. That's how it should be.
I say mostly though, because even though I've identified my weaknesses, very few fitness coaches will give us the opportunity to learn, as we're just seen as a "threat". It's great to be an ex-player with the industry knowledge, it's just as good to have the scientific background, but it's best to have both. It seems football is still resistant to having someone who's both.
Great comment - almost a blog post in itself! Thank you!
ReplyDeleteYou are right to use the word "mostly" in your discussion - nothing in this game is completely cut and dry.
It is a shame that other fitness coaches are seen as threats in the industry. Pretty much everyone I talk to agrees that we need to improve the role science has in the sport (this needs to be done from both ends). Getting defensive about methods, etc. will not help this. If a young coach wants to learn, we should help educate them in an effort that the game of football will improve, rather than worrying about the rival team stealing some methods.
Fantastic point about our role to support the coaches - this is something that Dr. Duncan from Sydney FC always reminds us.
Cheers again for the comment - keep em coming!
Not a problem.
ReplyDeleteA good example of someone who has both would be Seattle Sounders Fitness Coach David Tenney. Although he started off as a coach, he is now also a full on "science dweeb". He has both.
I think it boils down to cultural differences. American sports, specifically American Football, athletic ability is key. Whereas in soccer, technical ability (and later, tactical ability or "reading the game") is number one. You can be slow, lack agility, strength of any kind, average conditioning and a history or injuries, but have the 2 abilities mentioned in abundance, you can still make it to the top.
I have a great amount of respect for what David is doing up there that is for sure. He deserves a lot of credit for it and for helping others understand the role of a fitness coach in the sport (in the US).
ReplyDeleteYes technical and tactical aspects are more important in "our" version of football than American Football - however the game is more physical than ever at the top level. One could also argue that at youth levels - the big strong fast kid tends to dominate and get picked for the team (right or wrong, it depends).
Hopefully, our role in physical development will help our players express the skill and tactics that they have on the field.
Hopefully.
ReplyDelete