Simulación creando un nuevo modelo matemático

Coaches understand the main aim of their role is to help athletes improve and develop, in soccer this is generally in a technical or tactical sense, however coaches also understand that their success as a coach is judged on the success of their athletes (Abreham et al., 2006; Cushion, 2001; Groom &

Cushion, 2004). Despite the purpose of coaching being to develop and improve an athlete’s performance, the nature of modern coaching is far more multidisciplinary and incorporates knowledge on psycho-social, cultural, personal, physical and mental aspects of performance, even if the coach does not directly implement programmes on the above factors (Abreham et al., 2006; Cushion, 2001; Littlewood, Mullen, & Richardson, 2011). Although a coach understands his/her roles towards the athlete, less information is known regarding the methods in which coaches develop their own personal understanding and improve their sport specific knowledge in order to help maximise the athletes development (Cushion et al., 2010; Mackenzie &

Cushion, 2013). The use of continuous professional development (CPD) has only recently come into focus and the application to coaching practices is relatively new in the literature (Cushion et al., 2010). Nevertheless this could become an important method for coaches to communicate and share ideas and a process to develop wider coaching practices, in greater detail the

methods of undertaking CPD events and the availability of CPD materials for coaches to access is an important area for future research to investigate.

Performance analysis, and sport science in general, has constantly been identified as a key area to improve the quality of the coaching process and in particular the reflective ability of the players and coaches (Groom &

Cushion, 2004; Groom et al., 2011; Liebermann & Franks, 2004; Mackenzie

& Cushion, 2014; Martindale & Nash, 2013; Nelson et al., 2011). Despite the overwhelming belief of its importance, there has been a lack of research investigating the use of sport science in applied settings by coaches and/or players (Mackenzie & Cushion, 2013). Similarly, the development of the perceptions or skills of using performance analysis to maximise sporting performance and the feedback process has limited research. This often comes from a misunderstanding on the role and definition of sport science and the perception of how it can be used in coaching practice (Martindale &

Nash, 2013). Although performance analysis can be an important part of the coaching process, it is possible that it has still not been accepted as a part of sport science due to the fact that most coaches work on intuition and previous experience rather than standardised models of coaching (Partington

& Cushion, 2013). This is as a result of research analysing the processes a coach undertakes, and therefore observable coaching behaviours rather than methods of maximising coach effectiveness (Cushion, 2001). The lack of research between performance analysis and coaching may be due, in part, to the lack of research in coaching science as a whole. It is especially difficult to analyse the coaching sciences when the profession itself lies between concepts of art and science (Cushion, 2001). In addition, the lack of research

may also be due to a difference in the perceptions of coaches and sport scientists on the important research questions and areas of research within the scientific literature (Gould, 2016; Martindale & Nash, 2013; Williams &

Kendall, 2007). It is possible that coaches do not perceive investigations into coaching processes as important, especially as many coaches, particularly elite coaches, do not feel they could gain additional knowledge from the research literature despite research suggesting reaching elite level coaching is a long-term development process (Young, Jemczyk, Brophy, & Côté, 2009). This is in direct contrast to areas of psychology, biomechanics or physiology where coaches openly admit they have less knowledge and experience and require additional advice and expertise from scientific support staff (Williams & Kendall, 2007). The research that has investigated the coaching process has isolated individual areas of interest, and although this has provided some information on coaching procedures, it has not delivered a holistic understanding of the coaching role (Cushion, 2001) and instead has provided complex schematics of the coaching process, which are rarely applicable in real-life coaching situations or replicable across different sports (Abreham et al., 2006). These findings can be summarised in the coaches’ perception of the coaching science literature. Research has identified the intentions of coaches is to replicate the findings of the research but without truly understanding the reason behind their actions or the ability to actually carry out the research suggestions (Partington & Cushion, 2013).

One possible explanation is due to the inability of coaches to understand the complex language used in academic literature (Martindale & Nash, 2013).

Coach perceptions and reluctance in engaging with performance analysis

may also stem from the way performance analysis developed. As mentioned in the previous chapter, performance analysis began due to the statistical analysis of performance and was published in research papers with statistical backgrounds (Fullerton, 1912; Messersmith & Corey, 1931; Reep

& Benjamin, 1968). It may be possible that this statistical viewpoint of performance analysis has overshadowed the coaches’ perceptions and subsequent implementation within the coaching process.

The delivery of performance analysis sessions within the coaching process has previously been suggested to be unstructured and based around critical incidences during matches, primarily due to a reactive response from coaches (Groom et al., 2011). One potential reason for the lack of research on coach/player perceptions on performance analysis may be due to the processes involved with performance analysis itself. The athlete is both the purpose and receiver of the process, nevertheless both the coach and athlete have little involvement with the analysis of performance. The lack of involvement within the process along with previous negative experiences of feedback from performance analysis sessions may suggest that coaches and athletes have both negative feelings or a complete lack of understanding towards the use and application of performance analysis (Francis & Jones, 2014; Groom et al., 2011; Nelson et al., 2011). It is possible that CPD sessions, coaching courses and continued exposure to performance analysis may change current perceptions, nevertheless research should begin to investigate methods of developing and improving coach/athlete opinions on performance analysis in order to maximise its effectiveness.

Although players and coaches understand that performance analysis is aimed at improving technical ability and tactical knowledge (Francis &

Jones, 2014), it is essential that the coaches and analysts understand the athletes they are interacting with and employ an athlete centred approach. It has been recommended that analysts/coaches should avoid large peer group performance reviews which discourage positive learning environments (Groom et al., 2011; Nelson et al., 2011), even though they can encourage team discussions and develop greater understanding and knowledge on team match-play and tactics (Nelson et al., 2011). In addition, athlete understanding and acceptance of coaching feedback through performance analysis relies heavily on the interaction and respect between coach and athlete (Nelson et al., 2011). Although rarely mentioned, let alone investigated, are the interactions between coach-analyst and athlete-analyst.

In order to maximise the findings of any research or literature it is essential that the analyst also gain the trust and respect of the coaches/athletes similar to the coach-athlete relationships identified in the literature. In essence, analysts must quickly identify the most effective methods of communicating findings, in particular to coaches, who then decide which information is disseminated to athletes (Gould, 2016). Nevertheless, although coaches will have different learning styles, no research has attempted to analyse preferred methods of data visualisation for maximum understanding or where coaches go to attain data.