Do We Have Practice Design All Wrong?

In a previous post, I wrote about the power of consistent effort and the impact it can have on achieving success in any endeavor. In this post, I’d like to further explore that topic as it relates to practice design and player development.

I’ve had the good fortune of observing and learning from many different coaches with many different philosophies and ways of planning and conducting practices. These experiences have helped to shape my perspective and philosophy on practice design, and have shown me that some ways to design practice are far more effective, and lead to far better outcomes, than others.

Traditionally, I find practice design falls into one of two categories: fully random or systematic. Fully random practice design follows no clear system of design, whereas a systematic practice design follows some sort of pre-set template. For example, in a fully random setting, no two practices will look alike and there will be little to no distinguishable patterns that emerge. In a systematic practice design, each day clearly follows a similar pattern, let’s call it a “template,” with small variances dedicated to specific situations. While coaches have certainly had success with both methods, in my experience, those with pre-conceived templates typically have far more success than those with a fully random design. Let’s dive a little deeper.

I’ve found that coaches who follow a systematic design have a clear vision for their style of play, what it should look like, and know what they need to consistently practice to achieve it. Relating this back to my previous post, it makes a lot of sense. A systematic design simply holds coaches accountable to consistently invest effort into the areas they want to improve. Beyond that, it streamlines and speeds up the practice design process, leaving more time and energy to focus on other areas that lead to success, such as recruiting, scouting, or player management.

Now that’s not to say that a systematic approach will always work, because it won’t. I’ve been around a couple of coaches who follow a systematic approach, but invest their time and energy into the wrong areas; they invest practice time to drills and exercises that don’t actually lead to or translate to success on the field. Beyond that, a systematic approach to practice design doesn’t account for HOW a coach may coach, HOW they treat their players, HOW well they prepare for the upcoming opponent, and many other important aspects that lead to success on game day. All this is to emphasize that while a systematic approach will help streamline the process, it doesn’t guarantee success.

Let’s take a look at a couple of templates from coaches who have had a ton of success at the collegiate level:

Template 1:
Dynamic Warmup
Technical Warmup
Transition Activity
Competition
Finishing

Templates 2:
Dynamic Warmup
Technical Exercise
Positional Work with Positional Coaches
Group/Team Activity
Competition

When we compare these two templates, a few similarities stand out:

1. Both coaches invest in a proper warmup at the start of practice. While this seems strikingly obvious, it’s not something to take for granted. I’ve been around a few coaches, who even at the highest level, don’t believe in the values of properly warming a team up. A proper warmup not only reduces the risk/occurrence of injuries and physically prepares the body to train at it’s highest level, it also mentally prepares the athletes for training and gives them the time they need to mentally transition into the session. Both coaches essentially spend 20 minutes physically, mentally, and technically warming their players up so that they are firing on all cylinders when they get into the meat of their practice. Also, having been around these coaches, I can tell you that the warmup truly sets the tone for practice. The dynamic warmup is taken seriously and the technical warmup is done at game speed.

2. Both coaches emphasize competition. Competition is prevalent and is clearly a priority for both coaches. This competitive mindset is imperative to the culture of their programs and is part of the reason for their overwhelming success.

There is also one major difference to analyze:

1. One coach chooses to invest in the transition phase of the game, the other into positional development. I think this comes down to their philosophies/beliefs as coaches, and it’s seen in their style of play. One program is dynamic in transition and puts their chances away (they invest in finishing at the end of each session), while the other program is extremely organized and positionally strong. The way each team plays really showcases what they invest in at practice. Both are equally effective, but a great example of different styles.

I think what this shows is that there are certain principles that should be included in your practice design, and certain principles that you should include based on your own beliefs and philosophies. It’s also important to note that these coaches don’t follow these templates to the letter each and every day, but they serve as strong guidelines as they design their practices.

For me, my template pulls aspects from both of these, while including categories that are entirely my own. It’s important for me to properly warm my players up, get their hands on one another (to get comfortable with physicality), to compete, and to be dynamic in transition. As such, my practice design reflects that. I also want to bury our chances, so we work on finishing at the end of each session. Lastly, I think it’s important to develop composure on the ball for when we can’t go forward right away, as well as to let the game teach, so my general template looks like this:

Dynamic Warmup with “Hands On” Partner Work
Technical Warmup with Competition
Transition Activity
Functional Work/Tactics/Rondos
Open Play/Large Sided Game
Finishing

Doing the same thing consistently also allows players to develop a rhythm and know what to expect. There are no surprises which really streamlines their development because they aren’t worrying about what’s coming at practice; they know what’s coming and can focus on getting better.

Lastly, practicing this way allows coaches to properly evaluate the effectiveness of their training. Because of the consistent approach, coaches can make small changes, and properly measure their impact. If what they are consistently doing is not leading to success on gameday, then they are able to properly pinpoint exactly what’s not working, whereas with a random approach, there are far too many variables to consider.

I’d like to leave the reader with one last thought. It’s very common in the athletics world to take a “there are many ways to skin a cat” approach to coaching. While I understand the intention behind this belief, I personally think it’s led to catastrophic outcomes for our field at large. When we unpack this catchy little phrase, we realize that the intention behind it is that nobody cares how we get there so long as we get results. However, with this mindset in place, best practices in our field will never form and coaches will always have a built-in excuse for their poor coaching. Other professions have extremely clear guidelines in place that not only keep their people safe, but also help to move the field forward. I strongly believe that eventually, systemized practice design will be the expectation. The benefits are too immense and it’s too common across the top performers in our field, however it won’t take hold until the field “professionalizes,” but that’s a topic for another day.

Thanks for reading,

-JL

Catering Your Training and Tactics to Your Best Athletes

I wanted to write a brief blog entry after listening to a podcast that brought a good concept back to the top of my mind. A couple of years ago, I listened to a podcast by Mike Boyle where he talked about how we tend to ruin our “superelite” athletes by trying to fit them into our training boxes and systems. Boyle explained how these athletes often get mislabeled as “soft,” or “injury-prone” when in reality, our programs and training models are what cause the injuries. Today, I was listening to the Pacey Performance Podcast with Cam Josse (strength and conditioning coach at Indiana University, works with football), where he talked about this same concept and it made me think back to the Boyle podcast from a few years ago.

As a general rule of thumb, I try to steal information and practices from people who are smarter than me, and figure out how the underlying concepts fit within my system. When multiple experts share a particular view on the topic, it means I should probably listen.

I thought a little bit deeper about it and want to share my thoughts. First, when Mike Boyle talks about “superelite” athletes, he’s referring to the 1% of the 1%. The athletes who are physically breath taking to watch perform, and transcend even the most elite athletes (think Adama Traore, pictured left). Most coaches will never be in the position where they will get to work with these athletes on a regular basis. In my entire career, I’ve only been fortunate enough to work with one of these athletes, and he was genuinely a walking type II muscle fiber. Due to their physiological makeup, these athletes are more prone to injury than your “average” high-level athlete. Boyle argues that we should be individualizing our training programs around these players, and Josse takes it one step further when he claims we should be building our team tactics around these players. I think they are right.

The player I had the short opportunity to coach was a game-breaking player in 15 minute bursts. When utilized correctly (such as during the last 15 minutes of each half), he was devastating for the opposition, averaging a goal a game playing 1/3 the amount of minutes of his peers. If I had tried to make him into a 90 minute player, then I would have taken away the rare ability that made him so special, and frankly, I probably would have gotten him hurt.

Now obviously, when you have an athlete of this caliber, the answer should be simple, unfortunately, it’s just not. Our most elite, game-changing athletes are still getting mislabeled and injured in our care. David Epstein wrote a brilliant little book called, “The Sports Gene,” where he references and explains this phenomenon. And even if it was simple, the question gets a little more challenging when the athlete becomes less athletically-gifted. Josse argues that in this case, your tactics should reflect the athletic strength of your players, and I would agree, to an extent.

I think that our jobs as coaches are to put our players in the best position to succeed, which would include athletically, while simultaneously building a system of play where everyone is bought in and pulling in the same direction. I think your team has to have general principles of play, but are principles that allow for your best and most athletically gifted players to have the freedom to impact he game when the time calls for it. If you want an example of a professional team that balances this brilliantly, watch Real Madrid play. I think they are the perfect balance of system and freedom, with all of their players being put in positions that accentuate their strengths, but their impactful players still having the freedom to make plays to win them games.

This post turned into a little bit of a brain dump, but I think that’s OK. Part of my vision for this blog is to throw ideas out that stimulate thought and spur action. What I really wanted to throw out was the idea of building your training programs and style of play around your most athletically-gifted players, rather than trying to fit those players into a predefined system, and I think I’ve done so. I also wanted to get across that our most athletically-gifted athletes should not be getting injured in our care. I hope this idea spurs thought and leads to action for some people.

Thanks for reading,

-Jer