Coaching Art vs Science

In many Coaching 101 textbooks is a section titled something like "The Art vs Science of Coaching", which goes into discussion about the balance between the gut instinct, experience and understanding of a coach versus (or contrasted with) what the collective body of scientific knowledge prescribes. It's a battle of ideologies with one saying "we just understand" while the other says "we know because science says so". One is intangible while the other relies on measuring and being measurable. Ultimately, of course, it is the athletic performances that counts most.

With sports being based on human behaviour…something innately difficult to measure repeatably and reliably…there is no magic formula for success from one athlete to the next. It is natural that athletes seek out the option they believe has the highest chance of delivering that success. But which is it…the artisan style coach or the calculated, scientific style? The answer probably lies with the preference of each individual athlete as there are so many variables. Let's look into it a little further.

Coaches have been around in sports for a long, long time. Coaches were guiding athletes to victories and world records way before the emergence of "ground breaking" science, developing theories and approaches which have stood the test of time, and combined it with eccentricities that have been the hallmark of genius throughout the ages. Great coaches think outside the square for ideas and inspiration, evolving over time with results that speak a louder message than their sometimes cryptic words. Great coaches are creative artisans at heart.

The art that these coaches bring is in the form of an innate understanding of sports, especially the one(s) they practice in, and an empathy for the individual person that sees them as a whole, not just the athlete visible to the spectator. A great coach recognises what (and when) an athlete needs in order to improve their performance, combining physical, psychological, emotional, tactical, technical and other elements into a rounded program suited to the individual. A true coach deals with each person individually, calls upon hard earned experience, teachings from others, and amazing foresight in creating a program and adapting it to the scenario presented by each athlete.

Coaches will develop and evolve their own theories, methodologies and protocols which are applied, tested in competition, evaluated, revised and so on year after year to develop programs which are evidence and performance based on the results of many athletes over many years. Coaches have a sense of what is the right thing to do and when, and know that one approach does not suit all. How they do this is their artistic flair.

It has often been said that science's main role is to understand why and how coaching techniques work, rather than to be prescriptive about what should be done. It's as if coaches might say "I told you so" after science "proves" something that was well known and practiced already. "Damn crack pots", the scientists might reply…

Nonetheless, science is important, although the relationship between coaches and scientists can be a little tetchy at times. Science looks at situations in black-and-white, measures things, analyses and then seeks to define groups into which people should fit based on their findings. Science struggles to cope with individualities - outliers - usually excluding them on the basis of statistical exceptions. Having said that, science is very good at developing a great understanding about a defined scenario.

A good analogy is to say that science seeks to discover everything about one square of a checker board, but ignoring the other 63 squares directly around it!!

In a coaching and training context, science can give a great insight into why something might have happened as it did. But in trying to draw conclusions, science can fall short because humans are individual, and the needs of one person will always differ from another. To generalise scientific findings in order to apply them broadly dilutes the specific value that science is trying to offer.

To be a scientific coach might be to ignore the indivudual characteristics of athletes, things like their strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, adaptability, recovery needs, work ethic and so on. A scientific coach might seek to apply a protocol that research has found to effective, but miss the individual detail that made it so effective, with the consequence being sub-optimal training that that person. To extend the checker board analogy above, a particular scientific training approach might only be suitable for 1 out of 64 people!!

But as in most debates, the reality is that neither extreme makes for the "best" coach. Coaches these days need to have capabilities in all areas, albeit with some emphasis reflecting their background. A coach without an understanding and consideration for what science is saying is ignorant, while a science based coach without respect for the age-old art of working with individuals is arrogant. The art and science of coaching needs to work alongside each other for the best coaching outcomes.

The role and importance of scientific knowledge in sport is undenied and unquestioned. The skill and techniques of coaching have evolved over generations of athletes. The real skill of coaching - and training - these days is to be open minded enough to consider all sources of information available, scientific or otherwise, and "cherry pick" the pieces that are most helpful in the pursuit of what is best for the athlete and their performance. Because after all, the welfare of athletes and their performance is the main goal!!