Where is your line drawn...?

The Moral Mankad Maze...

It was one of those things that occurs occasionally in the world of sport that I love observing from a variety of different perspectives. The way people share their views from polarised positions, taking into account a whole host of different stances is intriguing. 

The specific talking point I am referring to is the 'Mankad' dismissal in the U19 Cricket World Cup by Keemo Paul from the West Indies, in their important match against Zimbabwe. The winner qualified for the quarter final and the loser went out the competition. Here is a link to the actual moment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV3gXRZqx8g

The important thing to consider is the fact this dismissal is in the rules so there actually isn't really a debate. The batsmen does not have to be warned by the umpires beforehand, although that is often done in such times, as England's Jos Buttler found out previously. What it does raise is the question of ethics and sportsmanship. But where is the line drawn?

So I then equate this to my sport and considered the question - where does the line from black turn to white, through the grey part? And what am I prepared to sacrifice?

Would I be happy if England qualified for the football World Cup Final having scored the winner from a goal that came from a penalty where the player had clearly dived? What about if the goal came from a clear handball that lead to an advantage and a goal? What about if one of their players was injured and we hadn't kicked the ball out of the pitch? What about a terrible refereeing decision that missed a blatant offside but we scored?

This is the question for me - where do you draw the line? And also the part that creates the debate because everyone has a slightly different 'line' based upon their values and beliefs. 

The cricket example is from the U19 World Cup, and this is elite sport. It isn't a school match. So does that make it right? Where does the line change in terms of ages and competition? U18? U21? Never? Or is that a very British attitude to this? I'm not sure!

The rules haven't been broken, so do the rules need to be changed? Or is it a valuable learning experience for the batsmen? But what if they had gone for a quick single and he had slid in to make it and he made this by an inch? Does that make the head start he got then ok? Or has he cheated and gained an advantage?

We have some great discussions with coaches about the importance of 'tactical fouls' in the game of football. At what stage are these ok? Do we teach them (as this then raises the moral questions again)? If you picked U18 for example as your benchmark, if these aren't ever discussed and then a 17-year old gets picked for the First XI that weekend (i.e. Luke Shaw at Southampton previously) he would be expected to consider this course of action on a Saturday when three points are on the line, would he not? 

I can certainly recall playing football, not going up for an attacking corner as I was a little full-back. But when the opposition broke quickly on the counter attack I had a job to do. It was not unheard of that I would deliberately foul at the halfway line to stop them attacking quickly and allow our team to regroup defensively and get players back. Is that a 'tactical foul'? And is that ok?

However, whilst the debate will rage, at no stage is this acceptable in grassroots football. The game is bigger than the three points in that kid's match and as coaches we must set the appropriate behaviour and role model the characteristics we want our players to adhere to. This is a crucial role of the grassroots coach in any sport. 

But in elite sport...? The debate will continue and it's a fascinating maze of morality!

The next frontier: measuring the stuff that really matters

So I was having a trip round a Professional Sporting Academy, being given the behind-the-scenes tour by the Academy Manager. We walked through the indoor area into the next room to "where the sports scientists live" I was told. And that's what they do, in nearly every sport, sit behind their laptops where they can produce lots of data from all the testing they do. 

Now, I thoroughly understand right now there are going to be staff within that part of the sporting community that aren't going to be happy with that generalisation, this post and see this as a personal attack on their profession. This isn't about that so please don't take offence this early into the article! 

We continued on the wander round, chatting about the great work they do and the value they bring to player development. Interestingly, the view from the Academy Manager was also that there is a danger that some sport scientists are becoming a hinderance. I was told of one SS that tried to stop a 16-year old going out to practice later in the afternoon "based on data"! I think that's the opposite of the mindset we should be creating, we should be fostering players wanting to go out and get better, to continue learning and developing. The Academy Manager very clearly told the SS that regardless of the data being churned out and his flashy degree from a university that this was the real world and absolutely what he wanted at his club! 

As we moved on to have a look at the noticeboards there were stacks of numbers on the board from the last U18 and U21 game. GPS data, HR lines and graphs of a variety of forms for every player. One such graph showed the average running speed for all the players compared with each other. And this is where I start to have an issue. 

For starters, why compare one player with another? In football, where is the value in looking at running data of a full-back and comparing that with that of your centre forward? The goalkeeper made it onto the list as well! Who were the opposition and what type of game was it? Did they have much possession and what tactics were they playing? This data in isolation is meaningless so why show it to everyone?

It is fairly well accepted by those in the know that the defining factor between the good and the great is what is between the ears. Everyone in coaching and recruitment has their own stories of players that have been in the system with amazing technical prowess, tactical nous and built like a machine but the one common factor that has stopped these players progressing was a psychological gap. And I hear this all the time in lots of sports. 

"He wasn't motivated enough"
"He lacked desire and lacked work ethic" 
"He didn't have enough resilience" etc.

And this is where my issue about the resource allocation starts to come into question. 

There are loads of sport scientists in professional sports clubs across the country now, literally thousands of them, all churning out data about our players as machines. However, it becomes very easy that we start to value what we can measure and NOT actually measure what we value. 

I am interested in learning. The development, continued progression of players and the trajectory and path they are on (regardless of age, including the First XI). I would like to know how those players had been improving and developing over periods of time and whether they were on the up, plateau or down. And this is easily done in the world of sports science. 

But I'd like to know about mindset. About their levels of mental toughness. About their grit and resilience. I want to know about the players that have coping skills, the ability to implement these when they need them and adapt to ever changing circumstances in elite sport. Most of all, I want to know who the learners are. Some of these are easier to measure than others, might not be an exact science and I get that, and this is not straight forward by any stretch. 

I was in a Primary School in Hull when a Headteacher started showing me her noticeboards with laminated vases and poems and 'all the learning' that had taken place in Year 5. That's not learning, that's the outcome or 'performance'. The learning is in the five vases that were started but not finished properly because they didn't draw the edge right or the rough copies of poems where that had to scribble out and change words that didn't quite work properly. 

Great work by Ainee McNamara and colleagues (see http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/4826/) highlight some essentials, the determining factors that can differentiate the good from the great but when you then compare this to resource allocation and investment in professional sporting systems this just doesn't add up. 

One professional sports club I know has 15 full-time sport scientists across all age groups and one psychologist that tried to cover everything from U9 to First XI, and this won't be uncommon. The allocation of budgets and resources seems wrong to me. Some of this will come from the 'traditionalists' perception of a psychologist ("lie on my couch and I'll fix you") when in fact the good ones get out on the pitch/court/grass with the player's and act as a performance coach, building on strengths for development, not just putting plasters over problems. 

Fifteen years ago there was a revolution and investment in sports science and all these jobs starting popping up all over sport. It's critical that all the different experts work together and avoid silos, which is easily done too, for the betterment of player development. That's difficult to get right but many are starting to in lots of sports. 

Psychology could well be the next piece of the jigsaw to go through this drive forwards but, until that point, we could be continuing to measure a whole host of stuff that is useful to know but not the determining factor...

Interview with Dario Gradi: a coaching master

After a sabbatical from blogging of six months the start of a New Year is always an extra incentive to get back in the game. I've not been totally sat on my backside in that time, I had a Masters dissertation to get over the line and a small boy to see through from one year old to 18 months so mildly productive! 

However, what I thought I would start 2016 with is sharing some notes from an interview I had with a coaching legend, Dario Gradi. These are a few of the key quotes I took from this and my thoughts/interpretation of his views. Dario has a track record in player development, a rich history in coaching going back decades and is famous for being at the helm of a Crewe Alexandra group that consistently punched above their weight when producing top footballers.

I met Dario in a hotel in the Midlands and he shared some of his coaching views and key people that have influenced him through the years. It was a fascinating couple of hours. Dario talked openly at the start about the guidance he received from his PE teacher, how much he learnt from Dave Sexton about coaching and the mistakes he made at Wimbledon and Crystal Palace. He was very reflective, recognising what went well and what didn't go so well but crucially took learning from those moments. 

Here are some of the top quotes:

"Really nice to feel that I've helped people" - ultimately, this is what coaching is all about. It is simply helping people. As grassroots coaches this might be helping a kid get better at dribbling or passing or just being a better person and learning to tie their laces. But that is what it's all about and it is an easy message to forget. 

"All sessions should flow from one to another, no stopping or starting" - Dario talked about watching coaches spend too long moving cones about and I see exactly the same. With effective planning before the session you can work out how to ensure there is minimal time wasted in moving cones about and setting up different areas or pitches. If you waste 5 minutes a session doing this, multiply that by 30 training sessions a season and all of a sudden you have lost two a half hours of time the kids could be playing and learning and getting better. 

"Still coaches talk too much. I want to see the players play, not the coaches coach" - this is an all too common problem, coaches thinking the session is about them! However, I would elaborate on Dario's point and suggest it is about finding the balance here. Of course, the players need some help and guidance, at the right time, if they are struggling and when you think it is appropriate. This can be done in a variety of ways from talking to the whole group to 'drive-by coaching' and having a little word to one player as the game is going on, without stopping the whole practice. As a general rule, aim to have the ball rolling for about 70% of the session and waste as little time as possible.

"Most important thing coaches can do is make the players want to come back. It has to be enjoyable" - without doubt, this is integral to grassroots coaching, and any level of coaching come to think of it. The players have to fall in love with the game. As a coach, if you are the reason a kid decides to stop playing the game then you have failed, regardless. Fill them with excitement and enthusiasm, fuel a passion for football so burning they can't wait for the next session.

"By 14, teach them to make goals,stop goals and score goals" - the roles of a team really fall into these three areas and players will probably have a career specialising in one of these. However, these are the essential building blocks that players need to learn about as part of a balanced coaching programme. Allow them exposure to all these areas and avoid pigeon-holing them at a particular age because they happen to be bigger or smaller or faster etc.

"When you've shouted at a player has it helped them or just made you feel better? It's not showing passion, it's showing stupidity" - I quite liked the point he was making here and this was part of a big long rant that Dario had. I'm not sure there is ever a need to shout at a kid unless they are in danger and by doing that it makes them avoid it, like a kid running into a road to collect a ball. If a player has made a mistake, it takes their brain less then half a second to work that out and associate a feeling with it. By the time you see this, make sense of it then shout at the player, largely they already know! By shouting at them, this sometimes doesn't really have a lot of impact and Dario was very clear about coaches talking to kids, rather than shouting at them.

"I had to be careful what I said to Nick Powell when I was coaching him as his ideas were often better than mine!" - this shows real humility from Dario as well as an understanding that he doesn't have all the answers. I have done many a session where the players ideas on progressing or developing the practices were better than mine and it's those coaches with an air of arrogance that feel it is about them that are naive enough not to listen. 

There were so many take away messages from Dario that it could be a whole year of blog posts and maybe later in the year I will do another. As coaches, and Dario is certainly an expert coach, consider some of the points he has made and reflect on your own coaching through 2016 and think "am i following the Dario principles?" If you are then you are doing a great job, as Dario would say.