Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2019

I listen to a lot of podcasts and a lot of them leave me with one or two things to think about but aren’t worth blogging about as such or because I’ve already commented on the issues. This recent chat between John O’Sullivan from Changing the Game Project and author David Epstein really had me jotting down a flurry of notes (requiring three listens of the interview!). Epstein wrote the fantastic book The Sports Gene that looked at how various people were ‘built’ for their sport, and how sports are getting better at finding people who are best suited for them. His new book, Range (which I have yet to read, but am on the waitlist for at my library), focuses on people who succeeded while being a ‘generalist’ – that is, sampling a lot of activities and taking a winding ‘path’ toward success despite the pervasive narrative we hear about kids starting young and succeeding after 1000s of hours of deliberate practice (you’ve probably heard the 10k hours of practice line, which is largely a myth).

Here’s the chat: https://changingthegameproject.com/116-david-epstein/

Here’s the book:

My highlights as it relates to my experience / philosophies as a rugby coach are as follows:

11 mins … ‘Kind’ Learning Environments

Rather than the given examples of golf and chess, rugby is a sport that isn’t turn based and with closed skills. It’s largely random, often chaotic, and while it has recently been heavily structured with set piece like moves creeping into open plan and prescribed plans taking up a lot of play, it doesn’t have to be. Especially at amateur levels, where defences aren’t great, anticipation and reading of the situation is all that’s needed – if athletes are allowed the opportunity to experience this at training. Unfortunately, a lot of rugby training consists of blocked (i.e. box drills) practice and without opposition. Why do we train in ‘kind’ environments when the game isn’t kind? We don’t have to make it as high pressure as the game, but can still train with certain parameters that allow athletes to experience pressure and develop anticipation / reading skills from actual rugby contexts (and for Pete’s sake, please make them ‘rugby-like’ and stop playing rugby netball … we don’t pass forward in the game, so why do it at training at all when you can play or create something that actually challenges athletes to deal with constraints of rugby?)

14:30 … “breadth of training predicts breadth of transfer”

Rugby is a dynamic game that requires athletes to do a whole variety of things – and possibly the complete range of rugby skills – every few minutes. It’s not golf or baseball or even football, but teams often train like it is, doing things in isolation and often with very rigid plans. Rugby also tends to train very narrowly with, in my opinion, and over-reliance on ‘progressions’. How often do players see a neat 2v1 in a game? For new players, that’s a fine drill, but why not quickly move toward small game scenarios where they have to find or create the 2v1 amongst even numbers? The best players can anticipate play, react to opportunities/threats quickly and they’ve done this in environments where they’re allowed to explore and discover solutions that work for them. This can happen with even beginners and small children if the parameters of the activity are realistic to their needs. Provide them, as suggested by Epstein, with principles and the opportunity to develop adaptable skills rather than only giving them procedures to follow and heavy instruction on ‘the ideal’ way to execute techniques (which aren’t as likely to hold up under pressure and risk holding back from athletes a true understanding of the game, because they only ever have to do what they’re told).

From Epstein’s book: “…the more contexts in which something is learned, the more the learner creates abstract models, and the less they rely on any particular example. Learners become better at applying their knowledge to a situation they’ve never seen before, which is the essence of creativity.”

24:30 … The Calculus Course Study

I found this story fascinating and it highlights that ‘teaching to the test’ isn’t doing the students any favours. I’ve seen this in teams that kicked butt at school level because they had a solid plan and were up on some of the tricks that other teams didn’t know, but you wouldn’t see those players at the next level of play. There’s nothing wrong with teaching your athletes more advanced rugby knowledge – I’m all for it if they’re ready – but it’s important to ensure they know why such things work and how to remain flexible and adaptable, that is having actually learned the skill, not just applied what they were told blindly.

Supporting this is the discussion at 28 mins involving the teacher that seemed to be engaging whilst offering hints to students, with the reality being that they didn’t learn the concept, only eventually had the answer given to them. Lots of coaches now are taking on questioning strategies, which is better practice than simply telling, but a lot of time the questions already lead them to the answer or follow-up questions do, when the coach would be better off leaving athletes with an open question to answer when they’ve worked out the answer themselves (or keep the know-it-all athlete from interjecting!).

33 mins … Spacing

This is a concept I learned a few years ago and still am unsure how to best implement. Maybe there is no fixed way to space out activities to test and it depends on the group? When I did my Level 2 and learned about season planning, most of it didn’t sit well with me. I’m no expert, and admittedly it did seem like a lot more work, but I didn’t want to treat a rugby season like a box-ticking exercise of starting with basic skills and working towards more advanced. Why not mix it up: always working on fundamental skills and addressing things we need to work on as determined by the last game? It seems this is a sound way of doing things, as mentioned in the interview, because revisiting things not only allows athletes to keep working on them but when appropriately spaced out and when faced only with the challenge, not the answers, tests their recall (i.e. whether or not they’ve learned the skill).

Noteworthy coach educator Mark Upton talks about the “challenge point” and former England kicking coach Dave Alred refers to “the ugly zone” – where an activity is not so easy that nothing’s being learned and not so difficult that all the athlete experiences is frustration. And when these activities are returned to at random so that it’s not part of a blocked, robotic, rote procedure, the brain has to reframe and relearn, which apparently builds stronger neural pathways (i.e. the skill is actually learned and easier to recall / apply later). If you think about studying things over and over, even at random intervals, rather than cramming for a test or trying to recall something you learned at the beginning but haven’t visited for a long time, then it totally makes sense. One way Upton demonstrated the limits of repetitive basic practice is asking someone to do simple times tables over and over. Same with forever doing 2v1s… eventually the athletes will get that it’s a simple either/or exercise. We even see this when teams will have their complex patterns all down pat, but then blow a simple play because it’s not something they’ve worked on in ages. Using the math example, throwing in more complex math questions or random ones that aren’t related to each other, causes an individual to use mental math strategies. The same is true when you challenge athletes to solve various, realistic problems that help them with pattern recognition and applying various strategies to see which are best. Small sided games are great for this, because the conditions in any given moment (space, time, who they have vs who we have in this space, positioning of those bodies, etc) all make for a different challenge that isn’t as neat as a drill.  What we want are athletes that have strong understanding of the principles and fundamentals of play and a wide range of flexible/adaptable ‘tools’ that can be applied to any given situation quickly. As such, I think it’s best to work on these things at random so nothing ever becomes rote or is left for such a long time that they cannot be recalled quickly enough when a moment in the game invites their use.

52 mins … Immersive Environments

I’m not sure if it’s 100% true, but years ago it was suggested to me that New Zealanders are as good as they are because they play the game first and fine tune skills later. We tend to do things the opposite way: work on ‘skills’ (often just techniques) separated from the wider context of the game and then explore the game later (if the kids are lucky). Even if a Kiwi kid goes to school or club training and does the same drills as us, if I’m correct in thinking ‘game first’ is part of their success, it’s that their kids will have played a TON more rugby with friends in the park, family in the back yard, and in PE class where things won’t be nearly as structured. If our kids aren’t playing the game like that, then it’s up to us to recreate that at training with a lot more rugby-like game play. Especially in Canada, where our kids tend to start later, if we want to help them learn and have so much fun that they’ll stick with the sport longer, it only makes sense to give them a LOT of game play to develop context-influenced skills and enjoy their time at training. It might not look as neat and ordered as a traditional drill-heavy practice, but ‘immersion’ seems to be not just more fun but also more beneficial!

The story in the interview about Dynamo Zagreb stars who only joined the club late, despite claims that the legendary club ‘developed’ them, made me chuckle. That happens a lot in rugby as well, especially in countries where big money schools offer scholarships to the bring young talents who were already looking good on their own previous environment’s work / natural abilities.

So I think it’s important for our governing bodies – and for those of us ‘in the know’ where that’s not happening – to share best practices with everyone so we can create immersive environments where kids can not only explore and discover practical and creative solutions to the game’s problems, but where they’ll actually have more fun than if they’re forced to do a lot of drills and hope for a game at the end of training. It’s okay if it gets a bit messy, because that’s where learning occurs. A good coach will also adjust the parameters or constraints of activities to ensure that things aren’t too easy or too difficult, and give those who already ‘get it’ new challenges so that they’re not dominating and preventing the others from learning. (Just on that note, one I love is devaluing tries of dominant players: “Great try, Johnny! That’s your five-pointer now, and the rest are only worth one until the rest of your team has scored their five-pointers. You might want to help them by getting assists.”)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »