Individual vs Team athletic development

The methods of a strength and conditioning coach really get tested when comparing the approach of training an individual athlete and the likes of an entire team. Fundamentally, we’d logically believe that the approach is the same. Develop strength at large, prevent injury through multiple loading patterns and through full range of motion, and develop athletes in a progressive manor to reach a state of higher performance. Though this remains a consistent goal between the two, the approach varies, and with it several considerations must be made.

First let’s look at how to approach coaching an individual athlete. When developing a single athlete or even a small core of 2-4 athletes, the attention to details and specificity is for lack of better words, enormous. Every set, rep, and exercise selection is directly related to the athletes specific needs, how they adapt to the training environment and volume, and what the particular phase requires of them. This level of specificity allows for measurable changes (positive or negative) amongst each individual athlete. Athletes that seek out professional coaching, specifically 1-on-1 training, can get the most focused approach to their personal development.

The approach adopted for an individual is one of immense detail, what exactly does this athlete need to do to improve X?. Knowing the overall goal and what each step requires the athlete to obtain / improve allows a coach to build a comprehensive plan over the course of the season(s) and provide the best possible growth for the individual.

We must consider an anthropological factor as well. When working with a single or very few athletes there is a degree of interpersonal interaction that one does not typically get when training multiple athletes 5+ or teams. Though strong relationships may form at the team level, it never quite meets the degree of that of a 1-on-1 client.

This anthropological factor can play a major role in the outcome of the relationship. When training a single individual, you often have to manage their personal life along with their competitive / training life. Until pigs fly will you not have to deal with some form of interjection of an athlete’s personal life into their training ‘life’. Many top athletes are effective at shutting everything off and focusing exclusively on their task, but this remains few and far between. Considering and balancing an individual’s personal and professional life is fundamental to building a strong working relationship and ensuring the best for your athlete. Though not outwardly broadcasted, this may very well be the hardest part of being a coach, having to take on the burden of those you train. Though I would bet a million dollars that all coaches take it with stride and are proud to be a safe place for so many, it is still taxing. Many a nights have I gone to bed worrying about my clients or athletes for good or bad. When you care for those you train, you can never leave your work day at the door. This anthro-aspect of the job plays a pivotal role in job selection as a coach.

Outside of the anthropological and specificity aspects of training an individual, another consideration when training individuals is time and space allocation. Whereas I need an entire facility to meet the needs of a team I can reach the same desired outcome with a single athlete in my garage! No stress on time, space, or equipment.

In conclusion, training an individual allows a coach to take a highly specified approach to their programming in order to optimize their training to the highest degree, all whilst considering their personal life, and providing them with all the necessary equipment, time, and space resources.

The team environment provides a slightly more diverse approach, along with an array of potential issues. In a team environment you’re managing a boat load of interpersonal relationships, timetables, levels of skill & experience, and goals. The primary approach must become optimizing the overall team’s goal(s). Through screening, testing, and objective setting via players or coaches a team goal can be set; example: Beat teams out wide, stronger under basket, higher RPM, reduced time etc. Once this general team goal is set a coach can develop a season(s) long program that targets each aspect of the goal. For example: Rugby team. Team goal = beat teams out wide. To do this a rugby team must develop strong catch pass mechanics whilst being able to translate lateral force under pressure and at speed. Noticing that in subsequent years the team struggled with speed, an approach is adopted to build foundation strength in the prime movers (quads, hamstrings, soleus, hip flexors & extensions) via compound movements and single limb modalities, as the athletes adopt increases in strength their speed increases. As they progressively develop more on field control via proprioceptive and COD drills their management of forces at speed improve. From there, along with progressive sport related open sided drills, a coach can begin implementing game level drills that directly implement the need for decision making at speed. If programmed efficiently the team should be able (depending on skill level) progress from messy running lines and slow ball movement, to strong fast running lines with accurate lateral ball movement at speed in a matter of weeks to months. Effectively, building a strong strength foundation amongst players at large and developing sport related movement patterns allows for the improvement of game related skills. Whereas with an individual a specific approach allows for a desired outcome, a generalized approach allows for the desired outcome in a team environment. Breaking down a sport specific goal into biomechanical requirements allows a coach to provide a generalized program for the team that will progressively improve the lacking skill amongst the majority of players.

The factor that plays heavily on a coach is resource management. Most teams do not have full unlimited access to a training facility, fields, courts, pools, tracks, ranges etc. Therefore, there is a high degree of time and space management that a coach must consider. Though this may not initially appear to be a major deal other than being a pain in the ass, it actually plays a big role in athlete development. For example, a team is set to practice at 6:00pm at night with a lift planned for 8:00am in the morning. With such a wide spread of time between the two sessions it gives the athletes ample time to rest, recovery, and refuel ahead of their second session. However, on that day due to scheduling errors the team couldn’t get into the gym at 8am, and the only slot available was at 4:45pm. This would put a lot of stress on the athletes and effectively change the style of workout completely. In order to maintain progressive process and mitigate any detriment in performance during practice, the strength coach must (most of the time on the fly) re-organize the workout to suit the goals of the team and any individuals requiring different work. It becomes a balancing act, and because of this it is important all strength / coaches build in Plan B’s for each session. So what had already been a lot of work to develop a plan of action has become doubly hefty in work load. Having 2 and sometimes 3 plans of action for a training day to continue reaching the collective goal can be rather demanding. Therefore, managing a team’s resources whether it be time, space, or equipment related plays a big role in a coaches programming. A strength coach could come in with the plan of working on linear speed and the head coach decides the team needs extra conditioning or doesn’t want players doing much that day, and with respect to the program strength coaches have to go with the team’s agenda, even when that agenda may not be what’s inclusively what the team needs. Juggling the anthropological aspect of the coaches demands, the athlete’s needs, and the team’s goals is what makes coaching a team a task and a half.

Another aspect to consider when coaching a team is individual needs. At the end of the day a team is made up of individuals, and although the team goal often takes precedence, there will always be a discrepancy in player training tenure and skill level. If the team needs to develop high force output a common approach would be the implementation of Olympic lifts like the clean and jerk. However, this type of movement has a high barrier of entry and requires a fair deal of specificity, not to mention hours of practice. And with limited resources and time teaching a movement like the clean can take away from precious practice time. In turn it’s important to use alternatives to reach the desired outcome. Furthermore, as is often the case in high school and university teams, there will be certain players with a lot of experience and those with little to none on the same team. So, the approach must become suitable for all levels. The common goal can be reached by division of skill level. Creating tiers allows you to divide players based on experience level and allocate exercises and or drills based on their ability. This allows each session to have the same desired outcome without certain players being “left behind” so to speak. Example: A group of 10 hockey players are working on developing leg strength via squatting. However, 2 of the players have never squatted, 4 have severe dorsi flexion (lifting heel), and 4 have perfect form. To reach the common goal the 2 with no experience will begin with unresisted movements like wall sits and air squats to build confidence and avoid adopting any improper movement patterns, then progressing to loaded squats with hexbars or Dumbbells, and eventually working to a barbell. The group of 4 with a biomechanical deficiency would have exercises designated to improve ankle mobility, reduce hip & glute tightness, improve posterior strength, and range of motion. Once they’ve gained full range of motion without any clear biomechanical deficiency, they would progress to increasing load. Players with training experience and move sufficiently, would continue to work through ‘perfect’ movement and apply progressive overload via barbell squatting. Considering an alternative approach for different skill / experience levels adds another layer of difficulty when coaching a team.

Lastly, and this has somewhat been touched on in each previous point, the anthropological aspect of each individual and coaching staff is quite extensive. Having to consider anywhere between 5-100 individuals plays a big role in a coach’s life. Just because not each player gets one on one or has a lot of interaction with the coach does not mean the coach ‘doesn’t care’ or doesn’t consider the athlete. It’s quite the contrary!

When taking on an individual athlete or a team these are a few things to consider. Similar in nature but vastly different in scope, coaching an individual or team have their own trials and tribulations, and no single person or team is the same. Regardless, the goal remains the betterment of the client and by whatever means necessary, the end result is always the by-product of a coach’s commitment to their self-development and their willingness to consider both the individual and team needs.

#coachlife

“Progression is built through consistency and tested by passion”

J.B