Performance analysis in the coaching process
Any coach is able to do performance analysis either through using technology, such as apps and other software, or just using a pen and paper to record data of participants performing. Performance analysis in the coaching process is forever ongoing as a coach must analyze his/hers participants to set them suitable goals for them to go on and improve. Furthermore it is important for the coach to understand what stage of development the participants are, as the coach does not want to set a specific goal which is out of reach from the athlete. Franks et al (1983) explains the performance analysis as a cycle which should be followed by coaches. At the start of the theory the participant must perform so that the coach can observe, analyze and relate the performance to past performances. If a coach is well adapted to the ever improving technology then they may be able to show the analysis and past performances by using a form of technology. This can also make it clearer for the participant by having side by side comparisons of how they have improved or how they could change the skill again. After the coach has passed on this feedback he/she can then plan and conduct the practise at the next session which should make the participants knowledgeable of the skill/ improve their technique. This process then repeats itself again by the participant performing the activity and the coach observing.
For this module I have recorded an Under 11’s football match which I analyze with the main focus on defensive traits, such as tackling, clearances and passes. I recorded the last ten minutes of the first half and the first ten minutes of the second half, as then I could see if the half time team talk from the coaches had any impact on the player’s performance. Whilst the coaches did give the player’s encouragement and feedback there was not much use of knowledgeable information passed on. The coaches also did not use any technology to record data which they may have found through analysising the first half. The coaches may have forgotten key information to pass over to the participants on how to defend certain player’s or set plays. This could have caused the defenders problems which is reinforced by Maslovat and Franks through “Human memory systems have limitations, and it is almost impossible to remember accurately all the meaningful events that take place during an entire competition” (Maslovat and Franks, 2008:3). Maslovat and Franks are discussing here that humans are not always a reliable source of feedback unless the game/activity has been recorded as they will have proof to back up their point. Using software and different forms of technology can help create reliable data as the participants and coach can go back to rewatch the footage. The technology could have helped the coaches/manager get their points across to the team at half time. The software could have shown the participants tactically what they had to do, for instance if they were using the long ball on numerous occasions the technology may show them that a short pass was on. This could have had an effect in the second half where Marjon could have had possession of the ball for longer periods.
When I analyzed the footage that I had I used a programme called LongoMatch which allowed me to analyse at my own pace. Anytime I seen a skill that I would like to highlight all that had to be done was to click the mouse key and select the correct bracket. This made analysising the footage similar instead of notating it as the game happened live. Using technology allowed me to rewatch areas that I could have missed during a live game. However for grassroot coaches using technology on the side line during a game can be difficult as they only have a limited time. This limited time may mean that the coach only focuses on one area when there may be more than one area to feedback on. However if a coach is observing the match they may get reliable data instead of doing it in a training session. This is because in a match the participants are playing against different opposition every week which can give a coach stats about certain player’s. Although in a training session players will know each other’s weaknesses which gives them an advantage to perform well. This is reinforced by Hughes who quoted “In one... [Football] match a striker may have ten or twelve shots; the following week the same striker has none. The players exhibit greater consistency in play when matched against the same opponent than against different opponents” (Hughes et al., 2004:205). So in a training session it could give coaches unreliable data about the participant’s performance. This could mean a goal maybe set however may not help the participant improve in a game based situation.
For this module I have recorded an Under 11’s football match which I analyze with the main focus on defensive traits, such as tackling, clearances and passes. I recorded the last ten minutes of the first half and the first ten minutes of the second half, as then I could see if the half time team talk from the coaches had any impact on the player’s performance. Whilst the coaches did give the player’s encouragement and feedback there was not much use of knowledgeable information passed on. The coaches also did not use any technology to record data which they may have found through analysising the first half. The coaches may have forgotten key information to pass over to the participants on how to defend certain player’s or set plays. This could have caused the defenders problems which is reinforced by Maslovat and Franks through “Human memory systems have limitations, and it is almost impossible to remember accurately all the meaningful events that take place during an entire competition” (Maslovat and Franks, 2008:3). Maslovat and Franks are discussing here that humans are not always a reliable source of feedback unless the game/activity has been recorded as they will have proof to back up their point. Using software and different forms of technology can help create reliable data as the participants and coach can go back to rewatch the footage. The technology could have helped the coaches/manager get their points across to the team at half time. The software could have shown the participants tactically what they had to do, for instance if they were using the long ball on numerous occasions the technology may show them that a short pass was on. This could have had an effect in the second half where Marjon could have had possession of the ball for longer periods.
When I analyzed the footage that I had I used a programme called LongoMatch which allowed me to analyse at my own pace. Anytime I seen a skill that I would like to highlight all that had to be done was to click the mouse key and select the correct bracket. This made analysising the footage similar instead of notating it as the game happened live. Using technology allowed me to rewatch areas that I could have missed during a live game. However for grassroot coaches using technology on the side line during a game can be difficult as they only have a limited time. This limited time may mean that the coach only focuses on one area when there may be more than one area to feedback on. However if a coach is observing the match they may get reliable data instead of doing it in a training session. This is because in a match the participants are playing against different opposition every week which can give a coach stats about certain player’s. Although in a training session players will know each other’s weaknesses which gives them an advantage to perform well. This is reinforced by Hughes who quoted “In one... [Football] match a striker may have ten or twelve shots; the following week the same striker has none. The players exhibit greater consistency in play when matched against the same opponent than against different opponents” (Hughes et al., 2004:205). So in a training session it could give coaches unreliable data about the participant’s performance. This could mean a goal maybe set however may not help the participant improve in a game based situation.