Masters final copy

The ‘Eye’ of the Coach: What Characteristics Do High Performance Coaches Prioritise During Team/Squad Selections?

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

ii

The ‘Eye’ of the Coach: What Characteristics do High Performance Coaches Prioritise during Team/Squad Selections?

David Da Silva 40956523

Supervisor: Steven Rynne Semester 1, 2010 Number of Units: 4 University of Queensland

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

iii

I certify that this work has not been submitted in whole or in part to this university or to any other educational institution for marking and assessment either previously or concurrently. I also certify that I have not received any outside help and that unless otherwise attributed; the material presented is all my original work.

__________________________ David Da Silva

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

iv Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges those people who have made it possible for this study to occur. Many thanks to Education Queensland, The University of Queensland Human Movement Department (Steven Rynne and Cliff Mallett), St. Peters Lutheran College, Football Brisbane, my parents Mary and Joseph and my girlfriend Candice.

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

v Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore how top-level football coaches identify talent during selection trials. Selections based on successes within authentic playing situations, such as small sided games and competitions, rather than a player’s ability to perform a skill or test, are preferred by coaches. Importantly, determining how good players were when they were selected becomes more important than how good they may become. This qualitative case study recruited a top-level coach, with the main question being on what key criteria do coaches use to make decisions about talented football players? The answer to this and subsequent questions will help develop guidelines to evaluate football players. The establishment of clear and complete team policies is important for both coaches and players.

Player behaviour and attitude was the initial consideration of this coach, with team harmony a major consideration within team sports. Additionally, the key factors outlined by this coach were technical abilities comprising of a player’s first touch, passing, and shooting ability; physiological abilities such as speed, agility, size, and endurance; and psychological abilities such as decision making skills, work ethic, and motivation. These characteristics have been previously identified by research conducted not only on coaches’ preferences but also on elite football players’ statistical results within scientific testing sessions.

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

vi Table of Contents

Title……………………………………………………………………………………………………..i Title and Author………………………………………………………………………………………..ii Authenticity Declaration………………………………………………………………………………iii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………iv Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………...v Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………...vi List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………….vii The ‘Eye’ of the Coach: What Characteristics do High Performance Coaches Prioritise during Team/Squad Selections..........................................................................................................................1 Method…………………………………………………………………………………………………9 Participants……………………………………………………………………………………10 Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………...11 Setting…………………………………………………………………………………11 Method of Data Collection: Interview………………………………………………..12 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………12 Results………………………………………………………………………………………………...13 The Coach’s Playing Experience, Coaching History, and Education and Training…………..13 Playing Experience……………………………………………………………………13 Coaching History……………………………………………………………………...13 Education and Training……………………………………………………………….13 The Coach’s Selection Preferences in Selecting Individual and Team Players………………14 The Coach’s Opinion on how Knowledge is Shared and Gained within Coaching…………..17 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………….18 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………24 References……………………………………………………………………………………………27 Appendix A: Suggested Selection Criteria for Coaches…………………………………….……….29

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

vii List of Tables

Table 1.

List of Criteria Identified for a Player to Improve their First Touch…………………..6

Table 2.

Australian National Benchmarks for U/17 Boys……………………………………….9

Table 3.

The Subjective and Objective Criteria of Technical Ability as Prescribed by Alex…………………………………………………………………………………...15

Table 4.

Identified Criteria of a Subjective Assessment of a Player’s Game Awareness and Decision Making Skills…………………………………………………………….…16

Table 5.

Subjective and Objective Criteria for Physiological Ability as Identified by Alex…..17

Table 6.

Technical Ability Assessed via Subjective and Objective Criteria…………………...20

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH 1 The ‘Eye’ of the Coach: What Characteristics Do High Performance Coaches Prioritise During Team/Squad Selections?

The global expansion of coaching science in recent years has established a clear need to provide a systematic description of coaching processes and its development (Gilbert, Cote, & Mallett, 2006). Within talent selection, coaches rely on the assumption that prerequisites for sporting excellence exist (Regnier, Samela, & Russell, 1993) in a complex array of genetic and environmental factors interacting to facilitate and nurture sporting excellence (Signer & Janelle, 1999).

The coaching process within team sports such as football often appears ‘untidy’, with performance targets frequently being aspirations rather than specific.

Performance outputs and outcomes are not easily measured because of their relative, not absolute values (Lyle, 2002). Many of the criteria may be relative to a particular set of circumstances and need to be understood within that context. This is even more apparent within elite youth team sport selections as developmental considerations are factored into the selection process (Thomas Reilly & Dust, 2005). The selection of young players based on body size may bias the full development of other young more technically gifted players (Drust, Reilly, & Williams, 2010).

Team selection is a fundamental task for coaches (Couturier, 2009), and this is the first step in the long process of fielding an elite team or individual (Curlewis, 2008). The reoccurring process of team selections requires detailed criterion on how coaches and scouts perceive potential and why, precisely, they decided to select a certain player. If selection processes are going to be improved, determining how good players were when they were selected becomes more important than how good they may become (Jimenez & Pain, 2008). The ability of top-level coaches to identify talent is a highly sought-after quality, which ensures stakeholders such as clubs and national teams do not lose time, money, and the prestige by investing in the “wrong” players (Christensen, 2009).

1

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH Classificatory schemes are categories of perception that become a particular taste in team selections. The schemes permit coaches to distinguish and consequently make decisions between what is “good”, and what is “bad” (Christensen, 2009). A coach’s ability to make “good” team selections within a group of individuals’ performances will ultimately influence a team’s make-up. Consequently, this ability to make good decisions influences a teams balance, cohesion, and ability to compete (Couturier, 2009). A large majority of coaches’ decision making is ‘slow and deliberate’ (Boreham, 1994), including planing and scheduling decisions, and the appropriate allocation of resources. However, many interventions and delivery decisions are made without apparent deliberation, as are decisions within contest management. This ‘effortless’ decision making is one of the marks of the “expert” (Lyle, 2002). Decision making is triggered by the recognition of patterns of behaviour or circumstances. This recognition is matched with a ‘catalogue’ of problem patterns after which an action decision may follow. The expert coach relies on their accumulated knowledge structure to help with the decision making process. The triggers inturn result in a decision being made, and this process needs to be understood within a range of contexts within all sports (Lyle, 2002).

It is suggested that there needs to be a body of knowledge that links the parameters of the coaching process to the outcomes achieved. These principles may never be translated into statistical guidelines. However, analysis and understanding of coaching practice will be incomplete without an acknowledgment of the relationship between the scope and scale of the coaching process and the resultant outputs (Lyle, 2002).

A commonly held misconception is that talent identification and team selection is a rational and objective process (Christensen, 2009). It has been proposed that coaches identify talent by using their practical sense and visual experience to recognize patterns of movement among players. Such that, these judgements are the 2

2

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH preferred selection methodology of expert coaches (Bartmus, Neumann, & de Marees, 1987).

Researchers from a variety of theoretical positions (Christensen, 2009; Regnier, et al., 1993; Thomas Reilly & Dust, 2005; A. M. Williams & Reilly, 2000) have come to a general consensus that experience-based subjective judgements, “intuition”, or “gut feelings” from top-level coaches, are the primary assessment tool utilised (Christensen, 2009; Vrjlic & Mallett, 2008). Coaches often use phrases such as “I can see” and “I saw” when describing how they select players (Christensen, 2009). This intuitive knowledge is a source of frustration among top-level coaches because they feel they lack an accepted common language in performing their job (Christensen, 2009). Consequently, to date, no specific criteria has been established on how these coaches’ specifically identify talented players (Vrjlic & Mallett, 2008).

Importantly, experience-based subjective judgments are matters of pattern recognition and an internal classificatory scheme of principles, preferences, and cognitive structures. These factors give the coach confidence in their evaluations of what they see and therefore, know (Christensen, 2009). The establishment of actual subjective and implicit criteria that coaches and scouts use to identify talented players will enhance the likelihood of correct selections and reduce bias. Additionally, such criteria may assist in specifically identifying what aspects a player needs to improve upon within their own game, and consequently increase their chances of future selection.

However, the activities of expert coaches (especially in regards to team selections), are based on complex interactions of knowledge and memory of similar situations that are honed by years of experience and reflection. Consequently, coaching practices can be over simplified. Therefore, an actual subjective and implicit criteria may not sufficiently consider the social construction of coaching and team selections (Christensen, 2009).

3

3

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH Selections based on successes within authentic playing situations (i.e. games and competition rather than a player’s ability to perform a skill or test) is preferred by coaches (Regnier, et al., 1993; Vrjlic & Mallett, 2008). A study conducted by Christensen (2009), identified the concept “game intelligence” as a critical factor in successful football players. “Game intelligence” was defined as the tactical and mental ability to read and predict the game and move more effectively in relation to time and space. According to coaches, “game intelligence” is a non-verbal, spatial, and bodily skill that can not be measured in isolation from playing the game (Christensen, 2009).

This preference for game specific assessments during selection trials has arisen from the impact of pressure upon a situation, with players needing to be aware of what is going on around them while also applying their technical ability (Carr, 2010). The “true” criteria for identification are, according to coaches, closely related to contextualised practice and thus move to more complex and situated football skill.

Furthermore, such “true” criteria may need to be seen and recognised in movement patterns related to real play (Christensen, 2009).

Perceptual-cognitive skills are essential elements for proficient behaviour and have been suggested to underpin successful performances (Savelsbergh, Williams, Van der Kamp, & Ward, 2005). Good football players are perceptive, understand, and analyse the game situation quickly (J. Bangsbo & Peitersen, 2004). This ability has been developed through countless situation interpretations and experiences. A player’s ability to remember and apply successful responses to a certain situation are important prerequisites for gaining good anticipatory abilities (Jens. Bangsbo & Peitersen, 2000).

It has been shown that practice is a major feature for the development of football skills (Huijgen, Elferink-Gemser, Post, & Visscher, 2010). Player trainability or “raw talent” is of little use if can not be actualised within the environment of top 4

4

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH level competition. The level of improvement due to training and development can vary from individual to individual. Hoare & Warr (2000) have suggested that a genetic or innate predisposition to respond to training interventions must exist; however, more talented players may have higher motivation and, therefore practice more. Motivation is the foundation of sporting performance and achievement.

Without motivation, even the most talented athlete is unlikely to reach their potential (J. M. Williams, 2006). Nonetheless, research has yet to identify a specific ‘sporting’ personality or an overall psychological profile that can predict successful performance in sport (Morris, 2000).

The decisive factor in the development of a young player is “character” and “attitude” towards training and games (Christensen, 2009). According to coaches, a talented player has a “drive to succeed” and an attitude signalling “will and perseverance”. Attitude is a dominant category in the classificatory scheme that distinguishes one highly skilled football player from another. Coaches especially like an attitude that reflects the player’s “willingness to learn, to work hard, and to dedicate themselves” to their sport (Christensen, 2009). Classificatory schemas are initially characterised by a coach’s preference for so-called "autotelic" players. That is, players that from the coaches' perspective, exhibit a potential to learn, practice, and improve (Christensen, 2009). Additionally, player characteristics including displays of leadership, high self-efficacy and motivation, and being “coach-able”, are highly regarded by coaches and talent scouts (Crulewis, 2009).

The classification of football skills relates to the identification of observable and immediate performances among different football players. An interview with Stefano Ballinzaghi, one of the youth coaches at Inter Milan, identified a player's technical ability followed by a players physical build and good motor skills, as important aspects of a talented footballer (Crulewis, 2009).

5

5

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH Technical ability, physical ability, talent, and the will to win are continuously cited as the most important ingredients for a successful player (Carr, 2010; Thomas Reilly & Dust, 2005; A. M. Williams & Reilly, 2000). However, coaches generally do not identify the specific criteria within technical ability effectively, especially when they assess players’ during team selections periods. Limited and specific technical criteria may be a result of deficiencies within the coaching process, with accepted and shared terminology by coaches being somewhat problematic (Christensen, 2009). An example of the limited and definitive terminology is evident in an article by Carr (2010). The author identified a player’s first touch as the key technical element in becoming a high-quality player. A good first touch enables a player to keep the ball or to play it off first time, thus creating a serious problem for defenders. Carr (2010) identified the critical aspects of the skill and consequently the construction of a criterion for the skill “a player’s first touch” can occur (see Table 1).

Table 1.

List of Criteria Identified for a Player to Improve their First Touch Technical Ability 1st Touch

Subjective -

Receiving the ball with the back foot

-

Receive the ball on the half turn

Note. Taken from Carr, T. (2010). Coaching Youth Soccer. Soccer Journal, January-February, 32-34.

There are many more elements that other coaches and scouts may consider as important for a player’s first touch, other than those as listed by Carr (2010). These elements could be added to the characteristics of a good first touch as suggested by Carr (2010). For example, additional elements which would improve a player’s first touch include a player’s ability to receive the ball with the inside of the foot, especially in younger age groups where receiving the ball with the inside of the foot is a major coaching point for youth coaches (Rees & Van der Meer, 2003). Additionally, a player’s ability to continuously juggle the ball has been associated with a player’s 6

6

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH first touch such that players at a higher level were able to continuously juggle the ball for a longer periods of time (Da Silva, 2008). Nonetheless, juggling the ball is an objective measure.

A coach’s decision to utilise objective and subjective criteria should be an individual process. The possible combination of both subjective and objective measures will provide coaches and scouts with additional information. This information can be used to justify and support coaches’ initial subjective judgments.

However, scientific testing within talent detection have been identified by coaches as troublesome due to the over-emphasis of strength, speed, and size (Jimenez & Pain, 2008).

Comprehensive physiological, psychological, and tactical qualities are needed to become a professional football player (Huijgen, et al., 2010). Tests conducted by Reilly, Williams, Nevill, and Franks (2000) identified that elite football players have several advantages over their sub-elite counterparts in relation to body composition, vertical jumping, agility, speed, and endurance. Due the positional demands of the game of football, there is no set anthropometry criteria that can be stated. However, positional trends have more anthropometric similarities between goalkeepers and defenders in regards to physical height (Gore, 2000). Players who were successful in being selected for a variety of Australian squads have been shown that on average they attain better vertical jump scores than the unsuccessful players (Gore, 2000).

Constant changes in direction mean that agility is essential and have differentiated playing levels (Gabbett, et al., 2007; T. Reilly, 2007). Acceleration and speed are crucial requirements for football, and many studies have shown that these variables differentiate between players at different levels of the game (Gore, 2000; T. Reilly, 2007). Furthermore, repeated sprints have also been identified as crucial to football performance and may even determine the outcome of a game as proposed Gabbett and Mulvey (2008). Superior endurance is important for footballers to possess, 7

7

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH particularly as the workload demanded of players increases over the last few years (Gore, 2000). Williams & Reilly (2000) identified maximal oxygen uptake as being a successful differentiator between expert and intermediate young players. Thus, physiological qualities appear to be an important feature of players at the elite level.

Sport specific skill tests (not including basic physiological and anthropometric data) has been shown to discriminate successful and unsuccessful players currently participating in their sport (Gabbett, Georgieff, & Domrow, 2007). However, even though these sport specific skill tests are more closely related to the skills required for elite level performances, they are still considered problematic by coaches due to the situations not being bona fide game situations (Thomas Reilly & Dust, 2005).

Several technical skills have been identified that differentiate players of differing levels and ages. The principle technical skills are shooting, passing, ball control, and dribbling (Thomas Reilly & Dust, 2005). Reilly et al., (2000) used specific ball skill performance tests and reported differences between expert and novice-performers. Tests for passing, shooting, controlling and dribbling the ball have been identified by Reilly and Holmes (1983) as the principal components in the assessment of skilled football players. Table 2 identifies the results obtained from players who have been selected in the Australian National team. They are both objective generic physiological tests and sport specific tests, and indicate the results required for selection at the National team level.

The ability to identify talent is highly sought-after and the questions guiding this case study have been placed into three categories; 1) The coach’s experience and playing history.

2) The coach’s selection preferences and how they change when selecting individual players as opposed to team players.

3) How knowledge is shared and gained within coaching.

8

8

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH The answers to these questions may be considered as ways to assist with the

9

development of criteria and guidelines to evaluate football players. As the current selection processes within football are predominantly governed by subjective criteria, this can leave decision makers open to conflicts of interest and bias. Objective judgements involve concrete numbers and standards that are unlikely to give rise to conflicting interpretations. As such, objective judgements may be applied uniformly to the evaluation of athletes (Curlewis, 2008). However, it is unreasonable and unrealistic to exclude subjective criteria from team selections. Subjective criteria involve careful considerations such as the player’s potential for improvement, leadership qualities, work ethic, team chemistry, games sense, or past experiences (Curlewis, 2008). Establishing clear and complete team selection policies will help coaches make and justify complex decisions more easily, consistently, and fairly so that the best footballers are identified. Furthermore, selection disputes may then be minimised and ultimately prevented where possible (Curlewis, 2008).

Table 2.

Australian National Benchmarks for U/17 Boys Source Da Silva, 2008

Gore, 2000

Juggles

Illinois Agility

Beep Test

Vertical

20m Sprint

(no.)

Test (s)

(level)

Jump (cm)

(s)

Mean

173

17.4

n/a

52

3.26

Minimum

136

15.9

n/a

36

2.98

Maximum

330

16.85

n/a

70

3.83

Mean

n/a

n/a

13

61

3.12

Minimum

n/a

n/a

11.1

53

3.19

Minimum

n/a

n/a

15.5

70

2.96

Parameter

Method.

Qualitative research in physical education, exercise, and sport science is still relatively new. Such research methods generally include field observations, case studies, ethnography, and narrative reports (Locke, Silverman, & Spirduso, 2004).

9

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH The most important feature of qualitative research is the interpretive content, rather than an over concern about procedure. The emphasis is on induction rather than deduction, which is the focus of quantitative research (Thomas, Nelson, & Silverman, 2005).

The current project is presented as a case study and as such, aimed to understand the meaning of an individual’s experience within a specific setting. This form of research is descriptive and it gathers a large amount of information about one or a few participants. A case study is used in qualitative research to deal with critical problems of practice and to extend the current knowledge base of various aspects of education, exercise science, sport science, and coaching (Thomas, et al., 2005). This study’s approach to understanding selection criteria in football team-selections is considered as appropriate as it seeks to extend the current knowledge base of coaching by accessing the thought processes of a high level youth football coach.

While case studies are a valued form of qualitative research, it is important to acknowledge they can only consider a limited number of views. The views of one or even a few people may vary between studies. One’s perception and experiences shape their personal preferences (Thomas, et al., 2005). Within the topic of team selections, large variations are likely to occur given that the process is highly subjective.

Participants.

Within qualitative research, participants are selected based on specific characteristics. Obviously, there are pragmatic concerns about the location and the availability of participants. In nearly every case, numerous other sites and people with similar characteristics exists (Thomas, et al., 2005). In essence, the selection of participants in qualitative research involves considerations of where to observe, when to observe, whom to observe, and what to observe (Thomas, et al., 2005).

The participant selected for this study is an experienced coach and as such a great deal may be added to the literature through the current investigation. The current 10

10

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH expert coach has been recruited on the basis of coaching and playing experience, coaching qualifications, and tertiary educational background. An expert is someone who no longer relies on analytical principles but has an intuitive grasp of his or her area of expertise (Christensen, 2009). The expert has a subtle and redefined ability to differentiate through an extensive repertoire of situational discrimination in which he or she has had to make decisions. Consequently, the process of selection by an expert is not based on precise evaluations of isolated elements but builds on a practical sense of visual impressions as a whole. Thus, talent selection rests on a multifaceted intuitive knowledge comprised of socially constructed “images” of the perfect player (Christensen, 2009).

Procedure.

Setting.

Within qualitative designs, the researcher must be able to observe and interview the participant at the appropriate time and location. Gaining access to the participants is important and complex. This process often starts with the first contact with the participant/s by telephone or letter, extends through data collection, and continues after the researcher has left the site (Thomas, et al., 2005). The participants need to know that provisions will be made to safeguard their rights of privacy and guarantee anonymity (Thomas, et al., 2005). A university human ethics committee granted approval for the current study before it was commenced.

In the current case study, the participant was identified and recruited by the primary investigator. The participant was provided with instructions concerning the rational for the study and how the data will initially be gathered and then applied to the study. Finally, in order to maintain confidentiality the participant will be referred to as Alex within the remaining text.

Methods of Data Collection: Interview.

11

11

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH The use of interviews is the most common source of data collection within qualitative research and requires skill and experience (Thomas, et al., 2005). The current study used a single, semi-structured interview. The interview session was videotaped to preserve the interview for later analysis (Thomas, et al., 2005).The interview addressed a number of broad categories and was placed into three categories relating to; 1) The coach’s playing experience, coaching history and education and training.

2) The coach’s selection preferences in selecting individual and team players 3) The coach’s opinion on how knowledge is shared and gained within coaching The interview questions were adapted from previous research findings (Bangsbo, 1994; Crulewis, 2009; Gatz, 2009; Hoare & Warr, 2000; Jimenez & Pain, 2008; Regnier, Samela, & Russell, 1993; Reilly, 1994; Reilly & Dust, 2005; Reilly, Hughes, & Bangsbo, 1997; Reilly, Williams, Nevill, & Franks, 2000; Reilly, Williams, & Richardson, 2003; Stolen, Chamari, Castagna, & Wisloff, 2005), the current author’s coaching and playing experience, and additional input from a supervisor.

Data Analysis.

Narrative vignettes and direct quotations are considered as the basis of qualitative research by way of an interview. As such, studies should strive to provide enough detail to show the reader that conclusions made by the author make sense (Thomas, et al., 2005). The data gathered should be read on a number of occasions to ensure completeness and confirm general analytical categories. This process forms the initial stages of organising, abstracting, integrating, and synthesising. Thus, the latter process ultimately permits researchers to report what they have seen and heard (Thomas, et al., 2005).

12

12

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH In the current investigation, the interview was transcribed and was then returned to the participant for checking. No changes were requested by the participant.

Once the data was approved by the participant, it was analysed on a line-by-line basis.

Text identified as the perception of a coherent idea was categorised into themes. Once this categorisation was completed, the current author inductively analysed the themes and produced several categories. Finally, higher order categories were created, based upon how often they were identified across the entire interview. The aforementioned process was conducted as suggested by previous research (Coulter, Mallett, & Gucciardi, 2010).

Results.

The Coach’s Playing Experience, Coaching History, and Education and Training.

Playing Experience.

Alex has 30 years of football playing experience as a defender in the Division One Senior Football League of an Australian capital city.

Coaching History.

Alex has 26 years of experience in coaching junior and youth players from varying skill levels and ages in state (provincial) school representative teams (U/17 boys). Alex is currently coaching the highest U/15 junior club league in the state and is the head coach and coordinator of a School Excellence in Football program.

Education and Training.

Alex’s tertiary studies include a Bachelor of Education and a Diploma of Teaching in Manual Arts and Physical Education. Within football, Alex has obtained what was formerly referred to as a Queensland State Licence, which is equivalent to the current ASIAN- UEFA B Licence.

13

13

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH Alex’s extensive playing and coaching experience, sport specific coach accreditation, and tertiary education has resulted in the judgement being made to be that of an expert coach specifically within the field of youth football coaching.

The Coach’s Selection Preferences in Selecting Individual and Team Players.

Alex was unable to provide ranked order criteria of what he looks for in players. However, Alex maintained that before an actual football skill was measured, a player’s attitude and behaviour was considered. That is, if a player displays poor behaviour which affects other players within the squad, then they would not be considered for selection. Alex felt that team cohesion and “harmony” was a very important aspect of team sports.

Alex identified technical ability as the most important aspect to a 16 year old’s make-up. Technical ability was made up of a players 1st touch (including body shape when receiving the ball), passing and shooting ability, followed by (in no particular order), running speed, superior endurance, game sense (which included quick of thought, decision-making speed), and physical strength.

Alex judged technical ability, both subjectively and objectively. Alex preferred to assess players within game situations, either full size games or modified small sided games. Alex rated subjective observations as of a higher importance than other objective measures given that judgements made during a game setting highlighted a player’s technique under pressure. The latter is evident in the following statement: “…a lot of players can do it under no pressure, but when they have to do it under pressure? That’s why we assess players in a game setting”. Objective assessments analyse football specific skills such as passing, juggling, and shooting.

However, these tests were done under minimal pressure (Refer to Table 3).

Alex considered players’ ages and the competitive level as the deciding factor of which selection criteria is prioritised during selection times. If players are younger (11-14 years), technical ability is a major factor as they will have time to develop 14

14

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH other aspects of their game. As players get older (15-21 years) and the competitive

15

level increases, good decision making skills, speed, and size become increasingly important. However, Alex noted that it is important to acknowledge that “players need to have strengths in a number of areas to succeed at the elite level”.

Table 3.

The Subjective and Objective Criteria of Technical Ability as Prescribed by Alex Technical Ability 1st Touch

Subjective Criteria - Receiving the ball with the farthest foot

Objective Criteria Juggling test

- Facing forward when receiving the ball - Receiving the ball with the inside of the foot, where possible Passing ability

- Accuracy of pass

Passing through makers at varying

- Decision on which pass to make

distances and widths, with both right and left feet

Shooting ability

- Knowing where the back of the net is

Hitting a ball from a certain distance,

- Able to shoot with both feet

which goes into the goal on the full.

Within game settings Alex subjectively assessed decision making skills (Refer to Table 4). Alex noted that: “…watching players’ responses to situations within games, and small sided games, moving as the ball is moving, and being proactive, and not reacting as to when the ball get there. So, you are not always watching the ball, you are watching players off the ball and the decisions they are making in relation to where the ball is. Are they just standing there waiting to see what happens?”

Alex believed that once behaviour or attitude and technical ability within game settings (thus including decision making skills) were initially established, the need to differentiate between players on other attributes or qualities should occur.

This consideration is especially crucial in terms of work rate as every team needs to

15

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH have both individual and team players in a team. The latter consideration was evident when Alex said the following: Table 4.

Identified Criteria for a Subjective Assessment of a Player’s Game Awareness and Decision Making Skills Game Awareness and Decision Making

Subjective Criteria

Skills Adjusting to play

Moving to where the ball is moving

Being proactive

Not reacting when the ball gets to you

Awareness

Not always watching the ball; knowing where players of both teams are

“…you need to have team players who are going to go out there and work hard, not look great out there but they are going to do a job for the team. And then you need those special players, the ones who are going to do something individually brilliant, that are going to win you games…they are not always the best players, and you could not have a team of them. But, you need someone who is going to say, ok well I can beat that player in front of me and I’m going to, and scores goals, so you need both sorts of players in any team”.

Interestingly, the criteria considered did not differ from team to individual players.

Nonetheless, Alex identified that teams need the odd “special player” who is going to do something “daring and unpredictable”. Other aspects that Alex identified as crucial to the make-up of a squad included high levels of motivation, the desire to win, leadership, and hard workers: “You can not have a squad of 16 players that are technically good but not workers; because you will never get the ball in order to technically look good with it. You need to get that balance right, and say ok he is not going to win me games but he is going to keep us in games.”

16

16

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH Finally, physiological abilities such as speed and endurance were valued by Alex. These abilities can be measured by objective scientific tests (e.g., use of running gates, Illinois agility test, and beep tests; refer to Table 5). However, games were also used to assess physiological abilities and similarly were a preferred assessment tool for Alex: “Speed of playing is different to speed of running. A slower player can be first to the ball if he’s quicker. If he gets his run right, their speed is just not through light gates over 20 meters. Their speed is how quickly they can get to the ball first and doesn’t have to be the quickest player who always does that.”

Table 5.

Subjective and Objective Criteria for Physiological Ability as Identified by Alex Physiological Ability Speed

Subjective Criteria

Objective Criteria

- How quickly they get to the ball 20m sprint (s) - Reaction to play - Reading the game

Endurance

Ability to maintain performance

Beep Test (level)

for the entire game Agility

Turn quickly and maintain

Illinios Agility Test (s)

balance The Coach’s Opinion on how Knowledge is Shared and Gained within Coaching.

Alex has identified several ways to share and gain knowledge as a coach as evident in the following: “Assist with grading players at clubs, that way you can talk with other coaches who they are looking for and that sort of thing, taking on assistant coaches, having, helping out as a director of coaching, putting on sessions for other coaches, going to conferences where discussion is open about elite players.”

17

17

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

18 Discussion.

Alex’s knowledge structure has developed over many years of both playing and coaching football. This knowledge structure has shaped Alex’s view of what characterises a good football player and consequently guided Alex’s’ judgements on each player’s proficiencies, weaknesses, and the possibility of selection.

Alex preferred assessment criteria were inline with previous research conducted by Bartmus, Neumann et al., 1987; Jimenez & Pain, 2008; Regnier, Samela et al., 1993; Vrjlic & Mallett, 2008. The latter research concluded that the judgements made by qualified high performance coaches are the preferred selection methodology.

Furthermore, that selections based on successes within authentic playing situations, (i.e., small sided games and competitions, rather than a players ability to perform a specific skill or test) are preferred by coaches.

Alex relied on “intuition” and “gut feeling” when making judgements on individual players. This study found that while Alex acknowledged a willingness to listen to the opinions of what other coaches or scouts look for in player’s, he relied upon intuition, perception, and preconceived ideas of what made up a talented player.

Over years of playing football and a variety of coaching experiences, Alex has built up a knowledge structure with attendant variation and resultant actions, that is, schemata (Lyle, 2002).

A player’s attitude and behaviour, as from the coach’s perspective, at training and during games was the initial consideration for Alex. Thus, if a player exhibited a potential to learn, practice, and improve, their likelihood of team selection (Christensen, 2009). Alex believed that disruptive behaviour impacted upon team “harmony”. . Even a player with exceptional ability would not be considered for team selection by Alex if they exhibited disruptive behaviour. One of the most important goals in coaching may be to create a good learning situation where athletes can acquire the technical skills needed to succeed individually and as a team (J. M. 18

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH Williams, 2006). Additionally, it appears that most coaches prioritise creating a social environment in which the participants can experience positive interactions with one another. Thus Alex may view a positive social environment as a key factor, which, includes building team cohesion, making athletes more receptive to technical instruction, and fostering supportive environments where athletes can develop teamwork and dedication (J. M. Williams, 2006).

A team’s success is primarily dependant on each player’s ability to quickly understand and analyse a game situation, and then execute basic techniques and tactics under the pressure of match conditions (Jens. Bangsbo & Peitersen, 2000; Rees & Van der Meer, 2003). Unlike research previously conducted on how coaches make judgments on players, Alex incorporated objective measurements within the selection process.

The objective measures enhanced the information available to Alex and assisted in the judgements and selections made. The objective measures included technical skill tests (i.e., passing, juggling, and shooting tests) and physiological test (i.e.,20m sprint, Beep Test and Illinois Agility Test). Importantly, these objective measures were not regarded as representative of a player’s ability to perform these skills within game settings. Alex justified this lower rating of objective measures by citing a lack of pressure placed on a player during individual testing sessions. This belief is shared by other coaches who have suggested that scientific criteria for talent detection are troublesome due to the situations not being bona fide game situations (Thomas Reilly & Dust, 2005). Nonetheless, the incorporation of these objective assessments within the selection process increases the amount of available information on each individual player and thus increases the likelihood that selection decisions are rendered fair (Curlewis, 2008) and valid.

The key factors outlined by Alex included technical ability, decision making skills, and physiological abilities (e.g., speed and endurance) have been consistently 19

19

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH identified in previous research (Bangsbo, 1994; Hughes et al.,1997; Hoare & Warr,

20

2000; Jimenez & Pain, 2008; Reilly, 1994; Reilly & Dust, 2005; Regnier, Samela et al., 1993; Stolen, Chamari et al., 2005; Vrjlic & Mallett, 2008; Williams et al., 2003; see Table 6). Yet, the intuitve knowledge of coaches is a source of frustration among coaches because they feel that there is a lack of accepted common language in performing their job (Christensen, 2009).

Table 6.

Technical Ability Assessed via Subjective and Objective Criteria

Technical Ability 1st Touch (element)

Subjective Criteria

Subjective Criteria

(Alex)

(Carr, 2010)

- Receiving the ball

- Receiving the ball

with the farthest foot

with the back foot

- Facing forward when

- Receive the ball on

receiving the ball

Objective Criteria (Alex)

Juggling test

the half turn

- Receiving the ball with the inside of the foot, where possible Passing ability

- Accuracy of pass

(element)

- Decision on which

n/a

Passing through makers at varying distances

pass to make

and widths, with both right and left feet

Shooting ability (element)

- Knowing where the

n/a

back of the net is

Hitting a ball from a certain distance, which

- Able to shoot with

goes into the goal on

both feet

the full.

Table 6 identifies the limited consistency in specifically defining the elements that make up specific criteria within team selections. Such limited consistency reduces the clarity of what coaches actually refer to when they say they are “looking” for technical ability. Alex identified that technical ability is made up of several individual criteria, such as first touch and passing accuracy. Other such criteria that may be 20

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH added to those identified by Alex, has been identified by Hoare and Warr (2000). The

21

criteria include dribbling, volleying and heading the ball (refer to Table 7).

Establishing each of the criteria that collectively make up technical ability, may allow coaches to decide on which elements they wish to focus on. These elements may include all or a selection of those aspects listed in Table 6 and Table 7. The identification of specific criteria prior to selection periods may allow coaches to be consistent and additionally justify their selections to players, colleagues, parents, and management (Christensen, 2009).

Table 7.

Additional Criteria Proposed by Previous Research Technical Ability Dribbling ability

Subjective Criteria

Objective Criteria

- Close control of the ball

Dribbling a ball through a marked out

- Able to use both feet

course, in the quickest possible time

- Position the ball away from defender - Able to beat the defender Heading

Volleys

- Accuracy of heading both in

Heading a lobed ball in a certain direction

defensive and offensive

(Definition: the number of consecutive

situations

headers a player can perform)

- Accuracy of volley

Volleying the ball back to a player on the

- The choice of volley (i.e., to

full after the ball has been lobed a certain

control or to shoot)

distance to them, on both the right and left feet

Note. Adapted from Hoare and Warr (2000); definitions inserted by the current author

Additionally, each criterion listed within technical ability and any other additional criteria within the entire selection process may need to be defined in such a way that the key elements that make up the specific skill (que), are identifiable. The language used to describe the skill should allow coaches to make distinctions between a good performance and a poor performance. Ultimately, the development of shared and accepted terminology may improve the coaching process especially within team 21

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH selections, coach to coach communication, and in skill development. Specific ques may be identified by the criterion being utilised and then used by coaches as a teaching aid during training sessions.

An important consideration for Alex during the selection of players for a team was the actual age and level of competition the player was going to be selected for. If the athletes were younger (11-14 years), technical ability was a major factor. Younger athletes may have time to develop other aspects of their game such as decision making skills. Decision making skills should be acquired over time, as players gain more experience. Consequently coaches who are responsible for younger age groups may not have the same classificatory schemes as coaches responsible for players within older age groups (Christensen, 2009). As the athletes get older (15-21 years), skills that are harder to coach increase in importance. Older players collect many experiences through time. By this stage of players’ development, they (players) should have a good basis for reading the game (Jens. Bangsbo & Peitersen, 2000).

That is, have good decision making skills. Alex identified speed and size as increasingly important, however Alex concluded that it is important to acknowledge that players need to be proficient in a number of areas in order to succeed at the elite level.. During any team selection, regardless of the age group or level of the player, Alex believed that a coach will need to have both individual and team players in your team, to be successful.

While Alex did not change the criterion between team and individual players, the coach did identify that teams need the odd “special player” who is going to do something “daring and unpredictable”. This consideration may reflect a possible difference between team an individual players. These criteria could be used to identify these individual players and it relates to their ability to “beat the player in front of them and score goals”. This identified criterion for the special individual players needs to be specifically defined in terms of what a coach is looking for. The 22

22

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH characteristics identified can be assessed, then consequently ranked and categorised by individual coaches throughout their selection process. This proposed difference between individual and team players signifies that this unique characteristic can be recognised and prioritised by individual coaches during the selection process.

Other characteristics Alex considered as important to the make-up of a squad included high levels of motivation, the desire to win, leadership, and hard workers.

These characteristics should be considered when putting together a squad, especially when considering the players on the borderline of selection. Alex noted that: “As quite often we leave good players out of team because we realise that they are not going to be the sort of players who will not work for us”. This important point made by Alex may suggest that good players will miss out on selection. However, if players, parents, and management understand clearly why a player has missed out on selection and what the payer needs to improve/work on, they will be a lot more accepting of the decision made by the coach. The player may then have an opportunity to work on cited weaknesses within their own game and improve their future chances of selection.

Consequently, the following step in establishing a selection criteria is to identify and define which key elements collectively make up each of the identified characteristics. For example, technical ability is made up of several skills such as passing, dribbiling, shooting, first touch, and heading the ball (Christensen, 2009; A. M. Williams & Reilly, 2000). Unfortunately, the limited consistency in defining the elements which make up a skill reduces the clarity of what coaches refer to when they say they are “looking” for within a criterion (e.g., a player’s first touch). The example used in Table 6 shows this limted consistency and thus needs to be addressed. Each skill within a broad criteria such as technical ability, requires a consistent and specific definition. Thus, the key factors or characteristics are identical. Importantly, the developemnt of shared and accepted terminology will allow coaches to be clear, 23

23

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH consistent. In addition, such terminology may allow coached to justify how their selections were made to players, colleagues, parents, and management (Christensen, 2009).

The developments of consistent specific definitions for individual skills are essential for the construction of any valid selection criteria. Nonetheless, coaches need flexibility within the actual process. Such flexibility may additionally be applied to the allocation of the assessable criteria to coaches’ decision and hence accommodating a coaches’ own personal “taste”, playing methodology, and style within the selection process. Given that the initial step in developing a selection criteria revolves around what player characterisitcs the coach is actually looking for, the specific criteria for selection periods can be flexible, Once the coaches preferred chracteristics are identified, selecting what specific criteria is going to be used to assess players on is a simplified task.

Conclusion.

The indisputable positions of coaches as definers and categorisers of talent and consequently as controllers of the construction of symbolic capital in the field sustain the current logic of team selection (Christensen, 2009). The primacy of visual experience and pattern recognition are apart of the coaching process, especially within football team selections. The “true” criteria according to the coaches closely relate to contextualised practice and thus to more complex and situated skills, which need to be seen and recognised in movement patterns related to real play (Christensen, 2009).

Consequently, the classificatory schemes of coaches concern not only the present make-up of a player, but also the player’s presumed potential to learn, to practice, and improve (Christensen, 2009).

The confirmation by Alex of key performance indicators as cited in pervious research such as technical ability, physiological and psychological ability will also assist coaches in terms of how to prepare selection sessions. Therefore, these 24

24

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH attributes may be more easily seen, and consequently assist in identifying players exhibiting such attributes.

Appendix A may be used as a basic selection tool. It is a sliding scale tool ranging from the most important aspects cited by Alex to a secondary list of factors.

While many other factors could be incorporated into the tool, it is only a basic outline of how coaches could assess a players’ ability in terms of a coach’s subjective view and the incorporation of objective measures previously discussed. Appendix A recognises the importance of size and strength, but does not test for these. Given that the common objective in youth selections is to not win now but to develop players for tomorrow (Crulewis, 2009), as the purpose of this study was to enhance the selection of players for talent identification programs. The tool is easily modifiable to accommodate the preferences of each individual coach, thus making it a valuable assessment tool for selection processes.

It appears worthwhile reiterating that it is unlikely that coaching can be reduced to the application of generic rules (Cushion, 2008). However, the current study does provide a rich and meaningful subjective example of how an experienced coach perceives the key criteria within the selection process. While this coach is regarded as an expert, the results are only the beliefs of one person and coach and thus may not represent the general beliefs of the wider expert coaching community.

The current study should provide coaches with additional knowledge. Such knowledge regarding the selection process includes the preferred assessment tools of coaches, how judgments are made, the rational behind the establishment of universal definitions for specific selection criterion, and most importantly flexible selection criteria with the allocation of specific criteria entirely the coaches decision, hence accommodating the coaches own personal “taste”, playing methodology, and style within the selection process.

25

25

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH This additional knowledge and findings will improve current youth selection processes, and allow coaches to make coherent, consistent, timely, and transparent decisions. Importantly, transparency and tangible understanding of rather intangible criteria may ultimately lead to a decrease in disputes relating to selection decisions, while generating a level of trust between athletes, coaches, and decision makers (Curlewis, 2008).

Future studies in the area of youth talent identification and team selection should seek to explore the working practices of more youth development coaches.

Such investigations may include how they perceive the selection process, how these perceptions have evolved over time, whether gender differences affect the characteristics which make up a talented footballer, on what criteria they select players on, and how these criteria are defined by assessors. Finally, the coach has to determine what criteria will be assessed during team selections and this criteria should be aligned and consistent with their team or coaching philosophy (Couturier, 2009).

The primary aim of any selection process is to ensure that consistency is maintained throughout and that all parties are aware of what is being assessed and that ultimately the best players are selected for the team or squad.

26

26

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

27 References.

Bangsbo, J., & Peitersen, B. (2000). Soccer systems & stratergies. South Australia: Human Kinetics.

Bangsbo, J., & Peitersen, B. (2004). Offensive soccer tactics. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Bartmus, U., Neumann, E., & de Marees, H. (1987). The talent problem in sport.

International journal of sports medicine, Ch 8, 415-416.

Boreham, N., C. (1994). The dangerous practice of thinking. Medical Education, 28, 172-179.

Carr, T. (2010). Coaching Youth Soccer. Soccer Journal, January-February, 32-34.

Christensen, M. K. (2009). "An Eye for Talent": Talent Identification and the "Practical Sense" of Top-Level Soccer Coaches. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(3), 365-382.

Coulter, T. J., Mallett, C. J., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2010). Understanding mental toughness in Australian soccer: Perceptions of players, parents, and coaches.

Journal of sport science, 28(7), 699-716.

Couturier, L. E. (2009). "Why Did You Cut Me?" Preparing Coaching Education Students for the Team Selection Process. JOPERD: The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(9), 39-66.

Crulewis, S. (2009). Inter Milan's youth coaching approach. Soccer Journal, 54(4), 46.

Curlewis, S. (2008). Dealing with Subjectivity in selection criteria. Soccer Journal, 15(3), 52-54.

Cushion, C., J. (2008). The coaching process in elite youth soccer: The players' experiences. New York: Routledge.

Da Silva, D. (2008). Talent identification for footballers aged between 15 and 17 years of age. Hons The University of Queensland. Brisbane.

Drust, B., Reilly, T., & Williams, A. M. (2010). International Research in Science and Soccer. London: Routledge.

Gabbett, T. J., Georgieff, B., & Domrow, N. (2007). The use of physiological, anthropometric, and skill data to predict selection in a talent-identified junior volleyball squad. Journal of sport Sciences 25(12), 1337-1344.

Gilbert, W., Cote, J., & Mallett, C. (2006). Developmental Paths and Activities of Successful Sport Coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 1(1), 69-76.

Gore, C. J. (2000). Physiological Test for elite Athletes. Adelaide: Human Kinetics.

Huijgen, B. C. H., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Post, W., & Visscher, C. (2010).

Development of dribbiling in talented youth soccer players aged 12-19 years: A longitudinal study. Journal of sport science, 28(7), 689-698.

Jimenez, I. P., & Pain, M. T. G. (2008). Relative age effect in Spanish association football: Its extent and implication for wasted potential. Journal of sport science, 26(10), 995-1003.

Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2004). Reading and understanding research (2nd eds ed.). CA:Sage: Thousad oaks.

Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts. London & New york: Routledge.

Rees, R., & Van der Meer, C. (2003). Coaching soccer successfuly (2nd Edition ed.).

South Australia: Human Kinetics.

Regnier, G., Samela, J., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Talent detection and development in sport.

Reilly, T. (2007). The Science of Training - Soccer. London: Routledge.

Reilly, T., & Dust, B. (2005). Talent Identification and development in soccer In Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Proceedings: 4th International 27

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH Scientific Conference on Kinesiology - Science and Profession-Challenge for The Future, Opatija, Croatia, 7-11 September 2005, Opatija, Croatia, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, c2005, p.412-415. Croatia.

Savelsbergh, G. J. P., Williams, A. M., Van der Kamp, J., & Ward, P. (2005).

Anticipation and visual search behaviour in expert goalkeeps.

Ergonomics(48), 1686-1697.

Signer, R. N., & Janelle, C. M. (1999). Determining Sport Expertise: From Genes to Supremes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30, 117-150.

Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2005). Research methods in physical activity (Fifth Edition ed.). South Australia: Human Kinetics.

Vrjlic, K., & Mallett, C. J. (2008). Coaching knowledge in identifying football talent.

International Journal of Coaching Science, 2(1), 63-81.

Williams, A. M., & Reilly, T. (2000). Talent identification and development in soccer.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(9), 657-667.

Williams, J. M. (2006). Applied sport psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.

28

28

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

29

Appendix A: Selection Criteria Suggested for Coaches

- COACHES SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE CRITERIA - TECHNICAL SKILLS TESTED - PHYSIOLOGICAL TESTED - OUTLINE OF SELECTION CRITERIA SHEET COACHES PERCEPTIONS OF A PLAYER Behaviour: - Desire to work during training and games, and does the player cause disruption at training and to squad harmony.

- Rated as Good or Bad

Game skills assessed are via subjective and objective assessments in game settings: - The coach is asked to rate player’s on their ability from 10 (being the highest) to 1 (being the lowest) in relation to the cited subjective criteria within a game setting.

Technical

Subjective Criteria

Objective Criteria

Ability st

1 Touch

-

Receiving the ball with the farthest

Juggling test

foot -

Facing forward when receiving the ball

-

Receiving the ball with the inside of the foot, where possible

Passing

-

Accuracy of passing short & long

Passing through makers at varying

ability

-

Decision on which pass to make

distances and widths, with both right and left feet

Shooting

-

Knowing where the back of the net is

Hitting a ball from a certain distance,

ability

-

Able to shoot with both feet

which goes into the goal on the full.

Dribbling

-

Close control of the ball

Dribbling a ball through a

ability

-

Able to use both feet

marked out course, in the

-

Position the ball away from defender

quickest possible time

-

Able to beat the defender

29

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

30

Psychology: The coach is asked to rate player’s on their ability from 10 (being the highest) to 1 (being the lowest) in relation to being able to the following aspects of their individual make up.

Psychological game skill assessed via an objective assessment within game setting

Game awareness and

Subjective Criteria

decision making skills Adjusting to play

Moving to where the ball is moving

Being proactive

Not reacting to when the ball gets to you

Awareness

Not always watching the ball; knowing where players of both teams are

Player personal traits assessed subjectively and not directly related to game settings

Motivation/ Work Ethic - Do they work hard at training, and do they work on their skills in their own time.

Leadership - Do they show leadership on and off the field.

Desire to win - How hungry are they for success, do they hurt when they lose, are they competitive.

ACTUAL TECHNIQUE TESTS JUGGLING

In 3 minutes the participant must juggle the ball and try and get the highest score they possibly can get. The requirement is to use the left foot, right foot and head.

30

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

31

SHORT PASS

1.5 meters

Year 11 & 12 - 12 METRES Year 10 - 10 METRES Year 8 & 9 - 10 METRES

Ball to be side footed through goals.

The ball must run through the markers to be considered successful.

(6 x right foot; 6 x left foot)

SHOOTING

Year 11 & 12 - 16 METRES Year 10 - 14 METRES Year 8 & 9 -12 METRES

This test requires you to dribble and shoot.

Ball must not to bounce to be considered successful.

(6 x right foot; 6 x left foot)

31

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

32

DRIBBILING

Dribbling (Illinois) agility test: - The length of the course is 10 metres and the width (distance between the start and finish points) is 5 metres The player is directed to navigate the course while dribbling a football.

4 cones or agility poles can be used to mark the start, finish and the two turning points. Each cone in the centre is spaced 3.3 metres apart. The player must not touch the agility poles with their body; however ball contact is acceptable,

ACTUAL PHYSIOLOGICAL TESTS Subjective and Objective Criteria for Physiological Ability Physiological Ability Speed

Subjective Criteria How quickly they get to the ball,

Objective Criteria 20 meter sprint, time (s)

reaction to play, reading the game Endurance

Ability to maintain a performance for

Beep test

the entire game Agility

Turns quickly and maintain balance

32

Illinios agility test, time (s)

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

33

20m sprint: - Subjects will run as fast as possible over a 20 meter distance, all participants will receive 2 trails and the lowest time will be recorded

Illinois agility test: - The length of the course is 10 metres and the width (distance between the start and finish points) is 5 metres. On an athletics track, you could use 5 lanes.

4 cones can be used to mark the start, finish and the two turning points. Each cone in the centre is spaced 3.3 metres apart.

Figure 1. The circuit for the Illinois Agility Running test

33

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH Beep test: - The test involves running continuously between two points that are 20 m apart. These runs are synchronized with a pre-recorded audio tape or CD, which plays beeps at set intervals. As the test proceeds, the interval between each successive beep reduces, forcing the athlete to increase velocity over the course of the test, until it is impossible to keep in sync with the recording. At this point participants must stop running and provide details of level achieved.

34

34

THE ‘EYE’ OF THE COACH

Selection Criteria Sheet Players Name

43

Game Tecnique

Behaviour/Attitude 1st Touch

Passing

Non-Competitive Technique

Game awareness 1st Touch

Passing

Shooting

Dribbiling

Physiology Speed

Agility

Psychology

Endurance Strength Size

1

N/A

N/A

2

N/A

N/A

3

N/A

N/A

4

N/A

N/A

5

N/A

N/A

6

N/A

N/A

7

N/A

N/A

8

N/A

N/A

9

N/A

N/A

10

N/A

N/A

11

N/A

N/A

12

N/A

N/A

13

N/A

N/A

14

N/A

N/A

Motivation/Work Ethic

Leadership

Overall Comments Desire to win

TOPICS ASSESSED Behaviour/Attitude

Game Technique

Non- Competitive Technique

Physiology

Psychology

Bad = B

Rate each player from 1 - 10

The number of successful attempts out of 12 (L & R foot)

Time in seconds for speed and agility

Rate each player from 1 - 10

Good = G

10 being the highest & 1 the lowest

1st touch = The No. of consecutive juggles in 1 minute

Speed = 20 m sprint

10 being the highest & 1 the lowest

Agility, illinois test

Motivation/ Work Ethic - Do they work hard at training, and do they work on their skills in their own time

Endurance is beep test level

Leadership - Do they show leadership on and off the field

Strength and Size are Non-applicable

Desire to win - How hungry are they for success, do they hurt when they lose, are they competitive