JUAN ANTONIO GARCIA HERRERO

Juan Antonio García Herrero / ARTICLE

• Coach of the Juvenile Women's team Club Balonmano Cdad. de Salamanca

Introduction

The successful format of the magazine "Handheartball" in which documents and articles of different structure are collected, allows me the licence to give my opinion on the technification process in handball without the constrictions of a scientific or academic article. This paper is just another opinion on this process, but, even so, I hope that it can serve as a debate on the measures and interventions that we are having around the individual training of young players. In this way, we will critically analyse some of the decisions that are commonly taken around sport technification in handball, a resource that many federations and clubs strive to implement with their players.

Sport technification can be developed under very different practices and deep divisions in its conception. To begin with, it would be useful to clarify what we understand by technification and what we do not, as I believe that in many training contexts the technification process is confused with the development of a game model, collective training or the hackneyed work of "decision making". Let's try to go deeper into these issues.

Playing model and technification.

Different clubs, territorial and national federations understand the process of technification as the transmission of resources to their players, linking them to a model of play. It means that they conceive individual offensive or defensive training around a series of collective operating guidelines or systems of play. In this approach, the training of the player is oriented towards the mastery of this or that model of play and under the excuse of: "this is how the first team plays", "these are the systems of play of the whole club" or "in this federation we play like this", the individual work is developed (if it is developed at all). In this way, individual technical-tactical training is linked to a specific training within a specific model of play, And what is the problem here, it is about modelling the player so that when he arrives in the first team he is familiar with the model of the game, isn't it? This approach in individual technification has obvious weaknesses: the game models in clubs or federations are determined by the first team's game proposal, and when there is a change of coach (or the technical director of the federation), it is common for the whole game model to change.

This means that a player can be developing "technificaNon" work for 3-4 years, training on marking in wide spaces, an open defence prioriNsing sliding and avoiding changing opponents, but when he reaches the first team the coach changes and what he is now asked to do is to play with few defensive spaces, marking in close proximity in small spaces, constant changes of opponents and without sliding. Or if he is a winger, as in the model of play there is hardly any circulaNon, they avoid working with him on finishing from the pivot under the excuse of: "in our model the wingers hardly circulate, they don't need to learn that" . This, in an environment as volaNle as the benches of elite teams where the first coaches do not usually stay in their posts for many years (as well as the technical directors of the territorial or naNonal federaNons), generates unforgivable gaps in the training of players. If the intenNon is to "technify" in this way (I have already said that developing a model of play in the training stages similar to the first team does not, for me, correspond to the qualificaNon of technificaNon), it is very likely that a child or cadet when they reach the first team will have spent several years working on content which, when the coach and the model of play change, will be of very licle use to them. Clubs and federaNons work hard to organise training groups to train this or that defensive system, a specific model of counteracacking or circulaNng play. Are these technificaNon training sessions? Of course not. It can be a very useful Nme dedicated to the player's assimilaNon of a form of play, but it cannot be qualified as technificaNon. So it is not advisable to have a homogeneous form of play in all the teams of the club or federaNon? Of course it is, but they are different processes and of course the individual training of the players cannot be subordinated to a specific model of play. And why is that? Because, as we have already said, it is very likely that throughout his sporNng career he will have to have the resources to play developing very different playing models, given that he will have very different coaches who will possibly ask him for different or even opposite things. For me, a good player is one who has the resources to adapt to different game proposals and this is not achieved by linking his development to a single form of play.

Decision-making and technifica-on

If there is an expression used in the technificaNon of young players, it is "decision making" . If you are in a coaches' forum talking about individual improvement processes and you argue that you do decisionmaking tasks, there is no possible reply. Just naming the term enables the interlocutor to be recognised as someone who does the right job. To the quesNon: how to orientate the technificaNon work with young people, the massive answer is: "towards decision making" . SomeNmes I think that the cogniNve theories, with the informaNon processing model at the forefront, which brought this term to the world of sports training decades ago, have lef us with an insurmountable obstacle: what is a decision-making task, is it possible to perform a simple or complex motor acNon that does not involve decision-making? From the informaNon processing models from which this term originates, any motor task, however simple it may be, involves decision-making. In those models, the acquisiNon of informaNon (percepNon) was followed by the processing of that informaNon (decision making), to conclude with the emission of the response (execuNon). The well-known behavioural scheme was thus established: percepNon-decision-execuNon. Therefore, if the final execuNon was condiNoned by how the informaNon was captured and how it was processed, theorists suggested that working on these perceptual and decisional phases would improve the final response. The contribuNons of Robert Gagné and his cyberneNc model, or of Robert N. Singer more than four decades ago, already typified that any motor acNon, however simple, would involve a decision-making process.

An isolated technical task, for example, shooNng at goal with three unopposed steps, is a motor acNon that also implies a requirement in decision making (processing informaNon to make a response), although in training it is not considered in this way.

I understand that coaches who work on decision-making tasks are looking for their players to know how to choose the best possible opNon from a range of possibiliNes, but what decisions are we geÑng players in training to make? I am going to give a close example of someone we all know: Alex Dujshebaev. I suppose most would agree that Alex has the ability to make good decisions in the game and in parNcular in shooNng at goal. Dujshebaev is just over 185cm tall, but he is able to be effecNve over defenders over two metres thanks to his shot selecNon, his decision making. How does he do it, does he make good decisions, of course he does! So, let's work on his decision making in shooNng, right? I'm afraid it's not that simple. Alex has the ability to score a goal with six or seven different setups: forward, grounded, intermediate, regular, hip, low.... Moreover, he is able to do it with 0, 1, 2 and 3 steps in jump or in support, varying the Nme of launch, the locaNon, the orientaNon and the trajectory (I only analyse his resources for the launch, I do not add here those of the 1x1 not to make the text interminable). MulNply yourself the possibiliNes of finishing given by these factors: set-up, number of steps, release Nme, locaNon, orientaNon, trajectory and support-jump and you will get an explanaNon of why Alex Dujshebaev is one of the best right wingers in the world measuring 185cm. and also, the number of decisions he can make in the launch. But then Alex is a phenomenon at making good decisions, isn't he, so let's train his decision making! No! In a given shooNng situaNon Dujshebaev can make five or six effecNve decisions, but a normal player in the same situaNon can only make one or two decisions, and why? Because he doesn't have Dujshebaev's technical resources. He may even know theoreNcally that he can shoot in more ways, but he does not master them, so he will not be able to make those decisions in the game.

Where am I going with all this?

Decision-making training is useless if before (or at the same Nme), we do not provide the player with a repertoire of technical pacerns that will allow him to make varied, rich, adapNve and effecNve decisions later on! If this is not the case, what I ofen see in decision-oriented "technificaNon" training happens: players repeat the same decisions because they do not have the individual resources to perform other acNons. If a player is only able to throw with two arms, 2-3 steps and a single throw Nme, no macer how many tasks he is given to decide how to throw, he will always use the resource he has and repeat his limited repertoire over and over again, he cannot do anything else. His decisions will be limited to the meagre range of possibiliNes he has, to the resources available to him. So, even if he spends thousands of hours making decisions, they will always be in a very limited range of opNons. Why? Because he can't do anything else. He doesn't have those resources to expand his decisions. Alex Dujshebaev spent (I know he sNll spends) hundreds of hours acquiring those technical pacerns, even though those tasks do not involve decision making. As he acquired these resources, he made more and becer decisions, more complex and adapNve decisions. The problem with many technificaNon processes is that they spend a meagre amount of hours acquiring the technical pacerns and a huge amount of Nme making decisions (we can discuss how to work on these technical pacerns later in another paper).

This example only tries to illustrate what for me is a mistake in the process of technical training with players: we make them constantly make decisions without providing them with previous resources to enrich their repertoire during these decisions. Many coaches of children's, cadet or youth teams spend most of their time doing 2x1, 2x2, 3x2, 3x3, 4x3, 4x4..., making decisions, decisions that in most cases are based on a poor or non-existent technical background. To learn to throw from the hip with a changed foot, to make the countermovement in the action of pivoting or to dissociate the line of the shoulders from the direction of the throw at the end, specific technical work is necessary. No matter how many open decision-making tasks are carried out, these acquisitions are not achieved. Of course, I am not talking here about teaching styles to work on this, you do this training under the style you want: direct command, individualised teaching, guided discovery, problem solving..., but work on the specific content necessary to achieve these learning processes.

The player profile and technification

But... if we do not use the game model, collective play or decision making "in the abstract" as criteria for technifying players, what criteria can be used? Nowadays, in the best training schools in other sports, nobody is considering technifying on the basis of a game model (among other reasons, for the reasons mentioned above), what they are looking for are player profiles that can have the resources to play in different ways. This is what federations and clubs should be working towards in their technification processes, towards specific player profiles, not towards a biased training linked to a specific form of play.

And what does this mean?

That instead of thinking so much about what the model of collective play is going to be like, we should think about the profile of the player that is going to be needed in the coming years at winger, pivot or full-back. And at the same time, let's break down the requirements and consequently, the work content necessary to reach that final product, that ideal profile we are looking for. Once this profile is achieved, he will be able to adapt to play in different ways, given that he has the resources to do so.

Under this approach, the technification process tends to focus on performance factors which, depending on the time and context, are prioritised more or less. It is clear that 50 years ago technification was understood differently from how it is understood now and after another 50 years, new variables will surely emerge to consider in the training of players. But, today, what would a cadet player need to be able to play at the highest level in five or six years? It would be beyond the scope of this article to break down these requirements, but at present, the technification processes with young players are mainly oriented in four directions:

• Individual technique • Decision-making • Physical preparation • Psychological preparation.

In my opinion, two essential contents are missing in this approach: work on motor improvement and work on aspects related to personal and social responsibility.

The first of these is one of the most limiNng in terms of player development and one that I hardly see trained systemaNcally in technical centres. To play handball it is inevitable to use basic motor skills: moving, jumping, catching and throwing, but it also places high demands on the degree of coordinaNon or agility.

How much work does a cadet or youth player have to do in terms of agility or coordinaNon over the course of a season? A winger or a pivot will need to show high performance in these aspects, but are they systemaNsed in the training processes? Finally, factors related to personal and social responsibility (with the team): self-care (nutriNon, lifestyle, etc.), as well as aspects linked to relaNonships in the teams, are contents that should appear in the planning of players' training processes. In short, all high-level coaches allude to the importance of having healthy and responsible changing rooms, but are players systemaNcally trained in these skills, how much Nme is dedicated to this in the cadet or youth categories, or is it expected that personal and social responsibility is acquired by the player by infuse science (I do not want these contents to be confused with those that are usually worked on in the psychological field: moNvaNon, acNvaNon, stress control, posiNve thinking, concentraNon...).

To conclude, I hope that some of these reflecNons will encourage debate on the process of technificaNon in handball, enabling the development of useful programmes for players in the medium and long term. The future of our sport in the coming years will depend to a large extent on the success of these programmes.