I find that there are generally two types of coach in the ‘science’ camp. Those that run with it and those that don’t. It is a wide generalisation, and not one that I really wanted to use but it usually seems to be the old school coaches that think it’s not worth its salt. I didn’t want to use the generalisation because there are so many ‘old school’ coaches that have embraced the science and use it massively to their advantage, so it’s unfair to tar a whole group with the same brush.

It would seem that newer coaches that are coming through are used to having science used in their sport and thus, have less problems using and accepting it. Let’s be honest, you cant watch any sport now without having the stats rammed down your optic nerves at every opportunity.

Now, are those unconvinced coaches right to refute the scientific community? Ask any one of them and they will tell you that ‘they already know what science tells them’. Yes, I know we had more possession. Yes, I know that player X made a number of missed tackles and yes, I have watched numerous games of our opposition and know how they play. These coaches are not interested in being proved right by Science. But are we right just because we use scientific methods? I find that it can substantiate a lot of what you think is right and gives you the confidence in your theories. I also think it can throw in a few peculiarities that keeps you on your toes!

But exactly what is the ‘science’? Is it the stats collected in student sweatshops during live games?(*1) Is it the data collated from GPS units? Is it the information collected from the outrageously expensive software which needs to be coded for hours on end?(*2) There are so many aspects that it is difficult to define ‘science’ in sport. From nutrition to pre-hab, recovery and the statistical game in numbers. It’s the biomechanical, physiological and psychological breakdown of every action within a game, so no wonder it’s such a massive area.

I think the real value of science in sport is using it for an advantage rather than using it for the sake of using it. If an advantage is gained because of it, brilliant, use it. If the data collected just goes into a spreadsheet that doesn’t get looked at, then is there any real use in collecting that data? Sometimes, yes! I always find it quite satisfying when someone asks a question and you have the answer backed up in a quiet corner of a spreadsheet somewhere. In general though, I definitely think its horses for courses. Work out what ‘science’ will help you and then refine the process to suit you. Even if that ‘science’ is just a pen and some paper.

I think that because there are so many different ways to use sport science, it’s difficult to present ‘the perfect way’. Every team is slightly different to the next, every player is slightly different from the previous. From a personal point of view, I find that the easiest way to implement a system is to work from the result backwards. Decide what you want to find out or measure and then set up a system that gives you that result.

What I would say is never be afraid to question a system that you work with. Teams change, players change and rules change! Games develop and if you are still using a system you used 5 years ago, it might be time to give it a spring clean…

*1 – Just a joke! I know they are well looked after in their individual rows of cubicles!

*2 – Just a joke! I know it is reasonably priced for the great job it does!