Henk Kraaijenhof heeft op zijn website een interessant artikel (7 januari 2021) geplaatst over het gat tussen de coach op het sportveld en de sportwetenschap/bewegingswetenschap. In dit artikel gaat hij in op een aantal inhoudelijke bezwaren van wetenschappers over de toepassing van wetenschappelijke inzichten in het dagelijks werk van een coach. Hier een aantal, voor mij interessante punten.
Secondly, in fact, when expert coaches’ perceptions and practices are studied, attention is most commonly placed on what they do, rather than why and how they do it. Very, very true as a matter of fact, it is the what coaches get paid for. And we pay scientist to figure out the why and how, not for the what. Basically very few people care why and how we do things: athletes, clubs, federations, media and the general public don’t really care about the why and how. They just want to see the winners, the victories, the medals and the records.
https://helpingthebesttogetbetter.com/?p=2017
Fourth, generalization is an Achilles heel in scientific thinking. For example, not all coaches or better yet, most of the elite coaches are not mechanical, linear thinkers but realize the complexity in the field they are working in. A coach works directly with human beings. Sport scientists work with subjects, with data and spreadsheets.
https://helpingthebesttogetbetter.com/?p=2017
Sixth, Conservatism to embrace new developments. Yes, mostly coaches have to be conservative and careful to implement new insights. Simply because each change also carries the risk of failure. Since in many sports ‘a coach is only hired to be fired’ and the loss of only a few matches back to back can lead to ending his/her contract. This seldomly applies to sport scientists or doctors in the team. Yes, coaches are right to be conservative. Even stronger, many team members of professional sport teams or federations strongly associate with the success of a team, but seldomly take responsibility for the failure of a team, leave alone getting fired. So where coaches are forced to focus on the short-term result, sport scientists and doctors have the luxury to dissociate themselves from failure and hide behind ‘the long-term’. When a team fails the same person who was part of the success of a team is not responsible for failure. A truly convenient position.
https://helpingthebesttogetbetter.com/?p=2017