Blog

In today’s expanding world of high school sports performance, there are a multitude of tools at our fingertips that can really help our programs stand out. Some of them are technology-related: For instance, velocity-based training devices, online training websites, etc., are all things we can lean on to make our program better. Other ways we can ensure the success of our program are programming-related: APRE, linear periodization, conjugated periodization, cluster sets, and the tier system (just to list a few!). These are all modalities that can fit into programs and, when mastered, help us grow as coaches and ensure the development of our athletes.

I will discuss my program’s process and the step-by-step approach we use to prepare our young athletes to climb the ladder from our “Block 0” program upward, with the goal of reaching our “Block 4 Elite” level. This is the first of several articles in a series that will provide an in-depth and comprehensive look into the process our athletes go through from the lower grades through the end of their freshman year. I give an overview of the program in this article and will go much more in-depth for each portion in upcoming articles.

Invest in the Future with the Talents of Today

Over the last 22 years, I’ve used or (at the very least) researched just about every one of these things with athletes. Having a growth mindset and embracing and growing from both success and failure is, in my humble opinion, a sign of striving for success in any field.

I’m a big believer in self-reflection and evaluation. When I sit and evaluate the multitude of things we have instituted across the years in our program, one specifically jumps out at me as being probably the most important of all. Having a vertical integration plan for athletes with an evidence-based protocol to transition from the sub-freshman level to the varsity level is, without a doubt, the most impactful addition to our program. It has had a great effect on not only the development of strength, speed, and power, but the overall health and well-being of our athletes.

The way we approach the transition from a little-to-no-experience-level athlete coming to us from middle school to a senior athlete very close to full maturity doesn’t have to be complicated. It does, however, have to be organized and done with purpose. The process can vary by situation. If we have exposure to the athletes at the middle school level or below, it is an even greater advantage and opportunity. Yet, even if you don’t see your athletes until the first day of their freshman year, an organized and purposeful plan will help them reach their full potential.

Buying into the Process of LTAD

The first step in the process of vertical integration of your program is developing a rock-solid and trusting relationship with your sub high-school-level coaches and athletes. Every situation I have been in has been quite different in many ways. One factor that remained the same in all was the eagerness of most lower-level coaches to have me involved in the development of their athletes.

A second factor that was also the same was the excitement of parents and their kids to have the opportunity to be submerged in the coaching and culture that they will experience at the high school level. Most of the time (including my current situation), that eagerness has resulted in not only trust in the process, but an attitude of growth that has led to a smooth transition. If your lower-level coaches embrace a growth mindset and are willing to accept the educational process, there is a great opportunity for excellence.

Building a solid relationship with parents and athletes will also lead to a situation that is conducive to your goals. While that trusting and positive educational working relationship is often an end result, in many cases there are obstacles that must be navigated. The most restrictive of these stems from a lack of experience in actually doing what is best for the young athlete.

My biggest obstacle with all three groups that need to be nurtured is without a doubt the process that many call “slow cooking” athletic development. As we all know and understand, we live in an “instant results” world. This situation is no different. A slow and in-depth process of mastering the ordinary aspects before moving to the next step is absolutely the correct path to take, but it isn’t the one that sells.

Parents can PAY outside coaches who will have their 12-year-old doing the same workout as a 17-year-old. Coaches can seek out high-level programs online that will promise immediate success with little or no attention to the details of actual mastery. The challenge for us lies in building a trust that will convince both groups to allow us to do what we all know is best.

The biggest aspect of developing this trust, in my experience, is being present. Reach out to coaches. Learn their process and evaluate what strengths they may already have. The worst thing we can do is walk into a situation (often one that has been that way for many years) and make it seem like they know nothing and do everything wrong. A discouraged coach is that much harder to bring around to your way of doing things.

Once you have a personal relationship started with coaches, they will trust that what you need them to do differently is best practices. Spending time with them in both a co-coaching and teaching/learning environment will bring them into your program much faster than just showing up and demanding change. It’s also very ineffective to simply email a document or program to these coaches. In my experience, much will be lost in translation and very little will be put to use. The bottom line is you need to reach out and build a positive personal relationship first. Once you have that established, the idea of “slow cooking” the process and the skills needed to do so will be embraced and accepted.

Fostering the Trust of Parents and Athletes

The much more difficult job will be selling the idea to parents and athletes. The single biggest issue I have, even in our higher levels, is them accepting and trusting our process. They see athletes doing heavy back squats, jumping on 54” boxes, and doing full Olympic movements and want to do them as well. It’s human nature to want to emulate the people who are already successful. Too often, we don’t realize that the success of those high-level athletes came about because of a process.

Literally on a daily basis in our program, I have to talk about trusting our process and not resisting our programming because it could be done with heavier weights. Parents often don’t understand how adaptations differ and push a higher volume “bodybuilding” type program. They see hypertrophic results and confuse “big muscles” with powerful and explosive ones. Being strong, powerful, and explosive doesn’t always correlate to muscle size.

As is the case in many of my articles, I suggest relationship building and education to combat these obstacles early on. The single biggest limiting factor for our athletes is lack of parental knowledge and support for what constitutes a safe and effective sports performance program. It’s our job to foster those relationships as early as possible. Once you build that trust, parents and athletes alike will turn to you with questions that will shape their beliefs, and not to an outside source motivated by income.

What You Allow Is the Standard

Once we have built the trust of our lower-level coaches, parents, and athletes, we still must implement our program. One philosophy I have come to embrace is that movement matters more than anything else we do in our program. This means that, first and foremost, we want our athletes to move as safely and efficiently as possible in everything we ask them to do. This particular belief really does make as much sense as anything in sports performance. If the athlete has a high level of dysfunction in their technique and movement, it is clearly not the safest situation. Our top priority as a sports performance professional is to do no harm. This means we must not do anything that could lead to a preventable injury.

Nobody would argue that point. If we can all agree on that as a directive for all coaches working with athletes (not just in the weight room, but also in sport), then why are so many coaches ignoring that idea? Why are there too many situations where athletes are not only allowed but instructed to add load to obvious dysfunction? While I fully understand at some point we have to load our athletes, this is a fine line, and a debate for another article. Many, many factors go into how and when each individual coach decides to increase the intensity of the lifts their athletes do. It varies by coach and athlete.

My point here is that, at the very least, I would encourage all programs to implement a blocking classification protocol with an evidence-based plan for progression. This will ensure that all athletes have the opportunity to gain mastery of basic movements (which will take care of a good portion of dysfunction on its own) prior to adding load/intensity to those movements. Hopefully, coaches will include movement screening or various evaluations within their programming, which will give even more information to the coach and athlete on potential movement issues that they then can work on. Within our program, we focus on these things in an effort to ensure our athletes have a mastery of movement and technique that will lead them to the highest possible level of training they can achieve while leaving as little as possible on the table.

Phase One Transition Program

The first step toward this mastery begins when the student-athlete comes into our program for the first time. At York Comprehensive High School, we have a middle school strength and conditioning class. This is a great advantage for us. I am able to work with those coaches to have our athletes prepared with the basics when they come to me. The vast majority of our Block 0 program is done at the middle school in these classes. In my previous position, I ran a well-attended sports performance camp through our Rec year-round, as well as a summer strength camp in the weight room. Both of these situations were good ones and I encourage everyone to develop similar programs.

The Block 0 program continues in the spring and summer for those athletes. The middle school athletes who attend our after-school program in the spring will regress and progress in preparation for the summer transition. Once we hit summer, I spend the first three weeks reviewing our basic movements and evaluating the status of each individual athlete.

This is the time we begin the transition to everything we will do moving forward. Variations of each movement are broken down, taught in detail, and practiced over and over. We detail how we use the tier system, how the clock and set times work, and every other aspect involved. Our main goal during this time is making sure as many Block 0 athletes as possible are prepared for the transition to Block 1. My next article will go in-depth into the actual details of this phase.

Earning the Right to Train Block 1

The goal of our transition period in the spring and summer is to have our athletes ready for the climb to our Block 1 “New Lifter” level. This level runs just like all our higher levels do, but with programming differences. We use three “tiers,” although it is a definite “modified” tier system.

Tier 1 is normally a “dynamic” tier for our higher block athletes. It is where we would do our more power- and speed-based movements. This is one area that we have modified for sure. We still program movements such as a loaded jump in Tier 1 with our Block 1 athletes. The main modification is that we also include strength and even volume-based movements.

Our thought process is that most of our Block 1 athletes lack strength and size, so we focus on developing that strength to the point where our power-based movements will be more effective. A weak athlete will struggle with force production. So, while we still do some “power” movements (typically pulls and loaded jumps), our main focus is not in that area. We particularly focus on developing strength in the upper back and traps, which the athletes will need for more advanced movements later on.

Tier 2 is always our “strength” tier. This is where our athletes perform our three main types of strength-building movements: trap bar pulls, squats, and bench presses. In our tiers, we always have an A, B, C, and D movement. Typically, in our modified system, D is either spot or rest. In Tier 2, A is always our main movement or variation. B is an auxiliary antagonist movement and C is some sort of mobility or “prehab” movement. A typical week of our Tier 2 session for our Block 1 athletes looks something like this:

Goals of Block 1

Our philosophy of “slow cooking” our athletes does not change even as we transition to Block 1. We absolutely program volume and intensity in this block. It is, however, a distant second to our two main objectives, which are mastery of technique and teaching bar speed.

In the book “The System,” Coach Johnny Parker discusses the training he received from Coach Goldstein, a former Eastern Bloc coach and master of the “Soviet System.” If you have not read this book, I urge you to purchase it at once and dive in. One of the pillars of the Soviet system is making sure the majority of the program for athletes is done in an intensity range of 70-85%, moving the bar as fast as possible, but with great technique. Too much time spent below 70% will not be enough to increase strength effectively, while too much time above 85% will result in strength gains, but not the type of explosive strength that translates to sport. We call that the “sweet spot” and we preach to our athletes that bar speed trumps all.

We use Block 1 as the time to begin to develop moving the bar with great speed and technique. We spend about half of our volume in the 50-59% relative intensity (RI) range during this time. The other half is split between 60-69% and 70-79% RI ranges. As the year goes on, we slowly begin to slide the intensity and volume from low to high. By May of the first year, as our Block 1 athletes prepare to transition to “Block 2 Novice,” we may be down to 20% of volume in the 50-59% RI range, the majority in the 70-79% RI range, and 5-10% in the 80-85% RI range.

Our No. 1 coaching cue for bar speed came directly from a phone conversation with Coach Parker, where he talked about not needing an accelerometer back in the day to know they were moving the bar fast. Instead, he listened for the “plate clang” and that told him his guys were moving it. “Make the plates clang” is something I say 100 times a day. I think it is an excellent cue to get our young athletes to understand bar speed.

The final piece of our Block 1 program is a slow and steady increase in volume. Our Block 1 athletes use a modified version of 5-3-1 for the three strength movements that I “stole” from a good friend of mine, Jeremy Evans. I made slight modifications to fit what we do from a volume programming standpoint. In our programming, we use volume as our first consideration for forcing progressive overload.

I have a system for the number of reps of volume per month we program our athletes to do in squats, presses, pulls, Olympic movement (variations), and posterior chain movements (again, to be discussed in a later article in this series). I have a number I want each block to reach in the last month of the school year. I count backward, decreasing 5-10% each month until I reach month one. I then use Prilepin’s Chart to select the proper set/rep numbers and fill in our tiers. We “wave” weeks with high, low, big, and moderate percentages of monthly volume and “wave” days within each of those weeks. High, moderate, and low are based on a set percentage of the weekly total volume count.

Our Block 1 athletes begin with 500 total reps of volume for month one and peak at +/-700 heading into the sport pre-season. We divide those reps up by exercise and begin with 24% squat variations, 20% pulls, 20% pushes, and the rest loaded jumps, Olympic variations (lots of pulls), and PC work. One thing to note is that we only count intensity of 50% or greater. We still shoot for a 2-1 pull-to-push ratio, at least. We just use body weight and band movements to reach that ratio. As the year progresses, if we notice we are lacking as a group in a certain area (bench press, for example), we can slide the percentage to address those issues with more volume. Our Block 1 athletes use partial movements and variations and progress to full movements as they advance blocks.

Last, but not least, we test our athletes when we feel they have reached the point of movement mastery and a promotion to Block 2 is a possibility. I will cover our blocking system later. Basically, we use a combo of body frame, body weight, and strength ratios in our three strength movements to recommend promotion. Movement mastery is also a deciding factor.

Our Block 1 athletes must achieve a combined 80% of the following “goals” to be eligible for promotion.

Next Steps and Phases

This is a very basic outline of our transition plan for new athletes coming into our program. As I stated, I will add depth to this outline with future articles in which I will go into more specific examples of how we use everything from our tier system to volume and relative intensity. I will break down each step as well and expand on our athlete blocking classification system and how we institute it. I hope this article gives you some insight into the thought process we use when introducing our athletes to our sports performance program.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Does your youth sports club preach player development and follow through with its promises? Or does your club toss “player development” around as an alluring phrase to hypnotize parents into joining your organization?

If there is anything you should get from this article, it is to take player development seriously and uphold it meticulously, as well as take radical action to ensure your players develop in a well-rounded fashion.

“Player development” is a buzzworthy slogan in the youth sports world that is widely broadcasted, yet rarely executed. Clubs that practice player development year-round and for the life of a child athlete’s career are few and far between.

What Is Player Development?

Let me first dive into what player development is not: It’s not about coaches and clubs.

Rather, player development focuses on the young human first and the construction of the complete player—one who is physically, technically, and tactically sound. Adding on to that, it is also one who is mentally resilient and prepared for the oscillations of life.

From the physical side of player development, are your athletes strong, powerful, fast, agile, and conditioned to withstand the demands of the game and a year-round schedule that is more rigorous than that of the pros?

Technically speaking, are your athletes sharp with sport-specific movements, especially under pressure and applied in a game situation? This could be a basketball player dribbling their way out of a double team, or a soccer player beating a defender one-versus-one, or a baseball pitcher throwing three strikes. Do you reinforce these skills weekly, and do you hold players accountable to practice on their own?

In the tactical corner, can they move off the ball, anticipate the next play, understand the role of their position, and think creatively without coaching cues from the sideline?

And looking to the mental side, are they able to pull themselves out of hardship, tackle adversity with poise, use nerves as fuel to perform at a high level, and be forgiving of themselves for their mistakes?

The physical, technical, tactical, and mental pieces perform an integrated dance when true player development is the focus of clubs.

If you are a coach who preaches an attacking formation, how do you expect players to run at top speeds off the ball and make lightning diagonal runs? They need the physical piece, too.

If you are a coach who preaches perfect passes without opposition, how do you expect players to pass and move under pressure? They need the tactical piece, too.

If you are a coach who preaches risk-taking with technical skills, how do you expect players to be confident in their approach if you berate them for their mistakes at training sessions? They need the mental piece, too.

If you are a coach who preaches sharp combination play, how do you expect players to be skilled on the ball if you don’t reinforce skill mastery at your training sessions? They need the technical piece, too.

To that end, it all matters.

Coaches do their players a tremendous disservice when they fail to fill the player development buckets of physical, technical, tactical, and mental equally.

I understand that the noise of wins and rankings gets in the way, but we all need to remind ourselves daily why we coach: to help youth athletes become their best selves on and off the field.

Expounding further, this goes beyond sports and extends far into the long term: a college player lasts for a finite moment in time, but a human lasts longer—a human who can accept failure with ease, a human who can thrive in the competitive workforce, a human who can lean into creativity to grow something magical, a human who takes care of their health after sport ends.

Here are 10 things clubs should do to practice player development.

Refer out to Experts

This much I know: It takes an army to develop a player. A team coach, technical coach, and strength coach are just a few of the experts involved in the player development process—no one person can do it all. Sure, referring out to another niche expert might be a harsh reminder that you do not know it all, but don’t let it be a hit to your ego.

As an example, a coach referring out to a strength and conditioning professional to improve their team’s speed mechanics and ability to handle eccentric load is a step in the right direction. I have seen a few clubs do this, and these are the clubs that are respected for providing their players with not only value, but great care. Another initiative I have seen recently that guides players with the mental piece is a club reaching out to a sport psychologist to give a presentation on performance anxiety, and how to deal with failure.

Even if you do not make money or profit by recommending the strength coach, physical therapist, or sport psychologist down the street, you provide a tremendous service to your young player. Parents take notice too. When clubs and coaches invest in resources and realize it is valuable for the long run, even though they may cringe at the cost, everyone benefits. Most importantly, the young players blossom.

Have a Holistic-Purpose Sport Technology

Sport technology can be useful if applied properly, but it can be detrimental if it’s only invested in for the sake of having cool offerings to splash on social media. Clubs that have genuine intentions with sport technology examine the data first before looking at the likes on Instagram.

You need advanced technology for optimal player development. It can tell you valuable information about managing fatigue and adjusting training sessions, so your players perform at capacity. However, technology is useless if it is only used to take a photo of a leg sensor on a 10-year-old for Instagram, rather than having the coaching staff apply it. It is tantamount to buying a luxurious car without having a mechanic to maintain it and keep it functioning.

The same goes for youth sport technology: invest in it with the purpose of applying the data to tweak your pitch and gym sessions that training week, not for the sake of showing parents your club has more products than the club next door.

Don’t Focus on Wins and Rankings

Take it from a woman who recruits for college, wins and rankings matter far less these days. Of course, back when colleges traveled to showcases more and attended the top tournaments in the country, kids had to be on a team with a high ranking. But now?

More college programs operate under the ID camp model, where players travel to them, pay a fee, and get evaluated for 1–3 days. More college coaches are moving into this model because they do not want to fork out the travel expenses, they can stay at their home base, and the talent comes to them with checks in hand.

While a fraction of college coaches still go to top tournaments, it does not hurt to be on a winning team. However, it is no longer everything, nor is it a make-or-break factor.

Can these kids go to an ID camp and leave a remarkable impression upon the coaches? Do these kids know the game? Do these kids present all buckets of the total player—physical, technical, tactical, and mental? Moreover, can they apply their skills? Are they physically fit to handle the demands of competition and outrun other potential recruits? Are they mentally tough to prove themselves in a single day on campus?

If clubs focus on player development, players will show themselves well at ID camps. Is that not the end goal here?

Encourage Other Sports and Physical Activities

There are a plethora of coaches out there who remember that kids are kids, and they are meant to be exposed to a variety of movement, sports, and physical activities. This is not just from a physical development standpoint, either. These coaches realize that a variety of activities is good for a kid’s mental and social health, too.

A study from the American Journal of Sports Medicine shows that kids involved in multiple sports who participated in more games still experienced fewer injuries. Of course, I could list an archive of studies on the topic, but we all know the research is not new.

We also cannot forget that load monitoring plays a pivotal role here if a kid chooses to play one sport. Yet, most clubs don’t do the strength and conditioning piece, so how do we expect these kids to handle the chronic loads and recover effectively? The caveat is if kids opt to do a single sport, does the coach truly encourage fatigue monitoring? Do they incorporate strength, balance, spatial awareness, and other basic motor skills into their sessions?

Video 1 (here). Crawling is not just for elementary school kids, but for all athletes. The decision of how much and when is up to the coach, and that will vary based on needs.

It is a tough, yet fair question to ask, and it takes a little creativity and preparation from the coach’s end. Kids need a diverse palette of movement to build neural connections in their brain and enhance motor skills, so let us provide them with that.

Give Equal Playing Time

Clubs that give equal playing time to child athletes practice all of the components of player development all at once. Game play is the best way for kids to explore their sport beyond rehearsed practice sessions. When kids are on the field playing the sport they love or in the gym exploring movement, they are learning how to problem-solve, move, sprint, make mistakes, apply their skills, and more.

Going beyond learning the game through playing time, can you imagine what this does for a player mentally? Can you see them beaming with confidence? Can you seem them smiling when they are out there with their teammates? Can you seem them shining with joy when they score a goal?

The coaches who realize that the local U10 tournament championship is trivial compared to the happiness of the kids are the ones doing player development right. The coaches who expose young ones to a lot of minutes, positions, and scenarios are the ones looking out for the longevity of their players.

Moreover, it pains me to see 8-, 9-, and 10-year-olds sitting on the bench discouraged, disoriented, and confused as the rest of their teammates are out there playing. What is worse is that these kids develop a nasty taste in their mouth for the game and wonder if they will ever be good enough.

Sure, the “better” kids’ parents might get mad that their 8-year-old’s team is not winning games, but I promise a college scholarship will not suffer because of this. Player development is a long-term process, and setting kids up for successearly by exposing them to the game as much as possible ensures they soak in an understanding of the game.

Clubs that provide equal playing time at the young ages understand it is paramount for kids to develop physically, technically, tactically, and mentally through equal playing time.

Guide Players Through College Recruiting

Following through on promises of college recruiting preparation is another way clubs practice player development. After all, most of these players and parents have the end goal of a college scholarship and evolving into an even better player after high school is over. This is the social piece of player development that clubs often overlook, and it’s the most critical.

As a college recruiter myself, it is easy to tell which athletes went into the process prepared and educated by their coaches. These are the players who reached out to us early, drafted an edited and professional email, and stayed in touched with us for feedback relentlessly. Sadly, most young athletes are not even taught how to draft an email, yet clubs promise college recruiting pathways for their players.

The clubs that walk the walk with college prep value their players’ long-term dreams to play at a high level.

Increase Players’ Strengths

The best coaches see the genius in their players and amplify their talents to bring them out during competition.

Reminding kids of their strengths consistently—what they bring to the collective group, their role on the team, and their talents—has a way of boosting confidence and hyping kids up. While it is important to work on weaknesses and instruct players on what they can improve, it is another thing to berate them, tell them they’re terrible, and not provide them with guidance on how to improve.

Not every kid will be the aggressive one. Not every kid will be the fast one. Not every kid will be the play-maker. Not every kid will have it all. But what coaches can do is hammer home to their players what their strengths are so they can further grow and nurture them.

Make Injury Prevention a Priority

The health of the players affects whether or not they can continue to develop, and clubs that blend in the physical piece of player development make injury prevention a priority. They execute dynamic warm-ups before training sessions and games, consistently reinforce strength and mobility work, and make it mandatory to stretch and recover after games.

The standard for injury prevention training is set by the coach, who creates a culture that requires doing the small things to stay healthy for the long haul.

It can be something as simple as motivating kids to buy an in-house pull-up bar:

Video 3 (here). Assisted pull-ups allow anyone to train at home. Having a pull-up bar at home reminds athletes and even coaches that training doesn’t need to be away from home to be effective.

Requiring players to keep a foam roller, mini band, and nutritious snack in their bag during tournaments also goes a long way.

Something as efficient as performing an on-field strength session that attacks all muscle groups of the body so kids continue to get stronger is also a good idea:

Video 4 (here). On the field, core work is easy and adding a ball to the equation enhances the training. Any athlete can benefit from this partner-assisted exercise.

You can also program maximal sprints with a long recovery to ensure kids are reaching top speeds during practices:

These are easy actions that the best clubs take to physically develop their players, and they need to be mandatory.

It warms my heart to see coaches welcome their young players at every practice session with excitement, exuberance, and passion. Making kids feel important, loved, and valued the moment they show up to the field instills trust, and provides them with an escape from the stressors of daily life. Even it is something as small as putting a bow in your hair to match your young athletes during their sessions, it means the world to them that you are relatable and welcoming.

Video 6 (here). Lower level drills and games are fun for everyone, not just the athletes. Incorporate participation when you feel it enhances the learning process.

To that end, infuse practices with goofiness, laughter, smiles, and high-fives. The mental side of player development begins with providing your players with great care and putting them in an environment where they feel safe, pumped up to play, and welcomed.

I cannot for the life of me understand a coach who is emotionally abusive, makes kids cry, and yells and points in their faces. This is so incredibly far from player development because it ignores the most critical piece: the mental.

Building players up, giving them a sense of community, and ensuring they are comfortable the moment they arrive is key.

Promote Free Play and Creative Thinking

Seeing coaches get out of the way is refreshing because it allows kids to play, be autonomous, and enjoy the sport for what it is. Not only can they learn to be independent thinkers, they can tap into the creative corners of their brains to better flow along with the spontaneous nature of the game.

Stopping play every 10 seconds to bark out a coaching cue that goes in one ear and out the other can prove to do more harm than good for young ones, especially after they have been told what to do all day in school and by their parents.

Club-wide free play nights are an excellent way to ensure kids run around uncoached and give them a break from the structured, rehearsed tactical drills. However, there needs to be more free play encouraged besides clubs having just a set night. This can start with the coach speaking to their players about weekly pick-up games in the neighborhood, educating the parents about why something like this is critical, or telling kids to create their own drill, skill pattern, or game each week.

As an example, my players came up with this awesome game of 1v1 dodgeball:

Video 7 (here). One-on-one or 1 v 1 doesn’t need to be actual soccer. Global athletic development is about competition and athleticism, not only sport-specific skills.

There were no instructions, rules, or limitations given. They were given a bag of dodgeballs and were free to create any game they desired. The result? They had a blast.

I understand that it is tough to bite your tongue and keep from sounding important and acting as the authority. I also understand it is hard to put the practice plan away and give kids your power. However, for the sake of developing their brains into magicians rather than robots, it is worth you just watching and staying quiet.

Every behavioral change from parents and players starts at the top—with clubs and coaches not only setting the expectation and sticking to it, but simply educating weekly and reinforcing the importance of creative play.

Make Player Development Your Standard

Player development is beautiful, but it will come with costs, which means wins might suffer, parents might criticize, and money might be lost. But if player development is what clubs preach—and value—they will make it happen. I have seen few walk the walk, so let us be grateful for those who do not use player development as a sexy catchphrase, but rather, as a standard practice.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

During my career, I have found the high jump to be the most difficult event to coach in track and field. Narrowing the discussion to the jumping events, three factors determine success in the long jump: takeoff speed, takeoff angle, and the height of center of mass at takeoff. The long jump also has the least technical demand. The triple jump depends on similar factors, and if a coach is patient, an athlete can progress through it with minimal technical issues. What makes the high jump a bigger challenge are the curved nature of the approach and the rotations that result because of it.

Before progressing, it is necessary to identify the immense influence Boo Schexnayder’s teachings have had on my development as a track coach and, in this specific case, training for the high jump. His resource, “The High Jump: Technique and Teaching,” is a must-own. I watch it before every season, and a new light bulb goes on in my head every single time. I also refer to my seven-page outline of this resource numerous times each year.

Along with the teaching of Coach Schexnayder and others, I’ve found developing the following essentials to be most effective for developing young high jumpers. Before we dig into those, however, I must first lay out some general groundwork:

• • Anytime you see an asterisk (*), it means that you should refer to Coach Schexnayder’s high jump resource for further information.

• Most of our high jumpers utilize a 10-step approach, although I think you could make a solid argument for the use of eight steps. Ultimately, the approach length is about athlete comfort and strengths. In terms of step numbers moving forward, a 10-step approach is obviously 1–10. However, to remain consistent in communicating with all high jumpers, an eight-step approach is numbered 3–10.*

The Start

With high school athletes, I am an advocate of the crouch or rollover start.* I have a theory that athletes who are “elastic” favor the rollover method because of the movement prior to the first step, which allows them to utilize energy via the stretch-shortening cycle. I find that high jumpers gravitate to this method, and it makes sense, as the majority would be classified as elastic-based instead of strength-based. For example, if Ben Johnson and Andre De Grasse did any of the jumps, my guess is Johnson would prefer the crouch and De Grasse the rollover.

I am generally a laid-back person, but during the teaching and rehearsal of the start, I am extremely intense. The start is the place where novice athletes tend to be lazy in any of the jump approaches. Variation will occur in any approach, and the most consistent parts of the approach should be the beginning and the end. In reality, the end somewhat takes care of itself because the athlete will steer to where they feel comfortable taking off. The highest variation tends to reside in the middle, and in order to minimize that variation, the start must be consistent. This is why I prefer the rollover or crouch start as opposed to a run-in. With the run-in, there are more steps, and more steps increase the chance for variation.

General acceleration mechanics should be followed during the start and initial steps. I look for a gradual push to vertical posture during the first three steps in a 10-step approach. However, during various drills and runs away from the high jump runway, I challenge athletes to push to vertical in a wide variety of steps to challenge coordination and general awareness of posture.

Initiation of the Curve

Because of my personal experience in the event, I was well aware of the importance of running the curve and the resulting lean created, which is necessary for quality rotation over the bar. One of the most common problems for athletes is that they abandon their lean as they come closer to the bar. Early in my career, my focus for the lean was during steps 8–10 in the approach, but encouraging athletes to “stay in it” did not yield great results. It was not until I was primarily tasked with coaching jumpers that I finally took Gary Winkler’s advice and “looked upstream” in regard to this issue. By emphasizing a quality initiation of the curve and rehearsing it A LOT, you significantly increase an athlete’s ability to maintain the lean.

According to Schexnayder, the transition to the curve should begin with a slight turn of the hips during push-off in step 4. Step 5 initiates the curve and should travel outside of the line of travel. This establishes the lean. Step 6 establishes the curve and should land back on the line of travel. Verbal emphasis and demonstrating to the athlete how to run a smooth curve and not a “post route” tend to help with the problem of cutting the curve during steps 5 and 6.*

The video below showcases a drill we use to practice curve initiation. We do it on the high jump runway, but the beauty of it is that you can complete it in any open space (such as a school cafeteria or hallway during the winter months). You can construct a practice curve with chalk or cones*, or you can use the center circle on a soccer field. I have 10-step-approach athletes run back five steps from the start of the curve to establish their starting mark, and we rehearse steps 6–10 depending on space. Objects can be placed in the necessary locations for athletes to simultaneously rehearse the shifting visual focus during the event.*

Arm Action in the Curve

One common error I find with novice jumpers is a decrease in the range of motion of the limbs. In general, the range of the inner arm will be smaller than the outer arm during the curve, and this should seamlessly correspond with the contralateral leg to preserve proper timing. However, many jumpers shrink the range severely during steps 6–9. I have even seen jumpers whose arms are bent nearly 90 degrees and locked at their sides during this entire portion.

I am a “least intervention necessary” coach, so trying to find a successful verbal cue and providing visual feedback would be my first steps. A steady diet of circle runs, half circle runs, and serpentine runs (my favorite) utilizing the same cue would accompany this. I have recently found success with some athletes using mini barriers (mini hurdles, cones, etc.) during half circle runs and in the curve of a full approach (hat tip to fellow high school coach Kevin Ritter).

It is a challenge to do this with a large group during the full approach, as the barriers need to be moved from rep to rep, but it is doable with reference chalk marks and video after a jumper has rehearsed the approach enough to establish consistency during a session. The mini barriers pose a hazard to the feet, and the arm mechanics tend to open up.

Lean into the Plant

Earlier, I mentioned failing to lean as a common error for beginning jumpers during the last few steps. I believe one of these four things cause it:

1. 1. The jumper abandons the lean because they are moving at a velocity they can’t handle. In this case, move the jumper’s starting mark forward and encourage them to be more “controlled” during the approach. I do not like to use the word “slower” because it tends to cause the jumper to accelerate uniformly and then slow down abruptly at the end. Nobody enjoys the result of a crossbar wedged into their back!

1. 1. The jumper has a fear of not being able to land in the pit. A steady diet of short approach jumps (possibly adding a ramp) may help instill confidence.

1. 1. The jumper is not comfortable in flight. Earlier this year, I almost smacked myself in the forehead when I heard Dan Pfaff speak about jumpers inhibiting their abilities due to their fear of flight. Because of this, they attempt to find a solution that will make flight feel safer, such as ceasing to lean inward. In their mind, this will make it more likely for them to land safely.
      Simple popover drills may be just what novice high jumpers need to develop comfort with flight, says @HFJumps. Share on XI had sworn off drilling simple popovers because I felt there was not much connection to the actual event. However, despite all my creative interventions, I know the brain is an overprotective mother and will do whatever is necessary to keep the athlete safe. Popovers may be just what they need to develop comfort, and it makes sense to implement them in early season programming. I do not foresee this issue going away, due to the lack of free play and increase in specialization our youth are exposed to prior to high school. Unless something changes on this front, I expect the collective proprioception and coordination of adolescents to continue to decline.
   2. The jumper failed to initiate the curve properly. It is hard to maintain a lean if you don’t do what is needed to create it. See the previous section.

1. If you are still having difficulty getting a jumper to lean in all the way to the plant and be vertical at toe-off, video 4 below may be helpful. The bar in front provides a constraint that can help the jumper get into proper position.

Steering Ability

As much as we would like all approaches to be identical, they simply are not. A high jumper will find a way to steer to a “safe” takeoff spot, and if they do not, it is common to see them run through the plant and head back to the start (I rarely see this happen in the horizontal jumps). So, if they are going to steer to safety, why is it important to enhance steering ability?

I view it as supplemental insurance. Practicing steering with drills that have a higher degree of variability may help the jumper better focus on the ideal takeoff mark in competition. In other words, the range where the jumper feels safe at takeoff should not be the standard for where takeoff should occur. A tighter window is desired. Steering drills are only limited by an individual’s creativity. Here are a few I use that you can close with an actual jump or a scissor kick.

1. 1. • Start at a random spot and run into an attempt.

1. 1. • Start at a predetermined or random spot and skip or run-run-jump into an attempt.*

1. 1. • Insert 1–2 exaggerated bounds within the approach and complete an attempt.

1. 1. • Start at the takeoff spot, run away from it on the curve, and turn back to run into the attempt on the coach’s clap. I brought this to the jumps after utilizing a similar version in coaching the hurdles. I call this “out and back on a clap.”

Note that these options are less than 10% of the jumping we do. Whether it is “normal” short or full approach work, novices get a high degree of variation on each attempt because they are novices. They need to practice decreasing the variation of their “normal” work by practicing “normal” work. You should use the “fancy” drills listed above sparingly. We often use them as a break in the monotony, as athletes tend to find their challenge enjoyable.

Approach Rhythm

A quality approach has a rhythm that gradually quickens. This implies that the jumper is gradually accelerating. There should be no abrupt changes in the tempo of ground contact. The most common error I see with approach rhythm in high jump at the high school level is starting out with a very fast tempo and slowing as the jumper progresses into takeoff. Increasing momentum does not exist in this scenario as the jumper is not gaining weight during an approach.

I do not have a magical answer to improving the rhythm in the approach other than demanding full engagement during approach rehearsal. It cannot be an aimless run, yet it is common to see this at any high school track meet. I purposely work with our horizontal group during a segment where our high jumpers work on approach rehearsal. During this time, I keep an eye on the high jumpers, making sure they show maximum intent. It is easy to be engaged when the coach is around, but, ultimately, they need to be held accountable as individuals.

We don’t just address rhythm during approach work in our program. It is essential in almost everything we do. I encourage readers to follow the work of Andreas Behm and Chris Parno, as they have great ideas for implementing rhythm into training sessions.

Curvilinear and Coordination Considerations

Absorbing and redirecting energy is paramount in any sport, and high jumpers must be able to do it on a curve. In regard to training, a simple way to prepare the foot-ankle complex to be able to handle these demands is to perform activities on curve(s). The intensity of each activity can be in line with the training theme for the day. Here is a compilation of activities that athletes can do on the bend:

It is important to note that high jumpers should still do the linear version of these drills. On the flip side, I feel sprinters, hurdlers, and long/triple jumpers should perform the curvilinear version to enhance robustness and better handle the curve sprinting they will be exposed to!

I am always looking for ways to challenge an athlete’s coordination, and asking them to complete an attempt from the other side (conjugate jumps) does this really well. We start with short approaches and a scissor kick. As athletes develop comfort, they move back and may even attempt actual flops. The ratio of great to good side jumps (we don’t use the word “bad”) can be anywhere from 1:1 to 10:1, depending on the time of the season. There are health benefits to being more balanced, and it also serves as a way to identify athletes who may be successful in the triple jump!

Balanced Tendon Training

Over the years, I have had sprinters and hurdlers, as well as long and triple jumpers, who, although they weren’t feeling great physically heading into a competition, produced very good (sometimes phenomenal) results. I have never had this happen with a high jumper. The following is a consideration for all athletes, but maybe it carries more weight with high jumpers.

Developing tendon stiffness is a common goal of training that I hear about in a wide variety of sport circles. It makes sense. We see elite performers who barely bend and have ground contact times flirting with zero, yet they produce an almost unimaginable rebound off the ground. Therefore, we design training activities (sprinting, plyometrics, explosive lifts, etc.) that emphasize the development of this quality. I will be the first to admit I have probably gone too far on the spectrum with this in the past. Developing tendon stiffness should be balanced with enhancing tendon health. This podcast with Dr. Keith Baar helped me connect some dots in regard to this balance.

While we do want our athletes to bounce like Tigger, we must take into account that genetics play a big role in that ability. It is similar to the high school football coach who sees the huge and freakishly fast football players who make their living on Sunday and then wants to transform his athletes into them. The most common way is to attempt to get players to physically look the part by spending hours in the weight room, but that can happen at the expense of speed not coming along for the ride.

High jumpers tend to be at risk for tendinopathy due to the torsion involved in the event. By implementing activities that promote tendon health, athletes will have a better chance to feel their best, which will allow them to perform their best.

The Necessity of Triangulation

High school facilities are anything but consistent. Because of this, it is even more important to control the controllable. One way is to ensure an accurate starting mark. If your athletes don’t triangulate their approach, they open the door to more variability.

The image below shows two standards (rectangles) and a crossbar. An example of a possible triangulation (in feet) is given using the Pythagorean triple: 12, 16, 20. Many of our jumpers’ bottom check marks are 12 feet. Prior to competition, our athletes use this triangle to pull through to their top check mark (where they start).

One athlete holds the start of the tape AND 48 feet at the intersection of the crossbar and near standard. Another holds 12 feet directly out from the standard (bottom check mark). A third athlete holds the tape at 28 feet, forming a line perpendicular to the line out from the standard. Once the triangle is set with the tape measure taut, a piece of tape is placed at 12 feet and 28 feet. Then, each jumper can measure their distance back to their starting mark from the bottom check mark while ensuring the tape passes over the piece of tape at 28 feet.

1. In addition, coaches and athletes should be sure that the line that they pull out from the standard to establish the bottom check mark is in line with the crossbar. In other words, the intersection of the crossbar with the far and near standard would be collinear to the bottom check mark if viewed from above.

An Emphasis on Consistency

While this article is far from a comprehensive guide to coaching the high jump, I hope it has emphasized the critical items needed for consistent jumping, and it has given some options to progress to in programming once you build a solid foundation. Above all else, remember to keep your high jumpers happy and healthy!

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

By Graham Eaton

If coaching is equal parts art and science, then working well with other coaches on the staff is crucial. Coaches who are flexible with each other will make their team better. This can promote athlete buy-in because of the visible connections and communication between all coaches.

There is a dizzying array of choices when it comes to exercises and programming. I have ideas about what is necessary, and so do our jumps and weight room coaches. It is up to us to communicate often and compromise as needed to keep the athletes healthy and happy. I really feel that our goal is their performance, not pushing our own agenda. We need to keep our egos in check.

First off, I don’t think it is my job as a high school coach to reinvent the wheel or make my mark by devising cutting-edge exercises and training methodology. I think the good stuff is already out there. It is my job to sift through things and implement them in ways that make sense. Sometimes it can feel like I have to be a “Jack of all trades, master of none” type figure. Thankfully, I have a great team of coaches to help me.

There is always something new and exciting in coaching and you should approach it with a mix of curiosity, openness, and skepticism. When coaches see a new concept, new information, or new exercise on social media, they often have strong emotions, whether positive or negative. You can either embrace it fully or be threatened by it and ultimately reject it.

When listening to podcasts, reading articles, or attending clinics, I sometimes come across a really cool idea and concept and, quite frankly, I don’t know what to do with it. If it isn’t something I am all-in on, then I just won’t use it. This doesn’t mean that I regret having encountered the information or that after some ruminating it won’t become useful. Sometimes, another coach’s situation just doesn’t pertain to me and mine doesn’t pertain to them.

Chances are that you and your team of coaches are already doing some things really well. Also, like our team, you may perceive shortcomings that you need to address. Change is necessary for growth. It also isn’t good if your program constantly goes through massive overhauls every year because you feel the pull of the latest trends. Both instability and stagnation can be harmful to a program.

At some point, you and the other coaches need to adhere to a set of training mantras or principles that you believe in and just get better at those with a nearly imperceptible rate of change. If you teach the key concepts and foundations on the track and runway and in the weight room, then everything else is just logistics with some chaos sprinkled in to motivate. I am very lucky to work closely with two coaches who have clear goals and beliefs.

Something for Everyone

At Triton, we prioritize speed because we had a drought of speed and decided to address this. Once speed is present, it becomes easier to train the other energy systems. Track isn’t just running fly 10s. The track events are a harmonious blend of the ATP, lactate, and aerobic systems. Race modeling and aerobic work are important, but having lungs and a plan is no good without some wheels. Trust me, with our population, I am willing to let some things take a back seat.

If speed is 1A, then movement is 1B. I try to utilize warm-ups that get all athletes ready for all their coaches. I don’t think most high school athletes have an abundance of experience with motor skills. Recesses are shorter, gym classes are becoming less frequent, and video games are all-encompassing. Jeremy Frisch has inspired me with his balance of structure, play, and experimenting. Early in the season, we spend a lot of time using warm-ups to assess abilities and readiness. I think if you coach a large group, you have to calibrate to a certain level what defines a typical athlete in your program.

I do not usually come with an exact plan for warm-ups. I know coaches reading this might raise an eyebrow or cringe at this. I have been asked for an exact list of my warm-up “drills” before, and I am usually not sure how to respond. I am not a Type A coach, with templates and lists of every warm-up task I am going to do in every cycle of training. I enjoy thinking on my feet and I find that if I am overly structured, I limit opportunities and creativity both in myself and my athletes. Track is very linear, obsessive-compulsive, and rehearsed when compared to other sports. A block start is practiced over and over, whereas one play in football can have several different options.

I do have a rough outline, as well as a purpose for why I do these things. My rationale might not match up with another coach in a different situation. I do a few of each and repeat, progress, and regress as needed.

This is enough of a plan for me to prevent me from becoming unhinged. I want my athletes to become more complete athletes and they need variety to accomplish this.

The starting point for most of our drills is Dr. Ken Clark’s three-bucket position. Imagine a bucket of water on your head, thigh, and toe, and it elicits a pretty good starting point posturally. I like this isometric because it develops hip flexor strength and also provides a reference point for later items like dribbles and wickets.

Frans Bosch has been a huge influence on our movement and sprint drills. Basically, the thought here is that, across our sport or in most sports, there are very few basic patterns (attractors). Although individual athletes may express power and speed with different styles, we expect the attractors to be very similar. By adding chaos and fluctuations, athletes can adapt and become more resilient. This resilience can make the attractors more deep-rooted. You do need repetition and practice to get better, but monotony can hinder learning and progress. No struggle, no progress.

Commonalities between all of these are:

• Rhythm/timing
• Minimal energy leaks
• Neutral hips
• Relaxed head/neck
• Stiff lower limbs
• Scissoring or switching (hip flexion/extension)
• Arms that contribute to timing or vertical pulse (do drill without arms, add them back in)

I don’t really give too many specifics on what athletes should to do with their arms. I would rather allow them to self-organize with subtle cues like “no tension in hands/wrist,” “turn the swag on,” or “up and down with a bop” if something looks rigid or, for lack of a better word, “off.” A lot of this is a potentially moot point because without good lower limb stiffness/adequate time to reposition limbs, the timing and posture cannot be present. So, arms aren’t really a big rock at first with our athletes, but I put them in positions to feel the contributions.

If they become good at a drill, I simply reorganize and change the task. This can be both motivating and frustrating in a good way. Block starts are frustrating. Hurdles are frustrating. So, I like some unpredictability in our practices.

I think if you change the task, you will change the athlete and their resilience. Late in the season, when we are looking to be at our best, I often do away with a lot of these if I feel the athletes have progressed adequately. I also let them choose things that they like and try to invent something new. You would be surprised how motivating even the littlest of choices can be.

The Weight Room

We lift 2-3 days a week. Our shotput and discus coach, Katelin Invernizzi, is also our weight room coach. She is a former distance runner who has competed in figure shows, powerlifted, weightlifted, and done CrossFit. These days, she tends toward powerbuilding for herself, but it is clear that her influences span across several of these disciplines. She spends a lot of time addressing specific mobility and technique issues here. She also gives me suggestions for items to include in my warm-up that can make the time in the weight room more productive.

If she feels someone is better off doing a dumbbell split squat than a front or back squat, we meet them where they are at. We also feel that the athlete who can do both bilateral and unilateral squat variations will probably benefit from this extra repertoire. We used to be big pushers of bilateral squatting only, but have come around on unilateral mostly because of the reality of a 12-week season. It often takes five weeks just to get athletes to a point where we feel comfortable having them front squat with even a partial range of motion. Katelin would rather a kid have at least a point of entry to begin the process. It is motivating and easier to progress with a bevy of squat modalities, but we can’t afford to overthink with athletes with low training ages.

The programming isn’t super fancy and many kids don’t lift. Most of our two-season kids are invited to the weight room. For most others, there is no continuity and we feel like we restart every spring season. It may sound like a cop-out, but if they don’t lift during soccer and basketball season, then lifting for 10 weeks just adds fatigue.

I tell her that I need my athletes to just get stronger and become more durable. We joke around about giving the kids “wowies,” which are just the usual things in a more exciting disguise. The only thing I communicate is selecting exercises that are a continuation of the day’s track work. This is a generic form of undulating periodization.

We also don’t plan deload weeks. School vacations, doctor’s appointments, tests, driver’s ed classes, and all sorts of other things eat up their time. I am not sure if this is just the culture of our school district or also the reality elsewhere. Either way, it is pretty frustrating, so we generally just train and do a little less lifting in a tough stretch of competition, but we never do nothing.

A few rules or guidelines we follow are:

1. 1. Don’t have your athletes do lifts that you don’t know how to do. If you don’t know how to teach your athletes how to squat, clean, or deadlift, then don’t. I don’t think they are that hard to learn, but there is more to them than “sit back,” “jump and catch,” and “pick the bar up with your legs.” Poor t-spine mobility and an absence of a front rack mean a no-go on front squats and cleaning.

1. 1. Do main lifts for strength on speed days, as well as med throws and plyometrics. We do teach the clean, although we are debating whether to keep it. It does have value for helping our athletes become athletic and receptive to cues.

1. 1. Do hypertrophy reps on one lactate day to add some tendon/muscle strength without frying the CNS or as assistance lifts to support main lifts.

1. 1. We don’t do triphasic lifting or post activation potentiation. These are not advanced lifters and they already have enough to recover from. Too many things lumped together creates crappy form. Focus on one thing at a time or the main thing.

1. 1. Bar speed doesn’t matter if athletes are not strong first. Strength comes before power. We don’t have measured VBT technology like collegiate or professional organizations. Toward the middle/end of the season, we may ask specific athletes to move the bar with more intent. They should always execute the eccentric with control, which will set up a better concentric.

1. Increasing force generation though lifting doesn’t guarantee that force application increases. Get stronger, but don’t let the lifting volume ruin the sprinting!

Fitting in Jumps and Hurdles

I feel that a strength for us is not overworking our athletes. The jumps coach, Tyler Colbert, and I communicate before and after every single practice to make sure that we both got in 80% of what we needed. It will never be 100%. He just finished his first year and did a terrific job with a mostly underclassmen jumps crew. He attended clinics and watched countless videos. I think he understands that coaching is about continual education.

He is responsible for the jumpers by himself. The only thing I ask him to keep in mind is that all of them are sprinters first and our cues need to be consistent. Tyler often assists me with the sprints workouts and devises a workout appropriate for the JV runners.

Here is what we have generally agreed on for our week’s plan.

• • Long and triple jumps are accelerations. It is important that athletes learn how to set up a good jump by building to a good rhythm to stay running. Spinning the wheels does not yield a good jump. Do full approaches on acceleration/max velocity days, but allow them to get some Freelap timing and acceleration work in. I think 50% of the main workout is a fair percentage and can make the jump work better.

• • The high jump and pole vault are paired together as vertical jumps and can be done on X-factor day and before a lactate day.

• • Make sure each jumping event has two practice days in addition to the meet day—one full approach and one with something else.

• • If there are two meets that week, do one decent session and then use pre-meet time to get steps. Cut out the fluff and get specific.

• • Ask each other: Is something lacking or missing? If so, can I address it in warm-ups?

• Ask Tyler: Don’t do any extra plyometrics other than what are included in the sprint complexes on those days. Is there a plyometric/jump you would want me to program that you think has value?

For year one of us working together, we did a solid job. I want him to speak up. If a jumper is struggling but doing well on the track, then perhaps he should skip the main session altogether. It becomes a little fuzzy when you have an athlete who sprints, hurdles, and jumps.

This year, we had a sophomore boy do pretty well in the 400 hurdles, but I don’t think he hurdled more than five times in practice. His technique is not great, but speed, 400-meter work, and jumping work were a priority. Something had to give. Next year, we may look back on it and say, “Why were we doing that?”

Everyone thinks they do things the best way until the future reveals otherwise. I guess time will tell, but we try not to be married to anything. If something works better, we are sure to work through it in time.

I have such a reductionist approach to hurdles because our athletes are sprinters first. This year, we did not have a ton of success due to a lack of speed and experience. This will get better and I need to get better at selecting athletes suited to hurdle. I think if an athlete is fast enough or tall enough, can use their trail leg effectively, can execute a handful of dynamic drills with good arm and leg timing, and can hit hurdle one well, then they will eventually have success. I cannot make a kid who runs 13.0 in the 100m into a great hurdler, yet. I think we are set up better here for the future.

Changes Ahead

We had a solid year this past year, but we need to continually adapt and refine. After attending the Juggernaut Training powerlifting clinic a few weeks ago, I started thinking heavily about minimum effective volume (MEV) and maximum recoverable volume (MRV) and what this means for the sprinters at Triton. On the surface, a track coach may question the value of anything powerlifting-related because our athletes are not powerlifters.

I think in any speed, strength, or power sport, that striving to hit the balance between MEV and MRV is very important. How do we elicit a continued response to training without overdoing it? You can’t just do next to nothing any more than you can go hard every day.

Some factors that help determine these volumes are:

Gender

Females can do more volume. They have less muscle mass, so therefore there is less muscle to be damaged. The presenter at the clinic noted that females can do five sets more per week than males. What does this potentially mean for our female sprinters?

• • Slightly longer intervals. This could mean running the 27-second drill instead of 23 or 20, or running 300s instead of 200s.

• • They can handle slightly more absolute speed as long as the Freelap timer agrees and doesn’t show a huge drop-off.

• • More aerobic work for long sprinters since they run longer than their male counterparts.

• In the past, I have trained females slightly differently, but feel I went too far away from that this year, as my 4x400m relay underperformed. I also shifted some girls around, so where they may have done 400 and 4x400m twice a week in the past, they did 100m/200m or 100m/400m. We have a month-long stretch of two meets a week that makes it tough to do anything crazy. That 400/4x400m double is very important in this stretch.

Lifestyle

Unfortunately, it’s very hard to control this one. All we can do is educate and then respond to what we see. I do try to alternate training weeks so that every third week has less volume while maintaining appropriate intensity.

• • Diet, sleep, stress

• • The body can’t distinguish between the stress of a test and the stress of a squat or sprint.

• I am working through a simplified rating system to implement next year. If someone rates their fatigue or perceived effort as higher than expected, I will investigate and adjust if needed. I can’t give more information here because I don’t know what this looks like yet.

Genetics/Speed 

Just like insanely strong powerlifters who squat 900 pounds, more explosive athletes will need less volume due to how taxing their maximal work is. If you have a kid who runs a 10-meter fly in 1.30 seconds, he will be able to do that more often than your genetically gifted athlete who runs a sub 1.00. This is why Tony Holler’s Feed the Cats program has been so popular.

However, if you want the kid who runs 1.30 to improve, he will probably need some more repetitions to get better. He isn’t a cat yet. For my fastest kids, I find running personal bests is the hardest thing to recover from. An active nervous system will have more fatigue after going at “psycho mode.” Watch for an athlete slowly getting sorer or dropping off timewise, and rest them before it is too late.

The bottom line is that, as a high school coach, you are probably better off doing a little less than doing more, unless something isn’t panning out. Then, you may need to do more. Look at athletes’ practice times and meet times. If something isn’t matching up with expected performances, then investigate a bit more.

Working Together

In order to keep your athletes happy and healthy, you need to perfect the art of cross-coaching. Find time to discuss training and belief systems with your team of coaches and know what they are doing. Every coach on your staff plays an important role and can make major contributions.

I am very thankful to have Katelin and Tyler in my corner. We are three coaches with varied backgrounds who can come together for the express purpose of making our athletes better. Both of them understand the factors that influence training and continue to educate themselves, which in turn motivates me. I think pushing your staff in this manner ensures that no one ever settles.

Katelin and Tyler are both former distance runners who have run fly 10s this summer. This was without prompting. Both of them noted how sore they were the next day. I appreciate this exploration and find it important because you have to understand how different training affects your athletes. Coaches often have preferences in training. Katelin lifts, Tyler runs marathons, and I like to chase the pump and do drills. At the end of the day, we know that our inclinations take a back seat to what the science of sprinting suggests we do. Just because we trained or like to train a certain way doesn’t mean we should do that with our kids.

Tyler has made it his goal to bring more short speed work over 90% into the season with cross country runners, who he coaches as an assistant coach alongside his father, Joe Colbert. Joe has always done a great job of reminding us that the kids are “our athletes.” It is not uncommon to find a mid-distance runner in the sprint group running our 5x200m staple workout. I have also sent 600m runners out for tempo runs before with him. There is something to be gained from everything.

The shared responsibility can turn a good team into a great team. We are excited to move forward. Check your egos, balance the training, and make sure every coach has a voice. Start planning now.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Training team sport athletes is complex, with so many ways to prepare them and variables to consider. In truth, any program that allows for the progressive overload of various forms of intensity (not just weight lifted, but also increases in outputs of power, speed, etc.), performed with safe biomechanical positioning, will typically lead to positive results from a physical preparation context.

We see this time and time again with most high-level team sport athletes having similar levels of physical fitness despite each strength and conditioning staff having their own unique approach to the problem. However, team sports exist as multiple layers of complexity and chaos, and to have a better understanding of preparation protocols, it’s necessary to try and consider all the layers as best as possible.

‘Chaoplexity’

“The term chaoplexity brings together the theory of complexity and chaos theory…the complexity of the game exists in a world founded on chaos. Combine this with social laws, the rules of competition, and training or practice schedules, and we see that players are experiencing what can only be described as chaoplexity.” – Fergus Connolly

For me, part of this chaoplexity is understanding how all the various layers interact and how that will determine what I choose to do with my athletes from a physical preparation standpoint. This is especially important for younger developmental players who stand to gain a lot from physical preparation in their overall performance.

I want to expose my athletes to various motor skills and coordination challenges, bring up their power and capacity outputs, and do all of this while still considering the impact of skill acquisition, sports practice, and sports competition. I am in search of structured training variation, based on:

• Desired training effects
• Time of the year
• The specific athlete
• Multiple other factors

“Variation is the key to efficient coaching. This does not only apply to optimizing motor learning processes. When planning physiological adaptations during training, variation should again be the main feature of the training…Variation is therefore the first and most important training principle, along with individualization.” – Frans Bosch

This article presents one ideological approach I use in my current search for structured variation. This approach is specifically geared toward team sport athletes. Based on the demands of team sport physical preparation, I use a system that progresses the general (italicized on purpose) strength and power training by building a foundation of unilateral activities first, and then shifting toward a realization of high-power output with bilateral activities. This general training progression is layered with specialized forms of speed, power, agility, and endurance training performed in conjunction with what’s laid out here.

Varying Unilateral and Bilateral Strength and Power Training

First off, this is not a new concept. I know for a fact this idea has been used before (see the picture of Joe DeFranco’s notes from a Charles Poliquin seminar below). But for me, this whole idea started from a simple conversation with my good friend Chad Dennis, a highly experienced strength coach for the past 17 years.

Chad reviewed my notes and then took a couple of breaths before asking me, “Have you ever tried doing a foundational period of unilateral emphasis followed by a specialized period of bilateral emphasis?” I asked him to elaborate on his thoughts, and he said, “Well, for me, I tend to look at unilateral power as falling more in line with ‘strength,’ whereas bilateral power seems to align better with ‘speed.’ There’s something there with the kinetics and the ground contact times.”

Movement Physics Tell the Story, Not Movement Appearance

As soon as Chad said that, my mind wandered to two specific places. The first was Triphasic Training by Cal Dietz and Ben Peterson, where they wrote the following:

“A single leg plyometric, as shown by [a] motion analysis machine, is so much slower in producing forces…With double leg plyometrics…there is higher potential for developing speed because of the shorter amortization phase, and thus, a more explosive rebound…Single leg plyometrics should be viewed more as a strength plyometric whereas double leg plyometrics develop speed.” ⁴

We often assume that single leg training is more “sports-specific,” since most athletic actions occur on a single limb. When speaking strictly kinematically—that is, based on how a movement appears—then yes, that’s true. But when we consider the kinetics of the motions—that is, how the movement was caused in terms of the forces and time frames involved—we start to see that we can’t just look at the appearance of a movement. In order to better determine the desired training effect, we must also consider the physics involved.

The other place where this thought hit home for me was a recollection of work by Derek Hansen highlighting ground contact time as a simple way to gain insight as to where training effects occur along the force-time continuum.

So, it’s not enough to think in terms of “single leg is more specific” when designing programs—it’s the overarching desired training effect that is most important. As I discovered, taking a broader perspective on the why’s of training brings up some interesting thoughts and questions into when, how, and why to use different forms of unilateral and bilateral training.

Unilateral vs. Bilateral Power

Unilateral power and plyometric training are growing in popularity, especially with team sport athletes for whom having the ability to display power on one limb in multiple directions is an obvious advantage due to the demands of the game. Training in multiple planes seems to be an important factor, with research supporting the notion that having single leg power, deceleration, and coordination in multiple planes is an area of necessity when designing training programs for team sport athletes.^{1, 9, 10, 12}

Both bilateral and unilateral power training will result in general adaptations associated with improvements in power, namely speed of muscle contraction, faster motor unit activation, enhanced neural firing rates, decreased duration of the stretch-shortening cycle, and improved proprioception. However, there are specific adaptations that occur depending on the training means used.

The reported training effects following unilateral power and plyometric training may occur over a period of 6–12 weeks. These effects seem to follow the SAID principle, where specific adaptations occur based on imposed demands. So, it’s typically reported that training with unilateral activities will have the greatest impact on unilateral actions, though some research has suggested that bilateral countermovement jump performance may also improve following a period of unilateral jump training¹.

Figure 2 presents some of the reported effects of unilateral power and plyometric training:

Preparing for Collision

Another point of consideration with unilateral power training for team sport players relates to tissue resiliency and robustness. For contact sports like rugby and American football, collision is a major concern. Thanks to advances in integrated accelerometry (IA) technology, researchers can monitor the magnitude and frequency of impact and collision in team sport players.

It has been reported that the prevalence of high-velocity eccentric actions (i.e., changing direction and deceleration), in combination with tackling and other forms of impact trauma, induces a significant load to the players’ musculoskeletal systems, as evidenced by large elevations of creatine kinase (CK) and cortisol following match play. Soft tissue trauma is part of the game, and if players are loaded too much or too little in training, it stands to reason that noncontact soft tissue injuries are likely imminent.¹¹

However, it seems that the bulk of collision loading in contact sports like rugby and American football occurs in the form of ground-reaction forces generated by accelerating, changing direction, jumping, or rapid decelerations, all resulting in inertial load on the body.^{5, 15}

Force plate data has helped shed light on the magnitude of these impacts as measures of vertical ground reaction forces, which can range from 2–7 times the body weight of a team sport player during jumping, change of direction, and sprinting actions. Further, these are actions that are usually sustained on one leg due to the dynamics of team sport game play.

“The moment you enter a gym, forget about specific training unless you are a bodybuilder, a powerlifter, or a weightlifter.” – Henk Kraaijenhof

One paper investigated the demands of American football using a workload-injury etiology model and determined the following³:

• Coaches and practitioners working with American football players need to expose them to a high number of collisions in training to better prepare players for game demands.
• A balance must exist between the number of exposures required to improve fitness and the number that elicits negative fatigue responses and increased injury risk.
• Players who can produce high average inertial load values were less susceptible to contact and noncontact soft tissue strains and sprains.
• Players with a high level of neuromuscular responsiveness and control can produce high inertial load values through rapid acceleration, deceleration, and change of direction, which may offer protective benefits.

The research seems to indicate that the most complete training program is one that incorporates a combination of bilateral and unilateral power training. This makes sense when looking at the ground contact image in figure 3, where bilateral and unilateral power and plyometric activities are scattered all along the force-time continuum. 

Unilateral vs. Bilateral Strength

Speaking of implementing a complete program, we can’t neglect the development of muscular strength. It seems there are benefits to using both unilateral and bilateral means in this realm as well. The benefits of general strength training are well-established and beyond the scope of this article, but the primary adaptations associated with heavy resistance training include enhanced neural capabilities, increased energy stores, muscle gain and improvements in body composition, anabolic hormonal responses, and potential enhancement of ligament, tendon, and collagen integrity.⁸

Most resistance training research has investigated effects using bilateral strength exercises like the leg press, barbell squat, or barbell deadlift. The research regarding training for maximal strength using unilateral exercises pales in comparison to the research on bilateral barbell training. In practice, most coaches perform unilateral strength training, using exercises like rear foot elevated split squats, pistol squat variations, or single leg deadlift variations. The following is a quote taken from the classic training text Supertraining by Yuri Verkhoshansky and Mel Siff:

“Research has shown that the transfer of strength developed in bilateral training (e.g. using squats or power cleans) offers specific improvement in performance in bilateral events…while unilateral training (e.g. with dumbbells or split cleans) enhances performances more effectively in unilateral activity such as running, jumping.”

In recent peer-reviewed literature, the reported performance gains associated with unilateral strength training show similar effects to what is reported with bilateral strength training, which may be important for athletes who are contraindicated for exercises like barbell squats or deadlifts. If axial loading is an issue, especially for older athletes in contact sports who have experienced low back or hip injuries and feel discomfort when loading bilaterally, unilateral exercises may prove to be an effective form of strength training for the lower body.

Thus, more work is needed before we really understand what adaptations occur from heavy unilateral strength training.

Here are some of the reasons that I personally like using unilateral strength exercises, especially early in a developmental training progression:

• Unilateral strength exercises are naturally more unstable, emphasizing stability, coordination, and balance in the face of more degrees of freedom.
• Due to greater instability, athletes should perform unilateral strength exercises with a controlled tempo, emphasizing time under tension for greater local muscular endurance and hypertrophy.
• Unilateral strength exercises will reduce the overall axial load, allowing for a period of unloading the spine while emphasizing strength and tension of the local leg musculature early in the training process.
• With split patterns and positions, mobility may be trained against load in positions like deep hip/knee flexion, hip extension, and ankle dorsiflexion while minimizing spinal compression.

Field First, Weight Room Second

In my programming, I always take a skill-centric view and work backward from the athletic qualities needed in the sports game. This means that I always think in terms of field first, weight room second.

Certain athletic activities will demonstrate massive vertical ground reaction forces in minuscule amounts of time—let’s just consider how top-speed sprinting can produce up to 6x body weight of vertical ground reaction force in about a tenth of a second on one leg! You just can’t match this kind of output in the weight room. I can find activities that may have a positive correlation and potential transfer to sprinting performance in the weight room, but if I really expect to build better sprinting with my athletes, I must have them sprint.

The same goes for other athletic activities like jumping, change of direction, and deceleration. I must train these qualities as they exist on the field in order to keep the experience specific to what’s encountered in the game. So, for agility work, I will use game-like situations to put my athletes in positions that feature specific perceptual-cognitive elements to help hone their skills of anticipating, reading, and reacting appropriately to what they see.

A popular sprint training progression from Charlie Francis is the Short-to-Long Model, where we expose athletes to shorter distances (i.e., 10–20 yards) earlier in the training process and gradually progress to longer distances over time. This makes sense because shorter distances do not feature speeds or ground reaction forces that are nearly as intense as longer distances, where athletes reach top speeds. Therefore, athletes can train at high intensities of sprinting with less risk of structural damage early on by using shorter distances and gradually expanding their power and speed exposure with longer distances as the program carries on.

In similar fashion, when I train for change of direction speed or agility in the form of open/reactive game experiences, I use a progression of “small to large,” where I start with smaller field spaces early on and gradually increase to larger field spaces. By starting with small spaces, my athletes experience these high-intensity movements with less impact, since the spaces and movement speeds are reduced. As the program progresses, I use larger spaces, and changes of direction feature larger impacts from decelerating from higher movement speeds.

Common Denominators of Effective Programming

When I look at various texts on programming and periodization for sports, the principles seem to be consistent, regardless of the specific periodization model applied, whether it is the traditional model, vertical integration system, block periodization model, block training system, or whatever. There will always be a General Preparatory Period that initiates the training process, followed by a Specific Preparatory Period to emphasize more specific qualities, and finally a Competitive Period where the effects of training are realized in live competition. There is also a Transition Period of reduced loading following phases of competition or team sport seasons.

This model is characteristic of keeping all forms of training present throughout the entire year—hence, vertically integrating the training components like the traditional model—but rotating the emphasis of training into blocks or phases and accounting for greater inclusion of technical/tactical training. It is a system that falls somewhere in between the traditional model and the block models, where definitive blocks are used but all physical qualities are present to some degree all year long due to the nature of team sport requirements.

Team sports are incredibly complex in comparison to individual sports, with a wide array of physical qualities always needed, far more tactical strategy involved, and a greater repertoire of technical skills to develop. In addition, team sport athletes will not need the same level of physical output as an individual sport athlete. A sprinter lives by maximizing speed and a thrower lives by maximizing power, but a team sport player only requires enough physical output to operate effectively within the rules of the sport game.

Progressing from Unilateral to Bilateral Emphasis

The idea of progressing from a unilateral to bilateral emphasis for strength and power is about starting with a base of coordination and gradually shifting toward increasing motor outputs in the general training as the specific training on the field becomes more intense and more technical in relation to the sport. Thus, in team sports, this shift toward specificity will necessitate increasing the intensity and exposure to field-based activities with faster speeds, higher power, more intense change of direction, and greater perceptual-cognitive complexity using open/reactive games and agility training.

It’s also important to spread out the stresses of each training period so that the most important qualities can flourish. With unilateral training, there is an expectation of greater soreness in the local tissues and musculature. This can prove problematic when we want to really emphasize technical elements and intensified field training during the SPP. Sore legs make speed and technique work difficult.

In the early training periods, specialized technical training is less of a priority, so it allows for the opportunity to stress the structures of the lower limbs with less worry of reduced quality in high-speed efforts or activities of high technical demand. It’s much easier to have a quality 10-yard sprint with some leg soreness than it is to have a quality 40-yard sprint. Therefore, it makes more sense to emphasize unilateral training when there is reduced field training intensity, typically earlier in the training process.

Just because the emphasis of a certain training phase may be on unilateral training, this does not mean that we abandon bilateral activities. On the contrary, keeping elements of bilateral training present while emphasizing unilateral training will prove fruitful, allowing for athletes to develop the motor control needed for bilateral activities that we will load later.

For example, I keep bilateral squat and hinge movements present in accessory weight training, using lighter loads and manipulating execution tempos to emphasize eccentric or isometric control. I also perform jump testing with my athletes all year long, so exposure to bilateral squat jumps, countermovement jumps, depth jumps, and the reactive strength index (RSI) is consistent in all phases.

What About the In-Season?

The main body of this article deals with the off-season preparation periods. However, given that the specific context is in relation to team sports, we come across an issue: Team sports like basketball, soccer, and volleyball require competition almost all year long. For these sports, there is a greater requirement to develop a knowledge of the stress imparted on players from sports practice and games and to make educated decisions on how to structure the in-season training.

In his new book, Methodology of Training in the 22nd Century, Coach Henk Kraaijenhof explains how we simply have to throw many periodization models out the window with in-season training, as the majority of the models were designed at times when athletes were simply not competing as frequently as they do in today’s commercially driven world. Thus, we must take a more agile approach, like the morphocycle design of tactical periodization pioneered by Vitor Frade and brought further to light in Fergus Connolly’s Game Changer and my most recent book with Fergus, The Process: The Methodology, Philosophy & Principles of Coaching Winning Teams.

This kind of approach is based on the following components:

1. Preparedness – The underlying long-term adaptations that have occurred for the player, such as overall strength, power, speed, endurance, and other qualities based on previous experiences and training exposure. This requires knowledge of the player’s sport involvement and training history and how it affects what must be done during in-season practice and training interventions.
2. Readiness – How well the player’s body is functioning at the current moment. Readiness must be high upon entering game day and must be maximized as much as possible for important conference games or championship games. Improper training and practice interventions will disrupt player readiness and game day performance.
3. Psychological Resilience – The player’s ability to cope with mental stressors associated with high levels of competition. Practice and training sessions have an impact on a player’s psychology, as physiology is largely intertwined with a player’s mental state and one will impact the other.

During a competitive season, a coach must keep these three components front of mind. Most team sports play at least one game each week, and some upward of three or more depending on the time of year. The game itself is the most important testing protocol for sports performance, meaning that sports practice becomes the most important training session.

In terms of physical preparation, it becomes about winning small battles. So, there is no answer as to how to progress the training; there is only a necessity to be aware of potential training effects and the insurance that what is imposed on the players aligns properly with what is happening in practice on the road to game day.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Bogdanis, G. C., Tsoukos, A., Kaloheri, O., Terzis, G., Veligekas, P., and Brown, L. E. (2019). “Comparison Between Unilateral and Bilateral Plyometric Training on Single-and Double-Leg Jumping Performance and Strength.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(3), 633–640.

2. Boyle, M. (2011). Advances in Functional Training. Lotus Publishing.

3. Cappa, D. F. and Behm, D. G. (2011). “Training specificity of hurdle vs. countermovement jump training.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(10), 2715–2720.

4. Dietz, C. and Peterson, B. (2012). Triphasic Training: A Systematic Approach to Elite Speed and Explosive Strength Performance (Vol. 1). Bye Dietz Sport Enterprise.

5. Edwards, T., Spiteri, T., Piggott, B., Haff, G. G., and Joyce, C. (2018). “A narrative review of the physical demands and injury incidence in American football: application of current knowledge and practices in workload management.” Sports Medicine, 48(1), 45–55.

6. Francis, C. (1997). Training for Speed. Faccioni.

7. Issurin, V. (2008). Block Periodization: Breakthrough in Sports Training. Ultimate athlete concepts.

8. Jeffreys, I. and Moody, J. (Eds.). (2016). Strength and Conditioning for Sports Performance. Routledge.

9. Lockie, R. G., Callaghan, S. J., Berry, S. P., Cooke, E. R., Jordan, C. A., Luczo, T. M., and Jeffriess, M. D. (2014). “Relationship between unilateral jumping ability and asymmetry on multidirectional speed in team-sport athletes.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(12), 3557–3566.

10. Maloney, S. J., Richards, J., Jelly, L., and Fletcher, I. M. (2019). “Unilateral stiffness interventions augment vertical stiffness and change of direction speed.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(2), 372–379.

11. McLellan, C. P., Lovell, D. I., and Gass, G. C. (2011). “Biochemical and endocrine responses to impact and collision during elite rugby league match play.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(6), 1553–562.

12. Ramírez-Campillo, R., et al. (2015). “Effect of unilateral, bilateral, and combined plyometric training on explosive and endurance performance of young soccer players.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(5), 1317–1328.

13. Verkhoshansky, Y. and Siff, M. C. (2009). Supertraining. Verkhoshansky SSTM.

14. Verkhoshansky, Y. and Verkhoshansky, N. (2011). Special Strength Training: Manual for Coaches (p. 274). Rome: Verkhoshansky SSTM.

15. Wellman, A. D., Coad, S. C., Goulet, G. C., and McLellan, C. P. (2017). “Quantification of accelerometer derived impacts associated with competitive games in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I college football players.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(2), 330–338.

In my previous post, I presented a case for why the pursuit of power development in vertical pulling is a worthy endeavor. Through my own experience and the limited research available, I also tried to project how to use VBT to assist the process of creating more intentional and tangible adaptations in this regard.

Encountering athletes with varying strength and power in vertical pulling is the obvious norm, so there are particular considerations for how we program for athletes at different stages of development. Also, individual athletes come to training on a given day in various states depending on their nutrition, hydration, sleep, DOMS, and general state of recovery. Even psycho-social factors such as relational and financial stressors can affect a training session.

I’m not the first to observe this trend, as coaches have never trained robots. Fortunately for us, a principle has long existed in the world of strength and conditioning to help us embrace these individual changes that occur daily. In Mel Siff and Yuri Verkoshansky’s book, Supertraining, they describe cybernetic periodization as when “the original preplanned periodization scheme is regularly modified by subjective and objective feedback obtained from the lifter’s current performance state.”¹

A coach who intentionally creates a culture of conversation and honesty encourages athletes to give subjective feedback. This type of feedback is a two-way street, as the sharp strength and conditioning coach can observe how an athlete’s body language may be “off” from what is typical. We’ve also never had more opportunities for objective feedback and evaluating athlete readiness than we have today through technology such as VBT, HRV, force plates, hand grip dynamometers, and sleep monitoring devices.

With this article, I’m offering a programming map and three distinct periodization models that I’ve had success with. Efficient maps and models offer wisdom to the decision-making process, and positive results from their use are conditional on the discerning application of the model (to ever-changing athletes); I hope you receive them in these terms. I’ve constructed my models from what I understand to be truthful about the human body and how the average body best responds to training. Models “written in pencil” assume they evolve, which can mean days and not years.

Credit to Mladen Jovanovic’s Strength Training Manual for delivering a resource that aptly explains how understanding the difference between small and large worlds allows us to employ models more successfully:

The real world is very complex and uncertain. To help in orienting ourselves in it, we create maps and models. These are representations of reality, or representations of the real world. Everything written in this manual represents Small Worlds—self-contained models of assumptions about how things work or should work. Although they are all wrong, some of them are useful (to quote George Box), especially as a starting point in your orientation, experimentation, and deployment to the Large World.²

I hope you find some of my models useful. As coaches, we ultimately will face the fork in the road where we have to commit to a direction of programming for our athletes, and because of this, we can’t live entirely in the abstract. We need to make decisions, and good models can influence our decisions for the better.

Mapping the Spectrum of Vertical Pulling Programming

My path to coaching an athlete to gain a more powerful vertical pull begins with a flow chart map to situate the athlete in the proper model. The flow chart allows the coach to execute short-term strategies with big-picture intent in mind—to become more powerful in vertical pulling. In general, we can administer these models with relative ease into most holistic strength and conditioning programs.

I ask you to consider, however, the merit in recognizing vertical pulling as a main movement during at least one session a week and avoid the pitfalls of habitually downgrading it to an assistance exercise. Our distinction between the two practically means we are more likely to place it at the beginning of the session if we value it as a main lift, and our athletes can perform the movement in a less fatigued state.

Programming for the Novice

A novice is an athlete who can’t perform one entire full range of motion (ROM) bodyweight vertical pull (and has no injury or pain concerns). These athletes often are unnecessarily and exclusively relegated to the lat pulldown machine or permanently stuck on the same assisted band variations that never intentionally and precisely increase in intensity. A starting point that’s an alternative to the former approach, which I’ve had success with, is systematically progressing through a six-week triphasic model that begins at lower forces-higher velocities and ends at higher forces-lower velocities.

The novice model undulates in volume session to session (time under tension and total reps), has linear increases in intensity every two weeks (the athlete pulling up more of their own weight), and includes just a hint of a conjugate element (switching the vertical pull variation via the grip, width, and bar thickness every six weeks). I’ve experienced great freedom because the elements I periodize don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I thank Greg Nuckols for his article on this very topic. He perfectly sums up this idea:

Westide is Conjugate Periodization! Such-and-such powerlifter uses Daily Undulating Periodization! Beginner or intermediate lifters should use a Linear Periodization program! It sounds like these are disparate concepts, when really almost all training plans weave all of these elements together to reach the desired end. They can do this because, as we touched on initially, training is organized on different time scales.³

Every two weeks, the athlete advances from a band assisting the entire ROM to ¾ ROM and then to finally ¼ of the movement assisted. This method follows what we know to be true about progressive overload: the athlete who progressively has to produce more force will get stronger over time and as the athlete receives less and less assistance over time—this method accomplishes this.

Check out my previous article, which has videos of the exercises I use in the assisted band category. You’ll see the varying degrees of assistance bungee bands can offer, depending on the distance the carabiners drop down from the bar.

The triphasic approach from Cal Dietz⁴ has been a game-changer for me. In this case, integrating the concepts provides the novice valuable time under tension. This athlete requires significant total work, and greater time under tension in longer eccentric and isometric contractions are very appropriate to teach them to own their positioning in a controlled manner.

Cluster training was impressively discussed by Carl Valle,⁵ so I won’t go into it here. I simply suggest that novices will benefit greatly from it. Although clusters are often thought of as an advanced strategy, they are just as important for weaker athletes as stronger ones.

The Tufano 2017 study⁶ really opened my eyes in this regard, as he found:

Intra-set rest provided in clusters allowed for greater external loads than with traditional sets, increasing total work and time under tension while resulting in similar peak power (PP) and % velocity loss (%VL). Therefore, cluster-set structures may function as an alternative method to traditional strength- or hypertrophy-oriented training by increasing training load without increasing %VL or decreasing PP.

The goal is to increase total work and time under tension, and clusters give novices these very things without compromising power production. An athlete who does clusters literally can get more work in than the typical 3 x 8-10 hypertrophy approach and perform high-quality reps. To me, it’s a no brainer.

To make matters more practical, when an athlete loses velocity with this movement, they often do leg kicking and jolting motions, as they generally lack the discipline to finely execute grinder reps occurring late in a set while under fatigue. The compromise of technical execution is a problem that coaches can get in front of. It’s a proactive approach that may very well reduce the risk of poorly performed reps, especially when we have a weight room full of athletes and our eyes are in a single place at a given moment.

To execute clusters for this population, Tufano again has key wisdom to offer from his 2018 study. ⁷ He showed that it might not be enough to have a velocity cut-off protocol where intra-set rest begins as speeds fall below a given number (he refers to this as contemporary traditional sets). In his study:

Each set during the traditional set (TS) protocol included as many repetitions as possible until two consecutive repetitions dropped below 90% MPmax, which was followed by 120 s inter-set rest. The design was identical for cluster sets (CS) but with an additional 20 s intra-set rest after every 2 repetitions. The number of repetitions performed, mean velocity, and mean power output, were analyzed using 2(protocol)*6(set) repeated measures ANOVA. The number of repetitions during CS (51.8 ± 14.4) was greater than TS (31.9 ± 3.7) (p = 0.001), but the average velocity (CS = 0.711 ± 0.069, TS = 0.716 ± 0.081 m·s^-1; p = 0.732) and power output (CS = 630.3 ± 59.8, TS = 636.0 ± 84.3 W; p = 0.629) of those repetitions were similar.

He concluded, “These data indicate that cluster sets are a viable option for increasing training volume.” My experiences mesh with this study in that a session’s total volume can be compromised when you wait for reps to fall below a specified threshold, especially with a novice in vertical pulling (even when using a high number like 90% in the study).

Ironically, by attempting to limit slower reps, we actually enable slower reps—reps slower than the cut-off are still performed. I have found this concept to be true during the chin-up or pull-up when the novice knocks out reps well above a planned velocity point and then hits the wall and has poor peak power on the next rep. Diligence in increasing the frequency of intra-set rest maximizes the cluster effect, and there is most certainly an art to coaching this.

As an alternative to velocity cut-offs, I recommend using the final velocity or power of a rep in a cluster to serve as competition for the athletes to have with themselves. For example, if they complete a cluster, and the final rep of the set is “x” m/s, that’s now their target to not go below for the next clusters. Since the athlete most likely does not see the VBT readings, I call out the numbers (or have another athlete do so) and watch their intensity mount as numbers progressively lower as the cluster goes on.

This does two things:

1. A coach with a big team doesn’t have to deal with the tedious task of having each athlete in the midst of the pull-up know exactly when to stop the set since they can’t see the VBT feedback screen.
2. As referenced in my first article, we know that visual or verbal feedback enhances an athlete’s performance.

In a separate 2016 study of his,⁸ Tufano found that in the back squat, clusters of two were superior to clusters of four in peak velocity (PV), mean velocity (MV), peak power (PP), and mean power (MP) when averaged across all repetitions. For novices to achieve quality reps when using the full ROM assisted band, I’ve found that three often is the ideal maximal number of reps before intra-set rest should begin.

As always, make adjustments when necessary. And try to arrive at the total amount of work that is planned with the best rep speed possible while taking into account that training time is not unlimited; there’s certainly a balance between maximizing time in the weight room and producing high-quality repetitions.

My last note regarding novices is that I’ve found it unproductive to superset the vertical pull with vertical pushing because it greatly diminishes the quality of the next set. Instead, I have the athlete perform a “filler” exercise during inter-set rest. Depending on the athlete or team, this is often a low-intensity core/cuff exercise or a shoulder mobility filler. Even lower body lifts as a superset work. This way, a coach with a team doesn’t have athletes standing around between their turn on the bar. There’s also more high-quality work done in the vertical pulling aspect of the program.

At the end of the six weeks, the novice attempts to perform a full ROM unassisted bodyweight vertical pull. If they’re successful, they move on to the next phase. If not, they repeat the six-week phase with less assistance from the bands at each of the two-week intervals for the following mesocycle.

Programming for the Intermediate

Intermediate athletes can perform at least one bodyweight vertical pull but cannot pull 71% 1RM (bodyweight + load) with at least their bodyweight. Intermediates should not just target getting stronger; they also must get more powerful!

The fastest way to get an athlete to hit 71% 1RM with at least their bodyweight is by embracing conjugate periodization elements and changing the training stressor in each of the two vertical pull sessions per week. This way, they are training two different physical characteristics: high forces and high power outputs. Another conjugate element is switching out the vertical pulling exercise variation every three weeks. There are still triphasic considerations, undulation in volume session to session, and linear increases in intensity during the six weeks.

The first three weeks includes the assisted band variations for the highest expressions of power in the concentric portion of the lift, or what some may refer to as the dynamic effort day (it’s worth pointing out from my first article that the Munoz-Lopez study found power correlates more highly with velocity than force in the pull-up). The isometric and eccentric focus is always on the descent after an explosive pull-up.

The max effort day offers no assistance and has the athlete perform bodyweight or greater vertical pulls at their 2RM starting in week one. The goal is to add 2.5 lbs of additional load each week. I recommend that these athletes use added weight attached to a belt rather than holding a dumbbell between their feet. It’s generally easier to find a 2.5 lb plate to slip onto a chain than DBs that increase by 2.5lbs.

By the time the athlete gets to weeks 4-6, I find it a great time to incorporate medicine ball training in the form of slams to achieve faster velocities than the assisted band reps can offer. I contrast the medicine ball slams after the higher force max effort pulls. Carl Valle made some outstanding points about medicine ball training when he called for a “tighter and more-specific strategy”⁹ for their use. The contrast effect is exactly that in this instance—we get robust strength qualities and the peak velocity movement in the same session.

The Ignjatovic 2012 study¹⁰ showed that medicine ball training has its place in a holistic program that seeks to improve power. When incorporated with a regular training program, “applied medicine ball training improved peak power during bench and shoulder press at 30 and 50% of 1RM” compared to a control group that performed everything the same except the medicine ball work.

With weighted pulls now occurring twice a week instead of once, the athlete receives more focus on the maximal strength qualities and performs a different vertical pull exercise in the last three weeks than the first. I’m a big fan of these subtle changes to the max effort exercise variation, as they tend to recruit a more diverse pool of muscle over the long term versus staying with one vertical pull variation.

For example, the lower traps have a peak MVC score of 87.2 in the wide pronated grip pull-up. In the close parallel grip, the peak score is 69.1.¹¹ The variation in recruitment patterns is important for the traps, rhomboids, and biceps to develop and assist the lats consistently.

Just like weeks 1-3, the goal is to increase the amount of weight lifted at each rep scheme in weeks 4-6. This is the linear component at work. For the same given volume, seeking to increase force capabilities for as long as possible until plateauing is low hanging fruit. During this time, it’s critical to have access to 0.5 kilos and 2.5 lb plates.

At the end of the six weeks, the athlete will see if 71% of their 1RM (bodyweight + load) is at least their body weight. If not, they repeat the 6-week mesocycle. If successful, they move to the final phase and model.

Programming for Advanced Athletes

Advanced athletes are those whose 71% of 1RM is at least their body weight. William Wayland did an excellent job teaching his approach to supramaximal training,¹² and my use of these techniques on the advanced athlete is undoubtedly influenced by his work.

An athlete who is significantly strong and powerful in vertical pulling, as demonstrated by the ability to hit 71% 1RM with at least their body weight, can still get stronger and more powerful. But their improvements in vertical pulling—like any other exercise—often plateau in both strength and power gains. With that in mind, it’s important to find a way to stress the body more significantly than just weighted pulls emphasizing concentric components and eccentric lowering at submaximal weights.

That’s where supramaximal eccentric and isometrics come in. As William wrote:

Compressed intensive training is a period in which we apply the greatest stimulus to accumulate the desired response in the shortest time possible—this is where we apply supramaximal training. Supramaximal training is one of the approaches that excites muscular physiologists, as it leads to rapid adaptations and a reduced need for the repeat exposures we get from the same contraction focus at submaximal loads. Time, as a commodity, is always in short supply. It’s not for the faint of heart, nor the inexperienced.

During the second session each week after the supramaximal reps for both the eccentric and isometric movements, I like to contrast with singles with a concentric focus. Adding the band-resisted reps for the contrast work is a great way to develop explosive pulling abilities through the entire ROM. The benefits of accommodating resistance are known widely,¹³ and I tend to find their implementation in a vertical pulling program more appropriate for athletes without an explosive pulling deficit.

After two weeks spent on both eccentric and isometric supramaximal work, deload weeks are appropriate. These set up the athlete nicely to arrive at weeks 7-8 ready to target some potentiation effects from the concept of wave loading to see peak power capabilities improve. With a very similar structure to the Chiu 2012 study,¹⁴ each wave consists of multiple sets of pulling where we increase the resistance for each set until the completion of a wave. The athlete then lowers the intensity and performs two vertical pulls at 71% 1RM to take advantage of PAP.

In his study, Chiu saw a 5.77% vertical jump increase at the midway testing point and a 5.90% increase at the end of the second wave due to the potentiation effects on vertical jumping from full snatches. After testing peak power at 71% 1RM pre-, mid- (after first wave), and post- (after second and final wave), I’ve seen an average improvement of 2.5% peak power (watts) after the first wave and 1.8% after the second wave in the 80%+ wave protocol and 2.2% and 2.1% for the 50-80% wave protocol.

Although I need to obtain a larger sample size, my initial findings for wave loading in the pull-up suggest wave loading does work to increase peak power in athletes who are advanced in vertical pulling ability and more so after the first wave than the second.

I hope this provides you with a practical resource to situate your athlete in an appropriate model so your athletes can ultimately achieve greater levels of power in vertical pulling.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Siff, Mel, & Verkoshansky, Yuri. Supertraining. com; 6th expanded version edition. December 7, 2009.

2. Jovanovic, Mladen. Strength Training Manual: Introduction. March 23, 2019 (Accessed October 7, 2019).

3. Nuckols, Greg. There is Only One Type of Periodization – Part 1. October 24, 2019.

4. Dietz, Cal, & Peterson, Ben. Triphasic Training: A systematic approach to elite speed and explosive strength performance (Volume 1). Bye Dietz Sports Enterprise. 2012.

5. Valle, Carl. Cluster Training: How to Navigate Through the New Science. SimpliFaster.

6. Tufano, JJ. Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Different Cluster Set Structures: A Systematic Review. J Strength Cond Res.2017 Mar; 31(3):848-867.

7. Tufano, JJ. Cluster sets vs. traditional sets: Levelling out the playing field using a power-based threshold. PLoS One. 2018; 13(11): e0208035. Published online 2018 Nov 26.

8. Tufano, JJ. Maintenance of Velocity and Power With Cluster Sets During High-Volume Back Squats. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.2016 Oct; 11(7):885-892. Epub 2016 Aug 24.

9. Valle, Carl. 7 Reasons the Weight Room Isn’t Transferring to Your Sport. SimpliFaster.

10. Ignjatovic, AM. Effects of 12-week medicine ball training on muscle strength and power in young female handball players. J Strength Cond Res.2012 Aug; 26(8):2166-73.

11. Contreras, Bret. Inside the Muscles: Best Back and Bicep Exercises. T NATION. March 15, 2010.

12. Wayland, William. Applying the Compressed Triphasic Model with MMA Fighters. SimpliFaster.

13. Davenport, Shane. The Top Accommodating Resistance Methods for Strength Coaches. SimpliFaster.

14. Chiu, Loren. Potentiation of Vertical Jump Performance During a Snatch Pull Exercise Session. Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 2012; 28(6):627-635.

Club head speed is a hot topic in golf, and it should be. There is a very strong relationship between how much money PGA Tour players make and how far they can hit the ball. Club speed is a skill that gives golfers an edge at every level, and it is therefore heavily sought after. Phil Mickelson and Brooks Koepka are both known to say that they would rather have an 8 iron from the rough than a 5 iron from the fairway. This is the common mentality on the PGA and LPGA tours.

Because of this, there are many companies coming out with speed products in the golf space, and they are all marketing those products as the quickest and best ways to pick up speed. One of the industry leaders is SuperSpeed Golf, which has more than 650 touring professionals using their tool, demonstrating the popularity of this type of training.

Some of the companies focus on improving technical skills to maximize speed. Others, like SuperSpeed, focus on taking advantage of the nervous system gaps that exist for most untrained golfers and helping them maximize their speed from that angle. They do this by utilizing what has become known as overspeed training.

Technically, this is nothing new, as overspeed has been used and studied in sprinting for years, and the Russians even used it 50–60 years ago for their throwing athletes. Since then, over-weighted and under-weighted balls have become quite the hot topic in baseball and cricket as those two sports’ form of over/underspeed training. Heavy and light bats are a big discussion point when talking about bat velocity in baseball as well.

While there has been zero research published on this topic for golf (at least that I could find while writing this article), there are a number of articles published in the track and field, baseball, cricket, and handball spaces that I took a look at to better understand the context of this topic as objectively as possible. What follows is the result of hours and hours of review of the available literature.

In addition, we have completed two randomized in-house clinical trials at Par4Success, lasting six and eight weeks respectively, and seven years of clinical and strength and conditioning work with thousands of golfers longitudinally at this point. In the interest of this article not being 10,000 words long, I have only included in the citations the articles with the best methods and those directly quoted. The studies I cite below refer to another 50 or so further studies if you really want to dive in. Buckle up…here we go!

Why Care About Overspeed?

The world of strength and conditioning features a number of well-accepted, researched ways to gain speed and ultimately increase an athlete’s power. It is widely accepted that taking any relatively untrained individual and introducing them to foundational strength training will improve their speed, among other desired athletic attributes, including power output. As an athlete increases in strength and skill in their sport, there is the idea that they will reach a point when they are “strong enough.” At this point, the speed of contraction starts to become more of a focus for gains that are most transferable to sport. This is where much of the recent velocity-based training research has been focused, particularly for professional and elite-level athletes.

A lot of this research is still new to much of the field even though early research was done years ago. That being said, during this progression of athletic development, there is also a concurrent focus on improvements in technical efficiency and equipment optimization. At the end of the day, all parts of the puzzle operate with the aim of creating as much power expression in sport as safely and sustainably possible.

Knowing this, you might ask: Why do I even care about overspeed training if I know my athletes will improve in speed and power numbers by sticking to the tried and true? Once they get “strong enough,” I will just jump into VBT, right? Is there really any value in having them swing or throw heavy and light stuff hundreds of times a week? That will increase the load on my athlete’s nervous system and potentially increase risk for injury—is it really worth it? I asked myself these same questions, which is why I am taking the deep dive into this rabbit hole with you.

The specific question we have in the golf world is: “Does overspeed training fit into the context of training golfers to produce more speed with maximal efficiency and safety, and if so, where?” I want to emphasize safety and efficiency here. Gaining speed is easy. Figuring out how to do it efficiently and without injury is the hard part, especially with the presence of high volume protocols, which are accepted as the gold standard in the golf performance space.

You can take any untrained individual, tell them to do anything fast, and they will move faster—this wouldn’t surprise or shock most strength coaches. Research has shown clearly that simply having golfers perform three countermovement jumps before they swing will increase their club speed immediately. Nervous system potentiation is not rocket science, and there is plenty of literature on it. Think “newbie gains” in the gym.

That being said, the real questions that I will answer here are these:

• Once initial adaptations occur, is there any merit to this type of training long-term?
• Do the initial transferable gains of overspeed training to sport outperform those of traditional strength and conditioning?
• Can we use overspeed training as a substitute for traditional strength and conditioning?
• Are long-term results (1+ years) optimized if we combine overspeed training with traditional strength and conditioning versus using it in isolation or not using it at all?
• What sort of frequency, protocols, or volume should we utilize for maximal benefit, minimal risk of injury, and minimal system load?
• Do any of the potential gains of overspeed training (either long-term or short-term) outperform the traditional methods that are proven to transfer to sport?

Clearly, there are a TON of questions to answer and most of these have been answered, in theory. Few, if any, have answers rooted in scientific truth.

What the Sprint Research Says

Overspeed training in the sprinting world comes from the idea that if you increase speed, you need to either increase stride length or frequency. Every athlete will have an anatomical limit to their stride length, obviously. But, from a training perspective, large gains may be made in the frequency realm.

In their study, Behrens, et al.¹ discussed downhill sprinting versus high-speed treadmill sprinting, as well as resisted sled running and hill sprints. Throughout their review, they gave the pros and cons of every popular method, and they pointed out that there is a point of diminishing returns in terms of utilizing too much of an incline or downhill grade, as well as going too heavy on the sled loads. Use just the right amount of slope and get the effects that you want; use too much and you run the risk of changing the technique of the sprinter in question.

These findings are similar to those of a completed Par4Success study showing that, if a golfer swings an implement that is too light or too heavy, their kinematic sequence will dramatically change from what is considered ideal or normal for them under playing conditions (more to come on this later).

If we focus on the overspeed element, Dintiman and Ward³ cited that a 1–2.5% downhill grade was the most a sprinter could utilize without producing a braking effect, while another study by Plisk⁴ recommended a 3- to 7-degree grade, and yet another study found that 5.8 degrees produced the fastest results. We further see suggested in the research that declines greater than 3% can lead to greater braking effects with excessive stride lengths and without increases in stride frequencies.

So, as you can see, there is a lot of conflicting research on downhill sprinting that presents many discrepancies in recommended gradients to maximize efficiency. The water is a bit murky in terms of the ideal gradient, but it certainly appears that training for increased stride frequency with a downhill gradient produces a positive effect on a sprinter’s speed. That being said, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a sprint coach who only utilizes this type of training in isolation without traditional strength and conditioning methods, which have no question as to their efficacy. I wish the same could be said in the golf coaching world.

What the Baseball Research Says

There have been a number of different studies on over-weighting and under-weighting bats and balls for swinging and throwing in baseball. One study showed that dry swing warm-ups are a more effective means of enhancing bat speed outcomes when performed with a standard-weight bat versus heavyweight and lightweight bats. Another study found that actually hitting a ball in live batting practice produced better results than just dry swings—again, some murky conclusions to be drawn.

When thinking about how the weight of the implement can impact kinematic efficiencies and sequencing, this was the same result seen in the 2018 study by Par4Success. It is accepted that the ideal efficient kinematic sequence is initiated with the lower body, followed by the trunk, and then by the arm and club, respectively.

With a 20% lighter club, each golfer’s arms and club measured with the K-Motion 3D system initiated before their lower body and torso in a significant manner when compared to the golfer’s regular swing with their standard driver. This results in a more upper body driven swing, which is inefficient, but more importantly, the exact opposite of the sequence that many of these golfers exhibited when they swung their normal club.

When measuring the kinematic sequencing while a golfer was swinging a heavy club (10% heavier), there was an increased x-factor (separation between upper and lower body at impact) beyond PGA Tour norms and beyond what was seen with each golfer’s normal club.

As seen with the dry swing study, both heavier and lighter clubs lead to much different results in speed outcomes. You should consider kinematic sequence impact when thinking about prescribing these types of protocols.

DeRenne and colleagues¹⁰ and Southard and Groomer⁷ concluded, in their respective studies, that the very heavy commercial donut ring, a heavy 51-ounce bat, and the very light 23-ounce bat used in warm-ups decreased game bat velocity by 5 mph.

This result is similar to what Par4Success found in golfers in their 2018 study when looking at only completing overspeed training with a heavier golf club. The golfers in this randomized group also saw a decrease in their swing speeds.

Montoya et al.⁹ reported that swinging a light (9.6-ounce) or “normal” 31.5-ounce bat produced the highest bat swing velocities compared with a heavy (55.2-ounce) bat in the on-deck circle. Furthermore, Southard and Groomer⁷ reported that after warming up with two heavy-weighted bats of 34 and 56 ounces, respectively, bat swing velocity significantly decreased, while moment of inertia significantly increased.

The results with a 6–10% lighter club in both the 2018 and 2019 Par4Success studies, which produced speed gains, seem to support these findings. Montoya, et al.⁹, however, did find a different result with the significantly lighter club compared to the 2018 Par4Success study. Montoya saw an increase in speed, while Par4Success saw the group that only trained overspeed with the 20% lighter club lose club speed, on average.

Southard and Groomer⁷ concluded that baseball batters should warm up with their respective standard game bat and using a bat with a larger moment of inertia will reduce bat velocity and change the batter’s swing pattern. Montoya, et al.⁹ also suggested not to swing a heavy bat in the on-deck circle because it produced the slowest bat swing velocities. These results and conclusions support, in part, the findings of DeRenne and colleagues¹⁰, which suggested that players should warm up by swinging bats that are ±12% of their standard game bat weight (30 ounces) before game competition.

In summary, the big takeaway findings from much of this research in baseball are from Szymanski, et al.¹⁴ In terms of the take-home points, the “big hitters” were:

• One-hundred swings daily for three times a week will increase bat speed in untrained individuals.
• Swinging a bat that is within 12% of the game day bat’s weight will increase a player’s speed, while swinging one that is too heavy or too light will hurt a player’s speed.
• The players with the greatest strength, power, and lean body mass had the greatest bat swing and batted ball velocities.

I will get into the reason these points are important for golf. But first, there were a couple other interesting studies in handball and cricket.

What the Cricket and Handball Research Says

Cricket and handball have also had a few studies looking at over-weighted and under-weighted balls in the past few years. One of the earlier studies in cricket by Petersen, et al.¹³ looking at fast bowlers found that a 10-week program of modified implement training was not effective at increasing the bowling speed in its test subjects. However, this study was performed on senior-level club players and did not include any strength and conditioning measures. The likely question here is: “Did these subjects have enough strength to begin with to benefit from overspeed training?” This is a common question in the golf sector as well.

In the more recent study by Wickington¹², they followed a similar approach and did not include strength and conditioning. Their conclusion was that modified implement training “might” be productive in producing speed increases—not very convincing. But again, we are viewing these results with blinders on and not assessing any other aspects of the athletes.

Finally, a four-week study on elite-level handball players by Ortega-Becerra, et al.¹¹ found no significant improvement in velocity after a program focusing on throwing balls with different techniques and weights. This suggests that with higher level athletes (the average player in this study had 11 years of experience), doing only an overspeed and underspeed training program was not sufficient in that short amount of time to produce the results desired.

Similar to track and field and baseball, it is difficult to pull out stone-cold scientific facts from this research. There has just not been enough convincing work done with large enough samples to have a definitive answer. That being said, there are a number of common threads and they should be extrapolated to golf.

Answering the Initial Questions for Golf

There are a number of common questions asked about overspeed training in golf. There are also a number of important ones that I need to address that aren’t necessarily at the front of people’s minds. Here are some of the more common and important ones.

Once initial adaptations have occurred, is there any merit to overspeed training long-term?

None of the studies that I was able to find discussed longitudinal improvements or the causation of those improvements. This is the hardest type of research to do, which points to the lack of evidence. If you speak with most strength and conditioning coaches, it is relatively accepted that periodizing athletes throughout the year with higher and lower amounts of neural stress clearly works for long-term improvement, and you cannot constantly train high neural load all year, every year.

I recommend a well-rounded approach to training using both strength and conditioning, along with nervous system-focused exercises. Constantly completing overspeed training throughout the year without periodization to focus on strength building or nervous system recovery would seem to be inappropriate if we look at other forms of nervous system training. That being said, we have seen it be very useful, particularly in the 40+ population, to employ overspeed training in conjunction with the conversion to power phases or other phases focused on speed generation to produce swing speed gains year after year, well into a golfer’s 70s.

Do the initial gains of overspeed training outperform those of traditional strength and conditioning?

Talking specifically about golfers, look at the Par4Success studies from 2018 and 2019 and compare the speed gains in these time frames to Par4Success’ longitudinal data when golfers were involved in a strength and conditioning program for golf but not using overspeed training. When we look at these numbers, there appears to be a bigger jump with the addition of overspeed training than solely with strength and conditioning, by almost threefold. In six and eight weeks, respectively, the average gain was just around 3 mph, which is three times the average gain of 1 mph for adult golfers over a 12-week period with just traditional strength and conditioning.

The reason for this is likely that, neurologically, many golfers underperform what they are physically capable of, and the acute spike in fast, golf swing movements “wakes up” their systems. When I look at our database, I see that the golfers who tend to do the best with overspeed training are initially the ones who perform much lower on their speed percentiles relative to their power percentiles that are correlated to club speed. These are the golfer who you see add 10 mph to their club speed in 12 weeks.

Golfers who have lower power percentiles relative to their swing speed percentiles are not ideal candidates for overspeed training, as they do not have the strength base to benefit. These are the ones in the Par4Success database who fail to improve at all or significantly beyond what would be expected with traditional strength and conditioning.

Can we use overspeed training as a substitute for traditional strength and conditioning?

No—emphatically, no. It would be irresponsible to use overspeed in isolation to train golfers for increased speed. First, increasing how fast someone can swing without making sure they have the strength to control that speed can set someone up for injury and failure. Secondly, if overspeed training is appropriate for a golfer (they have full rotational mobility and their power percentiles are greater than their swing speed percentiles based on their age and sex), you need to be sure to increase their strength as their speed increases. Failure to do so will put the golfer at risk for potential injury if their speed is allowed to outpace their strength.

Like all nervous system training tools, if you utilize overspeed training in the right scenario with the right person, the gains can be quick and impressive. I have seen 10+ mph in under 10 minutes in the right situation. This leads to a lot of hype and excitement around it in the social media training world and, unfortunately, a lot of misinformation, which I hope this article helps to clear up.

Are long-term results (1+ years) optimized if overspeed training is combined with traditional strength and conditioning versus in isolation or not at all?

It appears that combining overspeed training with traditional strength and conditioning increases speed gains compared to either modality alone. This conclusion is based on the results I have seen with our longitudinal programs that use overspeed training periodized with an athlete-specific strength and conditioning program and sport-specific training (i.e., technical lessons, equipment, etc.—not medicine ball throws or cable chops).

In order to keep decreases in club speed to no more than 3–5% during the competitive season (as is the normal amount in Par4Success’ data), it is imperative to keep golfers engaged in an in-season strength and conditioning program focused on maximal force and power outputs. By minimizing this in-season loss, it assures that we see gains year over year.

It is unclear if overspeed training in conjunction with strength and conditioning during the season further decreases this standard loss due to nervous system fatigue, but this would be a great area for future research.

What sort of frequency, protocols, or volume should I utilize for maximal benefit and minimal risk of injury?

Most of the studies specifically on swinging that I was able to find looked at about 100 swings at three times a week (baseball). The SuperSpeed protocols that are the most popular in the golf world follow a similar volume recommendation. It is a concern, especially with untrained individuals, that adding 300+ maximal swings per week might increase the risk of injury due to the incredible increase in load. This is especially true for the amateur golfer who only plays on the weekends and does not engage in a strength and conditioning program, as this is a significant volume increase from their baseline.

The Par4Success studies in 2018 and 2019 found no significant difference in swing speed gains between high volume protocols and a lower volume protocol, which required only 30 swings two times a week but also required a two-minute rest between every 10 swings.

There need to be more studies looking at this beyond just these two. I would recommend, specifically in golf, not to engage in high volume protocols, as they appear to increase the load on the athlete significantly without increasing speed gains. Having utilized this lower volume approach beyond the two randomized studies, we continue to see similar results.

Do any potential gains from overspeed training outperform the traditional methods that are proven to transfer to sport?

This is a hard question to answer, but based on the golf-specific findings and the other findings across all of the sports mentioned, it would not appear that overspeed training is superior to any one training method, but rather a tool to use in conjunction with other proven methods. The key here is to assess your athletes and look to implement this type of training in golf when you know that mobility is not an issue and their physical ability to produce power is higher than their ability to generate club speed. In this scenario, overspeed training can be a game-changing tool. In the wrong scenario, it can be a nail in a golfer’s coffin.

What This Means for Golf

As you digest all of the research, you start to see how murky the waters really are around these ideas. It is no longer surprising why there tends to be so much heated discussion around these topics. With minimal science-based fact, there is a lot of room for emotional beliefs to take hold.

In the end, I think Szymanski, et al.¹⁴ hit the nail on the head with their highlight of the clear relationship between the fastest bat speeds occurring with the stronger and more powerful players. We need to help golfers become stronger and more powerful with traditional strength and conditioning techniques to maximize performance and longevity and reduce injury likelihood. From here, overspeed training can become an amazing tool to implement at different times during the year at lower volume and system loads than are currently being used industry-wide.

To be clear, it is my opinion that overspeed training works in both the high volume and low volume protocol formats based on the available research and my firsthand training experience of more than 1,000 golfers. There is statistically no difference in outcomes between high volume overspeed protocols and low volume ones. Because of this, high volume protocols are unnecessary and a waste of golfers’ time and energy when they can see the same results with 66% fewer swings. High volume protocols also put unnecessarily high amounts of maximal stress on golfers’ bodies, putting longevity at risk, especially when they are carried out in the absence of a customized strength and conditioning program for golf.

A “properly designed golf performance plan” does not only include one single element of overspeed training or solely traditional strength and conditioning. It is a plan that is periodized throughout the year for an individual golfer that includes soft tissue care, mobility, stability, strength, speed, and power development, both in general athletic and sport-specific terms.

The golf swing is an incredibly powerful movement and requires significant rest in between swings for physiological recovery to occur. Because each swing happens in seconds, the glycolytic system is one of the major energy systems required for the athlete to be explosive. The problem is that this energy system requires a LOT of rest between bouts in order to recover fully. If you don’t allow for full recovery, each swing becomes a maximal effort of 90%, then 80%, then 70%, and so on. Effectively, you trade quality for quantity, and each subsequent swing is less effective than the previous one.

In order to combat low-quality reps, it is necessary to take rest breaks with 5–10:1 rest-to-work periods. If these are not adhered to, the effectiveness of the training suffers. This is another reason why low volume protocols would be preferable to high volume ones. To take these necessary rests, a high volume protocol would take more than an hour. With the lower volume protocols, you can still keep the work time to 10 minutes.

In summary, the golf world needs more randomized control studies that expand on this study to further validate and improve the science available to the greater golf performance community.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Behrens, M.J. and Simonson, S.R. “A comparison of the various methods used to enhance sprint speed.” Strength and Conditioning Journal. 2011; 33(2): 64–71.

2. Dintiman, G.B. and Ward, R.D. Sports Speed(3rd ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2003. pp. 3, 16, 69, 73, 97, 98, 142, 184, 189.

3. Ebben, W.P., Davis, J.A., and Clewien, R.W. “Effect of the degree of hill slope on acute downhill running velocity and acceleration.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2008; 22(3): 898–902.

4. Plisk, S.S. “Speed, agility, and speed endurance development.” In Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning(2nd ed). Baechle, T.R. and Earle, R.W., eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000. pp.472–482.

5. Marsh, J.A., Wagshol, M.I., Boddy, K.J., Michael, E.O., Briend, S.J., Lindley, K.E., and Caravan, A. “Effects of a six-week weighted-implement throwing program on baseball pitching velocity, kinematics, arm stress, and arm range for motion.” PeerJ.

6. McCrary, J.M., Ackermann, B.J., and Halaki, M. “A systematic review of the effects of upper body warm-up on performance and injury.” British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015; 49(14): 935.

7. Southard, D. and Groomer, L. “Warm-up with baseball bats of varying moments of inertia: Effect on bat velocity and swing pattern.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2003; 74: 270–276.

8. Otsuji, T., Abe, M., and Kinoshita, H. “After-effects of using a weighted bat on subsequent swing velocity and batters’ perceptions of swing velocity and heaviness.” Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2002; 94: 119–126.

9. Montoya, B.S., Brown, L.E., Coburn, J.W., and Zinder, S.M. “Effect of warm-up with different weighted bats on normal baseball bat velocity.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2009; 23(5): 1566–1569.

10. DeRenne, C., Ho, K.W., Hetzler, R.K., and Chai, D.X. “Effects of warm up with various weighted implements on baseball bat swing velocity.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 1992; 6(4): 214–218.

11. Ortega-Becerra, M., Sigüenza-Iglesias, J.A., and Asián-Clemente, J.A. “Effects of 4-week training with balls of different weights on throwing velocity in handball players.” Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 2019; 19: 344–349.

12. Wickington, K.L. and Linthorne, N.P. “Effect of ball weight on speed, accuracy, and mechanics in cricket fast bowling.” Sports. 2017; 5(1): 18.

13. Petersen, C.J., Wilson, B.D., and Hopkins, W.C. “Effects of modified-implement training on fast bowling in cricket.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 2004; 22(11–12): 1035–1039.

14. Szymanski, D.J., DeRenne, C., and Spaniol, F.J. “Contributing factors for increased bat swing velocity.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2009; 23(4): 1338–1352.

Managing training load has become an increasingly prevalent concern in athletics, for sport coaches as well as strength and conditioning coaches. I work with an NCAA volleyball team, and it is imperative to monitor and manage fatigue for a number of reasons: reducing injury risk; improving performance in general; specifically maximizing performance for key matches; and managing the overall readiness of each team member individually, as well as the team as a whole. Off-season training is different, but this article will discuss a method (and justifications) for measuring fatigue during the competitive sport season.

Addressing the Specific Demands of a Sport

Jumping is a critical movement in volleyball. Across practices, matches, and training, volleyball players jump more frequently than athletes of many other sports. Intense hops, bounds, and depth jumps require the highest nervous system demand and generally necessitate 2–3 days of recovery before training again.¹ Unfortunately, college volleyball players are not afforded the luxury of taking 2–3 days off between practices, games, or strength and conditioning training sessions.

Tracking fatigue—both acute and chronic—is important to training for the maximum performance at the critical time. For volleyball, jump performance is a useful metric in helping coaches make adjustments to the training needs of the athletes.

Constraints in Collegiate Sports Training Programs

Ideally, strength training would occur when an athlete is rested and recovered from practice or competition. NCAA sports, however, have unique circumstances that must be addressed when developing practice plans and training sessions. Every team must follow the same maximum practice/training hours rules per week, but each team will have different situations regarding:

• Practice time of the day
• Training time of the day
• Travel schedule
• Class schedules
• Age/gender of athletes

The volleyball team that I work with consists of 18- to 22-year-old females, with practice times at 6 a.m. Our weight room training sessions occur immediately after practice ends, with a 10-minutes transition period from the court into the weight room. Training after practice isn’t ideal, but it’s the time slot available. We share facilities with both the men’s and women’s basketball teams, so we all have to work together to get our practices and training sessions in.

The team travels at inconvenient times, sometimes early in the morning or late at night, and sometimes they’ll be out of town for as much as six consecutive days. Every college student athlete has to go to class, and some have more rigorous class schedules and workloads than others. There are 15 players on the volleyball team, and there are many factors that cannot be controlled that may or may not impact their performance.

How to Use Squat Jumps to Measure Fatigue

Our program measures three squat jumps at the beginning of each conditioning training session using the Just Jump Mats. A squat jump is defined as a vertical jump at a self-selected depth without a counter movement. The athlete gets into a jumping stance, drops into a self-selected squat depth, holds for a count of “one one-thousand two,” and then jumps from that position without dipping down again. A squat jump height is usually lower than a countermovement jump.²

We have our baseline jump height for each athlete that is recorded at the beginning of the pre-season. We get three jumps on the first two days, for a total of six jumps. We take the average of these six jumps, calculate the coefficient of variation of the six jumps, and multiply the coefficient of variation by 1.1. Then we subtract that number from the average of the six jumps. The resulting value is what we call the athletes’ caution number (caution number = jump height average less coefficient of variation x 1.1).

If one of the two jumps is under their caution number, the athlete will jump a third time. If their third jump is higher than their caution number, the athlete will follow the training plan as is, but we will monitor them a little bit more closely. If both jumps are under their caution number, we make the necessary adjustments to their training plan. Generally, we reduce volume, and we possibly reduce load or consider making additional adjustments to other training variables.

A specific example of how we’ve adjusted training based upon the athletes’ jumps occurred at a time when we had most of our players jumping below their caution number. We were scheduled to perform four sets of two on cleans that day, and three sets of three on back squats. We ended up cutting out all of the sets of cleans and just got right into our squatting sets. The following day, our jumps went back up to their normal range.

We have access to Tendo Units as well, so when we have only a couple athletes jump under their range, we can give them a speed range to hit that is a little bit faster than what is planned for the day. This will lead to lightening the load, but the intent should still be there because the athlete is moving the bar as fast as they can. The good thing about having a small team to work with is that we can more readily individualize the training program.

One problem that we sometimes see when having the athletes perform the squat jump is that after they pause in the bottom position, they want to quickly dip a little bit lower and innately turn it into a countermovement jump. When that happens, we just have them perform another trial and remind them not to dip a second time.

The Jumps as Metrics: Vertical, Approach, and Squat

A vertical jump is a standing countermovement jump for maximum height with no approach steps, while an approach jump is a jump for maximum height using self-selected approach steps prior to the jump. Typically, volleyball programs test the vertical jump and approach jump to measure improvements pre- and post-macrocycles in training. These two types of jump tests have been shown to be correlated to other athletic performances, such as sprinting ability and change of direction ability.³

The squat jump is a standing jump for maximum height with hands on hips at a self-selected squat depth with no countermovement. The squat jump is a common test for researchers with a force plate that can measure:

1. Takeoff velocity
2. Rate of force development
3. Starting gradient (1/2 peak vertical force divided by time at 1/2 peak vertical force)
4. Acceleration gradient (1/2 peak force (time to peak force minus 1/2 time to peak force))
5. Jump height

There are many advantages to using the squat jump in a monitoring program over the countermovement jumps. There is less intra-subject variation in performance in a squat jump compared to the countermovement jumps, which allows for a smaller co-variance and, therefore, a smaller window of performance and more reliable measurements. Also, psychologically, volleyball players are not worried about seeing low jump heights on the squat jump because they know that it is supposed to be lower than a countermovement jump. Because they do not jump as high, the exercise itself is less intensive compared to the countermovement jump.

Since jumping is a skill that is part of every volleyball game—and research suggests there is a strong correlation between vertical jump performance and fatigue and athletic performance in other skills—we measure it daily to get feedback and adjust training.

You could argue that using a countermovement jump would be more useful to test volleyball players because it is more specific to the way they jump on a court, it includes the stretch shortening cycle, and it includes a buildup of muscle stimulation, as well as allowing elastic energy to contribute to the performance.² One study compared the differences between different types of jumps and found that concentric neuromuscular activity does not seem to vary when the subject is attempting to maximally jump, while eccentric neuromuscular activity does vary depending on factors such as landing, speed of movement, etc.⁴ Utilizing the SJ eliminates all of the other noise that may or may not contribute to jump height performance.

However, having a higher squat jump may have just as much or even more value, as it reflects the capability to reduce the degree of muscle slack and quickly build up stimulation, which is important to high-intensity sports such as volleyball.² Another point to consider is that it takes approximately .4 seconds to produce maximum force⁵, and the squat jump reduces the amount of time allotted for the athlete to produce force, possibly indicating the fatigue or freshness of their neuromuscular state of well-being.

Due to time and the number of players, it is not logistically feasible to track all three jumps for all players on a regular basis, so we just use the squat jump.

Sharing Our Data with the Coaching Staff

We track all of the athletes’ squat jump trials throughout the season and periodically share our findings with the coaching staff. We provide this in both table and chart formats to easily visualize trends.

Tracking body weight helps reduce some of those habits when the scale shows that they are down 6 pounds from the previous week. It is also interesting to check if there are any correlations between body weights and jump heights on a daily or weekly basis. We haven’t noticed anything as of now, but it can’t hurt to continue collecting data—perhaps I’ll learn more about what to do with the information down the road in a way that can help enhance our program. The system we have now works for us, and hopefully we continue to grow and expand our abilities on this subject to keep improving.

We are fortunate enough to have access to two pieces of reliable technology: Just Jump mats and the VERT monitoring system. The players wear the VERT every day during practice, and it provides live recordings of jump counts, jump heights, landing impacts, etc. Our volleyball staff finds VERT very useful during practice and even during games. If you do not have access to this type of technology, you could always just use a Vertec or a G-Flight by Exsurgo Technologies. It is all up to what resources you have access to and what your situation is.

We previously tried to monitor our athletes’ fatigue using the Tendo Unit. If the athlete doesn’t hit the targeted velocity on their first set, then load gets reduced. There are, however, two problems I see with that method. First, if we only use the bar speed, we only reduce absolute load, when in reality it is probably best to reduce volume instead. Second, our athletes play sports, they are not powerlifters, so their bar speed will have much more variation from rep to rep since they are not necessarily elite barbell athletes.

So, it is a tool—and a useful tool—but we are finding more success using the squat jump at the beginning of our sessions right now. The goal from here on out is to continue building on what we are doing: making ourselves better to improve the performance and the lives of the athletes that we train.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Gambetta, V. (1999). “Plyometrics: Myths and Misconceptions” [Web log post]. Retrieved August 16, 2019.

2. Van Hooren, B. and Zolotarjova, J. “The Difference Between Countermovement and Squat Jump Performances.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2017; 31(7): 2011–2020.

3. Köklü, Y., Alemdaroğlu, U., Özkan, A., Koz, M., and Ersöz, G. “The relationship between sprint ability, agility and vertical jump performance in young soccer players.” Science & Sports. 2015; 30(1): e1–e5.

4. Jarvis, M. M., Graham-Smith, P., and Comfort, P. “A Methodological Approach to Quantifying Plyometric Intensity.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2016; 30(9): 2522–2532.

5. Zatsiorsky, V. M. and Kraemer, W. J. Science and Practice of Strength Training. 2006. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics.

Countless parents want to know how to be properly supportive of their children who participate in sports. Usually, most fathers and mothers have good intentions, but when it comes down to it, the biggest problem with youth sports is the parents themselves. The good news is that most of the current challenges in youth sports can be solved with education and awareness. So, if you care about enriching an athlete’s childhood, make sure you consider the following points. Of course, there are things to consider beyond this list, but if you tackle even just a handful of the recommendations, your child will be better off in the long run.

I am a father of four kids and own a training facility, so I understand both the business and personal sides of the sports equation. We all want our kids to be the best they can be, but if we push our kids too hard, they will likely end up having a bad experience. Much of what I recommend isn’t intuitive at first glance, but if you stop and think about what’s best for kids in the long run, you will likely agree with me. Here are 15 helpful hints and recommendations that will make a difference in your child’s growth in sports.

1. Don’t Join Travel Teams Too Early

Nearly every athlete who joins a travel team pays an unnecessary cost to play sports. Playing sports should be a right, not a privilege. Just playing sports locally has a cost, and it is simply not necessary to add travel to the equation. Most of the travel teams in youth sports are money-making businesses that actually do more harm than good. Kids don’t need to fly to the other side of the country to find the right competition, especially when an older sibling or neighbor can usually hand a convincing loss to your son or daughter.

Besides the cost of travel and club fees, the amount of competition in tournaments is too much for a young body to handle. When a kid plays the same sport year-round, burnout is likely to occur, and by the time they reach high school, the probability of your son or daughter wanting to play in college isn’t high. Save your money and let them enjoy their recreation or town league, as it gives them the opportunity to have fun and grow into the game without the pressure to win.

As a child grows and enters high school, traveling a few times a year may make sense, but be sure to do your homework to choose the right organization. Look for an organization committed to player development. That means fewer competitions and more focus on practice opportunities. Playing for a team that competes as much as possible just for exposure is often a road to burnout and injury. Even if a young athlete is truly national-level athlete material, competing all the time isn’t necessary to become an elite athlete, as college athletics has plenty of opportunities to improve. If you want your son or daughter to make a college coach excited, be sure you tell them they play multiple sports because you are giving them a wide array of movements and experiences to learn from.

2. Teach Your Kid How to Swim

You don’t need to turn your son or daughter into the next Michael Phelps or Katie Ledecky, but you need to make sure they are aware of the risks and requirements when it comes to enjoying the water. Whether it’s a small pool or an ocean, the inability to swim can lead to a life-or-death scenario. Learning to swim is a life skill that is just as important as learning to read and write.

As kids grow up and gain their independence, the parent may not always be around. It’s good peace of mind for parents when their son or daughter knows how to swim, especially if a water situation should arise. Kids who are competent in the water are safer when participating in outdoor activities such as boating and going to water parks. For those parents who want professional coaching, this is one of the few times when getting a qualified instructor early makes sense and is recommended.

Don’t expect your school to provide swimming instruction anymore. In the past, colleges required students to pass a swimming test in order to graduate! Now, swimming is seen as optional, and, like reading, there are an unfortunate number of kids growing up not knowing how to swim. Even if your child doesn’t enjoy or excel at swimming, it’s one of the few activities you need to put your foot down on and require. Kids are often reflections of their parents, so if you don’t swim or don’t know how to swim, it’s likely they won’t either, unless you intervene with lessons.

No matter their interests in other sports, kids need to learn how to swim. Who knows—if they love it, they may grow up to be the next Olympic champion, but start with safety first.

3. Play Games Year-Round, Not Sports

Most sports are demanding on adult bodies, so you need to evaluate the assumption that playing sports is good exercise for kids. Games and activities that are sport-like but usually less competitive in nature are important for exposing kids to a wide variety of athletic challenges. For instance, pickleball is great because it’s quick to learn and encourages more kids to get involved. Throw a frisbee around or play simple games such as tag or pick-up versions of sports rather than “over-organized” sports.

Kids should enjoy the play part of sports, not need to be the next Tom Brady or Serena Williams. Game play focuses on the experience of the moment, not trying to win or make a squad. Kids don’t have to win or lose to be productive, so instead of giving everyone a trophy for participation, just eliminate the score and focus on the fun. There are many games and activities that are not about winning or keeping score, such as playing catch or shooting hoops, so don’t worry about your son or daughter getting enough structured sports.

Sometimes, too much coaching leaves kids robotic and less instinctual, rendering your child less athletic. As kids mature and head toward middle school, games can become actual sports games, but limit their competition so they are not doing too much. Playing six games over a two-day tournament every single weekend is too much on developing bodies. Tournaments are fine if the games are abbreviated and modified, but most of the time, playing too many competitive games for hours leaves kids exhausted and flat.

4. Stop with Youth Conditioning Programs, Please

As kids mature and become adults, the need for formalized strength and conditioning programs increases. But having a child replicate the same training as a college football strength and conditioning session misses out on athletic development. There’s nothing wrong with medicine balls and barbells, or even bodyweight training, but we need more physical education dealing with how to move. An athlete who is 8 or 9 shouldn’t necessarily be exercising; they should be playing and learning.

For example, activities like an obstacle course allow kids to self-challenge and explore movement. Using watered-down strength and conditioning programs in middle school undermines the opportunity for kids to learn to run, jump, and throw properly. Conditioning and barbells are not dangerous—they just enhance athleticism; they do not create better movers. A combination of teaching and training is best for youth athletes and doing only one or the other leaves kids with large gaps in physical literacy.

5. Be a Good Sports Fan

One of the most overlooked problems of sports is not the athletes, but the fans. As parents, we are role models for our children, and we should treat a sporting event like a positive experience. It’s okay to “boo” bad sportsmanship or dirty play, but don’t heckle athletes who are not performing well if they are trying. A modern sporting event might not be a cheap experience for a family after you pay for tickets, concessions, and parking, but that doesn’t give us the right to be a bad fan in the stands.

Showing a positive and composed demeanor to your son or daughter teaches them to become good fans and, hopefully, good teammates. Often, a child-athlete will not be a starter, so they will need to be a good teammate to their peers when they are on the bench. If you are a good fan to begin with, you will be a better teammate when you are an athlete competing. It is essential to learn to respect officials and referees from a young age, and bringing a healthy fan experience to youth sports is even more important. It’s disgusting to see parents fighting and being mean to children, and to stop it, we need to start teaching the next generation to become good fans in sports.

6. Don’t Forget to Play with the Dog

Something as simple as playing with the family dog will not result in medals, but it will be a rewarding experience for everyone involved. When your son or daughter plays with your dog outside, it not only helps your pet, it may even result in your child becoming a better athlete! Dogs are fast, agile, and bundles of energy. Going outside and chasing and fleeing from a dog is fun and challenging for young kids.

One of the biggest gifts in life is spending time with someone, and kids today are playing less in general and likely leaving “man’s best friend” out of the picture. In fact, a 2018 study by the Association for Pet Obesity Prevention found that 56% of dogs were overweight or obese. It’s not surprising that with less-active children come less-active dogs.

You can play catch or keep away with a dog—it doesn’t matter what. Just playing with a dog is a great way to teach kids responsibility for someone else. If a child-athlete understands the need to keep another living being healthy, they will likely respect their own need for exercise in the future.

7. Host a Wiffle Ball Tournament

A surprising idea that I stumbled upon a while ago is the idea of having kids create a playoff system for a game that is timeless but dying off. Wiffle ball is fun and easy to play and requires very little officiating to run. The reason we like tournaments with Wiffle ball is that it gives an opportunity for the kids to organize the game, such as deciding on home run distances, policing outs when plays are close, and removing parents from stands.

It balances Little League games and, while a tournament may sound competitive, it’s more about everyone playing each other than finding out who the best team is. You don’t need to create winners’ and losers’ brackets; just make it a round robin format so everyone can play each other. You can make it coed and mixed age groups, as long as it’s balanced so the tournament is a healthy competition, meaning it is not too one-sided. You don’t need to attend a sports camp to be a better athlete; you have plenty of options for development in your own town.

8. Learn Gymnastics Fundamentals

The heart and soul of most gymnastics activities is body manipulation, not a ball or implement. The best way to learn to become more athletic is by learning fundamental gymnastics actions, and not competing is perfectly fine. Before we start scoring the proficiency and style of a movement, we need to make sure kids are safely able to do core movements in gymnastics.

Years ago, we saw the term “tumbling” used interchangeably for gymnastics, and while it was wrong, the intent was right on. Gymnastics develops plenty of upper and lower body strength, and as the athlete ages and grows, the demands of the exercises increase as well. You don’t need to do a floor routine to get value from gymnastics; you can simply learn to climb a rope and balance dynamically without fear of injury.

Kids need gymnastics more than ever, as they are moving on to specialized sports too early. Gymnastics, like dance, is for both boys and girls, and teaching them to value coordination and speed at an early age is a great head start for becoming a better athlete. If you are a parent looking for physical activities for your young child, I would recommend enrolling them in a basic gymnastics program before getting involved in t-ball or flag football. The development of all-around strength and coordination will go a long way in helping develop skills in traditional competitive sports later on.

9. Reinforce Unstructured Play

You can play a sport, play a game, or just play. Parents need to let kids just enjoy being kids, not worry that they are not adding the right ingredients to become a better athlete. A happy kid has the best chance at becoming a great athlete, so let your kids do activities that are just fun without any structure at all. Games are part of the formula, but you don’t even have to play a game at all to be a successful athlete down the road.

Games have rules or structure, while sports have rules and an end where half the participants or more are losers. Free play is just enjoying the moment, like jumping on a trampoline or jumping off a swing. Riding bikes was always a favorite of mine. It was especially fun to ride on local trails through the woods. Riding up and over small hills, over rocks, and through streams was always enjoyable and messy, and I developed a good bit of coordinated riding ability.

You don’t need to follow a strict set of rules or guidelines, and that fosters creativity and exploration. Plenty of options that have some structure like foursquare and hopscotch exist, but they have very minimal rules and kids don’t need a coach to play. Unstructured play removes the adult from the equation, and that is the best gift you can give a child, as it encourages them to learn to teach themselves.

10. Make Dodgeball for Everyone

Dodgeball isn’t the problem with physical education; it’s likely the way we treat each other that is the culprit behind a bad dodgeball experience. When those outside the trenches weigh in on experiences they don’t know firsthand, we see a distorted reality that isn’t a true depiction of the problem. Dodgeball should not be seen as anything outside of a sport, as it’s not dangerous and not unhealthy to a child’s psyche.

Imagine being the kid who strikes out and lets a team down in a Little League title game compared to a gym class that plays for time rather than a score. The game of dodgeball isn’t about picking on the weak; it’s about learning to find ways to contribute and be crafty. The game is very self-limiting with risk, so if you are not as athletic, you can play defensively.

Some versions of dodgeball include alternatives rules where each player can contribute in different ways outside of throwing, dodging, and catching. One great way to play is, instead of a player being eliminated from the game, you add a movement exercise and then they rejoin the game. This version is great as the game almost never ends, and kids get plenty of movement and exercise. Kids will always have to deal with activities that they are not the best at, so blaming dodgeball for hurting a child’s morale is just as foolish as banning spelling bees or science fairs.

11. Demand Physical Education for Movement Literary

Physical education is one of the first classes cut or eliminated by schools, and that is a major mistake for both sport and academic achievement. Along with recess, having constant exposure to movement is one of the best ways to help kids focus and learn their subjects in school. Instead of complaining or discussing why other countries like Norway or Finland are better models than the U.S., make sure you organize locally by attending school committee meetings. Don’t settle for answers that sound more like convenient excuses—fight for the health and well-being of the students.

Schools are under pressure for testing performance, so change will be a prolonged battle. Small wins, such as another recess period in the morning or another half hour during the week, will add up in the long run. Keep in mind that you are fighting for real physical education, activities that teach skills, not wellness for children. With childhood obesity so prevalent, many schools resort to fitness classes that are not engaging or effective for actual weight management. Kids should be playing games and learning activities all the way into high school. Some high schools have adopted the weight training class to pay for strength and conditioning coaches, but we need to remember that specialization is already extreme at that point, and small exposures to different sports and activities may improve an athlete as well.

12. Roughhouse and Wrestle with Both Sons and Daughters

It’s sad that the sport of wrestling is at risk of being left out of the Olympics, and the only way to save it is to support it. Wrestling is not just for boys anymore, and all athletes, not just male ones, should learn how to wrestle. The popularity of MMA and other combat sports is a great sign for the future of the sport, but for kids, it’s okay to wrestle and embrace the chaos of one of the world’s oldest sports.

Wrestling is not about violence and doesn’t create aggressive children. In fact, it allows them to be expressive and improves their connections to their parents or siblings. Roughhousing, provided it’s safe, is normal and expected for children. Even toddlers love the exhilaration of the twisting, turning, and flipping of rough-and-tumble play with a parent. Not only are rough-and-tumble activities fun, but they are a fantastic avenue to develop the all-important vestibular apparatus of the inner ear, which is involved in balance, coordination, and emotion.

These days, more and more kids struggle to control their emotions and temper, and it may be because they have very little experience to know what is right and what is wrong with rough play. There are several articles available online that are supported by enough psychologists to justify that you are likely just fine roughhousing with your kids. Read this article on play-fighting for yourself and be your own judge.

13. Hire Private Coaches Sparingly

When kids are not excelling early, there is a temptation to do more work or tutoring. There are plenty of benefits to working with a coach, including building self-esteem, but when a child-athlete equates all of their value with sport, it becomes unhealthy. Kids don’t need to be great at sports right away, they just need to have fun playing them. Parents need to realize that kids will get better with enough time and practice.

Obviously, it doesn’t feel great socially to not excel, but provided they feel included and are not viewed as a liability for team play, not being a starter has value in the long run. Kids must learn to problem-solve without the help of an adult. Bailing kids out of athletic ineptitude won’t help them when they are on their own, so don’t hire a private coach unless a child wants to be better. I have found that when the young athlete asks for help, and not the parent, it is a good time to look for an outside coaching source because the kid truly wants to get better rather than it just being the parents’ dream.

Kids don’t always learn to be good teammates when winning is rewarded and learning is a means to an end. Kids who work with private coaches tend to forget the value of practicing with their team coach, and it becomes a political nightmare when too many cooks are in the kitchen. Add in an overzealous parent, and soon the process is too crowded with opinions.

Private coaches are not the problem. At times, they are a part of the solution. But hiring them for the wrong reasons and wrong time is not a good idea. Parents, coaches, and the youth athlete should be involved with the discussion on private coaching, and when the group thinks it’s a good idea, then proceeding with tutoring or coaching makes sense.

14. Let Your Kids Officiate or Play Alone

While I encourage families to be together for dinner, having parents chaperone every sporting event or practice is a bad idea. Kids need some free time away from mom and dad. Helicopter parenting has actually decreased a child’s ability to think and reason since thinking and reasoning are done for them, and playing with others is a social skill, not just a physical endeavor. More and more kids need to play sports and control their environment by learning to compromise, negotiate, and be diplomatic. Organized sports are too organized, forcing kids into rules and a structure that are more about what the parents want and not what the kids need. Allowing kids to create their own rules and/or change the activity to what they perceive is fun will tailor sports to their enjoyment.

One way to do this is to make a sports bag for the kids, and fill it with Wiffle balls, bats, kickballs, tennis balls, frisbees, etc. Give the kids the bag, some space, and free time, and then get the heck out of the way. Parents forget that kids just want time away and/or freedom, as they are too often controlled by adults. Not having fans or parents watching allows kids to experiment, take risks, and express themselves through sport in different ways than during the constraints of organized sports.

The optimal balance between structure and open free play is unknown, but when sports are too formal, the fun starts to wane and the drop-off rate increases. Kids need just enough structure to be on the right path, but parents should not be the trailblazers, the youth athlete needs to be.

15. Practice, Practice, Practice

Sometimes repetition is necessary to learn a skill or sport, so don’t just hope that everything will fall into place. Batting practice in baseball is a great example of why a kid may literally take 4–5 swings in a game and technically fail to reach first base even if they make contact. Spending time in the backyard or with a bunch of other kids is not expensive, and they should only seek out hitting instructors as needed. It’s pointless to spend time and money on technique if the coach doesn’t have much to work with.

Parents should be involved at early levels but, as the child matures, leave the growth and improvement to qualified coaches. You don’t need to have a child spend countless hours with mind-numbing drills, but if a kid likes to shoot around for hours, let them. Usually, children self-regulate when they are tired or bored, so trust that they will decide how much is enough.

If a child-athlete wants to be better, you will know it: They will talk often about how much they love the sport, and they will put in the effort to get better. This is how you will know they are enjoying the journey. Kids who are stagnating because they don’t know how to properly execute a task need a hint or two, not full immersion in a coaching program or extra lessons. It’s okay to struggle, provided it’s productive, and that means experimenting, not just expecting different results by doing the same thing over and over. 

A Smile Is the Best Sign of Athletic Development

Remember: A happy athlete is one who will more than likely improve, so don’t lose sight of the fact that sports at early ages are not meant to be professional or elite. Even young talents need to enjoy their childhood and just be kids. What we are seeing is a growing trend, especially with more affluent families, to chase excellence with resources instead of being patient and trusting a process that leaves us feeling less in control. Sports are a gift, and we need to embrace the fact that talent and time tend to be more influential than investing in coaching and training. Of course, proper instruction and having good coaches matter, but athleticism is more about genetics and environment than any other combination.

Support your children by adding an enriching experience of as many activities as possible, and only start specializing as they get closer to adulthood. The truth is that most of the successful athletes in college are multi-sport athletes because they were talented and didn’t burn out. Forcing a kid to specialize in the hopes they will get a scholarship or be accepted by a better school is a lousy plan, and it usually leads to injury and/or disappointment.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Collectively, strength and conditioning professionals need to help raise the standards of the profession, and one important way to achieve this is by setting institutionalized procedures and best practices. The CSCCa and NSCA Joint Consensus Guidelines for Transition Periods is a positive step in the right direction and provides a valuable resource for coaches to use when onboarding student-athletes.

When an athlete steps off-campus for summer or winter break—or is a new athlete entering your program—their true training history is unknown. Maybe they worked out at their high school or a local private facility, but unless you are in constant communication with these athletes, there’s a good chance you’re in the dark. Did they follow a progressive resistance training program? Were they on a running program that established a foundation for summer conditioning equivalent to the athletes currently on campus?

For the most part, the answers most likely are no—therefore, it’s your responsibly as a coach to meet them where they are currently. It’s also critical to establish open lines of communication with other key support staff members who impact the student-athletes.

This article will cover two key topics:

1. How we onboard incoming freshmen and transfers, outlining the standard procedures that help us run our program effectively.
2. How we communicate and collaborate with sports medicine and use other operating procedures to serve our student-athletes best.

Having a plan and a process allows you to have professional guardrails in place to improve outcomes and athlete safety.

Challenges with Incoming Freshmen and Transfers

Most coaches I’ve talked to around the country have the same struggles when trying to onboard new athletes into their program. Although every university has its own unique set of challenges, here is a list of some of the issues most commonly faced.

Unknown training history. Athletes report to campus from all over the world, and their training history and background can vary significantly. I’ve had freshmen come from places like Cressey Sports Performance with great training backgrounds and others who have never set foot in a weight room before entering ours.

Short acclimation period (fall teams). Many of our fall sport teams have 10-14 days of practice before their first official game, offering little to no time to train optimally. And freshmen and transfers often compete for playing time immediately.

Structural imbalances. With athletes specializing earlier, we see many athletes come in with imbalances and movement deficiencies. For example, a basketball player might arrive on campus with a 40-inch vertical but still can’t do a lunge without losing balance.

Integrating freshmen and transfers with the returners. It is easier said than done to have multiple programs going on at one time in your facility—especially if you’re running the sessions single-handedly.

Steps to Address These Challenges

Step 1. Put all new athletes on the Block Zero program. More on this below.

Step 2. Juice up your internship program. Tap into your campus resources and local exercise science departments to improve your internship program. With multiple programs going on in one session, you need more eyes on the floor. On campus, we use the physical therapy, health science, and nutrition departments for volunteers, interns, and work-study students. Our internship coordinator also has established relationships with several local universities that send us full-time semester interns. As our internship program has grown, we’ve had several certified post-graduate interns looking to gain experience, as well. This takes some work on the front end, but in the long run, it can really help you grow your department.

Step 3. Institute an “all hands on deck” approach when necessary. If you don’t have enough help, use full-time staff who work with other teams during the onboarding phase. It’s never a bad thing to have other coaches from your staff get to know other student-athletes.

Step 4. Use overtime cards. Once athlete deficiencies are recognized, we prescribe the athletes individualized corrective exercises or short workouts to do with the training program either before or after workouts (or on a separate day). This allows us to individualize training and give athletes extra work based on their needs. For example, if an athlete is struggling from a conditioning standpoint, they might do bike intervals while an athlete with poor core strength does extra suitcase carries, planks, and Pallof presses.

Establishing a Block Zero Program

We took this concept from Coach Joe Kenn, Head Strength and Conditioning Coach of the Carolina Panthers. Regardless of the sport, we have every new athlete complete our Block Zero program. Athletes must pass competency in each of our main movements before progressing to more advanced movements. We’ve had this system in place as a department for the past three years, and it has allowed us to:

1. Teach and enforce proper movement from Day 1
2. Safely progress athletes with varying training histories
3. Separate the incoming players from the returners so we can have more eyes on them during a critical period
4. Create good training habits and break bad ones

Incoming freshmen who play a spring sport are split from the returners during the session and have a completely different program. For those who compete right away in a fall sport, we use the Block Zero exercises to replace our more advanced exercises used by the returners. For example, if our upperclassmen are front squatting, the freshmen will do landmine or goblet squats. If our upperclassmen are barbell benching, our freshmen are doing tempo push-ups or DB bench press. This lets us keep everyone together to account for the demands of the hectic in-season schedule.

A question I often get from other strength coaches is, “Do your sport coaches have any issues with this?” In three years, we haven’t had one coach question this program. If anything, they appreciate that their athletes will be taught how to do everything the right way while we continue advancing and pushing the returning players.

Below is the bank of exercises our coaches can choose from when designing their Block Zero program. If you have more advanced freshmen or transfers, you can continue to challenge them within these parameters. For example, you can add tempos to a landmine squat or a vest to the single-leg squat.

• Squat Pattern: Banded BW Squat, Goblet Squat, Landmine Squat
• Hinge Pattern: Dowel Hinge, Band Good Morning, DB RDL, Band Pull Through
• Single Leg: BW SL Squat (off a short box), BW or DB Split Squat
• Press Pattern: DB Bench Press, Tempo Push-Ups, Seated DB Shoulder Press
• Pull Pattern: Chest Supported Row, Lat Pull Down, Cable Rows
• Core: Suitcase Carries, Pallof Press (and variations), Dead Bugs, Farmers Walks, Plank Variations

Below is a sample of one of our original programs. We paired each exercise with a corrective to help improve the quality of the movement, and each week the athletes progress in either load or volume.

For example, we had one group of incoming players that included a junior college transfer, a true freshman, and a true freshman coming off a minor injury. The program was relatively easy for the junior college transfer, challenging for the true freshmen, and hard but appropriate for the freshman coming off an injury.

Results of Our Block Zero Program

Reduced injuries. Since implementing these programs across the board, we’ve seen a significant decrease in injuries with incoming freshmen, both in the weight room and on the playing field or court.

Improved performance. The before and after photo below is the 9-month transformation of a former student-athlete. He was a junior college transfer who had done no formal training before stepping on campus—and at 6’7 with a 7’0 wingspan, weight training didn’t come naturally for him. In his first year, he was a starter right away for us, and we did not deviate far from the sample weightlifting program shown above. Combined with improving his diet and consistently working hard every single day, he put on 28 lbs and increased his vertical by 3.5 inches during a season in which he started all 33 games.

With our men’s basketball program, we’ve seen an average body weight increase of 10lbs and a vertical jump increase of 4 inches for first-year players in our program. In short, it doesn’t take an advanced program for someone new to training to make extraordinary progress.

Common Communication Challenges with Sports Medicine

Our communication and collaboration with sports medicine are critical for the development and health and safety of our student-athletes. These two groups need to work closer than any other support units in the department. Both strength and conditioning coaches and athletic trainers spend a great deal of time with the student-athletes and can make a tremendous impact when they’re on the same page.

Ego. One of the most common issues with strength and conditioning coaches and athletic trainers around the country is ego. In most cases, one person believes their job is being done by the other. Another contributor is the lack of understanding of each role.

Return to play programs. If there is no structured process for return to play protocols as athletes transition back into the weight room, you’re doing your athletes a disservice and setting yourself up for conflict between the two parties. All athletes need to be treated as individuals when they are coming back from injury. And protocols that we’ve discussed, reviewed, and agreed upon give everyone involved peace of mind. Why would the athletic trainer want to turn the athlete over to strength and conditioning staff if there isn’t a plan in place? Adjustments can be made as you go, but have a structured program in place.

Poor communication. A lot of issues that arise across the board in any field come down to poor communication. A poorly worded email or text, forgetting to send a response to a message, or leaving someone out of a discussion can cause problems even when it wasn’t intentional.

Lack of collaboration. The reality is both fields have a lot of crossovers, especially regarding areas like flexibility, recovery, and nutrition. Naturally, people tend to grab hold of things instead of using each other as a resource. And for those strength and conditioning coaches and athletic trainers responsible for multiple sports, the communication might be limited to just an email or two per week or catching up in the hallway if they ran into each other, which causes miscommunication.

We found that teams that have an athletic trainer and a strength and conditioning coach who traveled and attended practice together always had better relationships, trust, and collaboration. This was due to the amount of time spent together during the year with road trips and long practices. The head athletic trainer and I worked together to put protocols in place that allowed staff members the opportunity to create relationships.

Steps to Address Communication Challenges

Meetings. Each ATR and S&C meet at least once per week (outside of practice) to discuss the athletes in general, what they see in the weight room, current training program, current rehab programs, etc. This not only keeps everyone on the same page when it comes to the athlete, but it also helps improve the relationship and trust between the two groups.

Aligned hours. We do not open for any weight training or conditioning sessions unless someone is present in the training room.

Return to play programs. All athletes returning from concussions or surgery of any kind have set protocols agreed upon by both the athletic performance staff and the athletic training staff. We also have a staff member who has a primary administrative assignment to oversee the programming and progression for each athlete coming back after surgery.

Individual screening process. Our athletic performance staff and athletic training staff work together to screen all incoming student-athletes and create protocols specific for each team. For example, our basketball program will do a series of jumps on the force plate, an overhead squat, and a single-leg squat test while our baseball program will go through a completely different assessment. This helps us identify structural imbalances and performance strengths and weaknesses and also pushes members of both staffs to work together and be on the same page.

Group staff meeting. Two years ago, we organized a meeting with both staffs and laid out an overview of communication expectations as well as any coordinated projects between the two groups to keep everyone on the same page. At the start of each academic year, we get together to lay out any new plans for staff members joining the department.

Results of Increased Communication

Improved working relationship. The scheduled meetings significantly increased the trust and respect between the two groups, and the miscommunications slowly disappeared with this collaborative approach.

Friendships. Many of the staff members have become friends outside of work. Friendships are not a necessity but have brought the two groups closer together which, in turn, has positively impacted the student-athletes.

Ego is left out of it. When you get to know someone, you usually understand their intentions better and don’t take things personally. The increased communication has allowed all parties to do what is best for the athletes, regardless of who comes up with the idea.

Positive crossover. Because of the nature of the strength and conditioning and athletic training professions, there will be some crossovers. Athletes might come into the weight room to roll and stretch, or they might go down to the training room. We use the overtime cards for athletes who have pre-existing injuries and need some extra work but not necessarily one on one treatment in the training room. These are two examples of how having everyone on the same page can save everyone time. It also allows athletes who might need specific individual attention with a trainer to get better while athletes who just need maintenance work can fit it into their routine.

Other Effective Operating Procedures

High-performance meetings. Last year, we began having high-performance meetings with several teams, which included the sport staff, strength and conditioning, athletic training, and academics. In-season teams would meet once a week, and off-season teams would meet bi-weekly. The meetings helped everyone stay on the same page regarding logistics like travel, schedule changes, or tough academic periods. It also helped keep everyone in tune with athletes having a tough time and managing the load of the athletes.

Athletic performance meetings and chalk talks. Every Friday, my staff and I get together and recap the week and discuss new training blocks for our teams. For example, if women’s soccer is about to start a new program, their coach will print copies of the plan and walk the entire staff through their thought process, bouncing ideas off everyone in the room. The process also lets us make sure we don’t have any holes in our programs and serves as a good opportunity for young coaches to practice describing their plan before they speak to the head coach.

Credentials. The fact that there are still people in collegiate strength and conditioning without earning certifications through the NSCA or CSCCa is scary. As a department leader, it’s your job to make sure that every member of your staff is certified and maintains their certification throughout their employment at your university. This is something every director should do at each institution to improve how we’re viewed as a profession.

Safety in numbers. Football obviously requires more attention than other sports in addition to larger teams like lacrosse and baseball. With these teams, we do everything in our power to get as many eyes in the room as possible. Sometimes that calls for all hands on deck or asking two coaches on staff to partner up on a team. Growing our internship program also has helped us with this.

Reporting lines. All athletic performance staff members report directly to me as the Associate AD for High Performance.

Pre-workout fueling. We do everything in our power to make sure the athletes have something in their bodies before each session. While educating them on the importance of eating before training is important, we go a step further to ensure they are prepared to work out. Snacks like bananas, chocolate milk, and granola bars are in our facility and available before any training session.

In-services. We aim for quarterly in-services or Skype sessions with programs and individuals around the country. One presentation that has benefited us from a health and safety perspective is from Josh Bullock, the Athletic Development Coach for US Ski and Snowboard. His topic was “Managing Common Health Conditions Encountered by the Exercise Professional,” which covered managing athletes with sickle cell, diabetes, spondylolisthesis, and asthma, among others.

Wrap Up

These protocols and policies have developed over time and continue to evolve each year. My staff and I at Stony Brook have chipped away at these to best serve our athletes during the last four years. Credit goes to my initial staff: Vincent Cagliostro, Director of Athletic Performance for Football at Stony Brook; GC Yerry, Assistant Strength and Conditioning Coach at Army West Point; and Patrick Cummings, Director of Football Performance at Buchholz High School for collaborating on the original protocols as well as my current staff—Kaitlyn Newell, Joe Quattrone, Joel Lynch, Kelly Cosgrove, and Rob Deese for bringing new ideas and updating these protocols each year.

The big takeaway from this article is for coaches, administrators, and high-performance professionals to look at their situation and address their unique problems in a systematic way—not necessarily to adopt these exact procedures.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF