In the previous intro post to the series on decision making, we went into why sports coaching has ended up where it has. We spoke about how there is this strong and sometimes immovable belief that we need thousands of reps out of context to be skillful and make good decisions in sport.
That the coach and teacher are the central controllers of how we learn - and how we move.
In this post i’m going to get into broadly from where Ecological Dynamics proposes learning in sport comes from, the process (or spectrum) of it and how it can help coaches. But at its very heart, the learning happens solely with the player themselves, in a complex and non-linear fashion.
And how motor skill learning (which is what skill is) differs from modern (formal) educational norms, which are embedded strongly in Cognitive Psychology. And how that approach is wholly unsuitable for coaching sports - especially childrens sport.
We are all constrained for every task within a landscape of affordances (opportunities to act). In coaching a coach designs that landscape. If you restrict those opportunities, you constrain the creativity and abilities of your players.
Conversely using constraints cleverly can change movements, remove bad habits and present more favourable behaviours for the people we coach.
And i will show some comparsions and contrats between the modern linear thinking of Cognitive Psychology and its influence on Coaching and our idea of Practice Design and skill development in particular.
And how this recent, post World War 2 (see post #1 for this) approach compares with the ecological dynamics research and constraints led approach that emerged out of that study.
Briefly, Ecological Dynamics is the combination of the study of Ecological Psychology and the Dynamic Systems Theory.
Ecological Psychology is a A field of psychology where perception is considered to be a functional “act” of picking up information from the environment, to use for regulating movement, not for enhancing its automaticity.
In English: We use the information in front of us in the now and not stored information in the brain (thinking of the brain as a computer, cognitive science belief), to make the decisions we make. That perception is constantly evolving as information presents itself. We are neurobiological beings, not a man made electrical circuit
The Dynamic Systems Theory is considered a complex theory. And humans are seen as complex neurobiological systems. It is a theory that tries to simplify multiple complex theories to explain movement, motor learning and how humans exist and act in their environments.
Generally acepted scientifically, non-linear dynamical systems are highly interconnected systems composed of many interacting parts, capable of constantly changing their state of organisation.
We could use an example of running. When we run fast and hard 0-* secs) our alactic system provides most of the energy, then as the length of the run continues (and we slow down) it becomes more anaerobic (generally 8-30 secs) and then as we slow further and go for longer we use more and more of the aerobic system.
None of these systems are ever “shut down” but one can be more predominantly in use than another. It is just a way of explaining highly complex neurobiological systems.
The DST helps us describes the same for movement and sport. Its not exact. It’s not maths (although they play a part).
But it is a functional way of describing non-linear motor learning.
In the real world: When i play a game as the centre half i arrive with a whole heap of assumptions and internal perceptions (constraints) of myself, my team and the team or players i face. Some a re real and uncontrollable (my genetics, rules of the game) while some are malleable (how i act can evolve).
When the game starts the centre forward comes on and i mark and observe his way of playing. He is 3 inches taller than me at least. Now i percieve the whole environment somewhat differently. His full back plays a long diagonal ball and i back off slightly as i think he is going to head it down to someone. However he backs into me, lets ball come to feet, turns quickly and shoots just over the bar.
My perception has comepletely changed now. I’m in a different game to what i expected.
My senses, proprioception, feel for the game, neuromuscular system and everything else is operating at the same time for every decision to act i make, and this creates a new environment with new information every time. Every single time.
Great players get really good at blocking out the noise or dismissing un-important information. We call this experience in many ways, and it is a part of it.
But it also explains to some degree why sometimes some of the best players seem to have “so much time on the ball”. It is because they are experts at ignoring the inconsequential information.
Constraints is the currency of Ecological Dynamics
My constraints entering the above playing scenarios are dictated by my past, my genetic abilities and the environment i grew up in both physical and psycho-social.
The task laid out above changes every time in a game, but so does my perception with it. It may be that my fear of the height difference dissipates as actually i’m very comfortable with a centre forward who likes ball to feet. Because i’m quick or good at blocking space and tackling.
The next time i see the full back looking at a diagonal ball i will be adjusting my positioning. This is me changing my perception of the task. This is based on what is happening in front of me, not a pre-determined set of options from my brain i will take out and use, or plays from my coach. This is all embodied in my perception of what is happening. Of course my perception changes over time as new information appears. Or possibly new challenges.
This is why a principled approach to coaching, designing a game model and practice deisgn is in th e long term a better approach (for me) that the old schools educational, coach driven, cognitive, X’s & O’s apporach we see everywhere now.
Having a constraints led approach sits very well along side the principled approach to strategic approaches and individual roles. It allows, over time, a set of heuristics, ideas, metaphors and noise quitening concepts to emerge. This allows the players to have their own decision making freedom and an allowance to make mistakes and learn. This leads to a broader creative environment.
A Constraints Led Approach facilitates this.
Constraints are defined as providing the boundaries within which learners can explore and search for movement solutions afforded to each individual within a perceptual-motor workspace (Davids et al., 2008).
Constraints are omnipresent
The task can also be affected by the present state of the pitch, the weather, missing regular full back, my mood and an infanite amount of other “constraints”.
I will act based on what i am afforded. The more “constrained” i am (say by height) the less affordances (opportunities to act) i will have. Those constraints can be a help or a hindrince.
Footballers like Cannavaro (height) and Pirlo (Speed) had significant physical deficits if we were to think about “averages” or the standard physical qualities of centre halves and midfielders that win World Cups, or even go Pro.
But these constraints enhanced other qualities, and afforded them oppurtunities to try other ways of being successful, this is classic self organisation and finding a way despite physical constraints.
This is a great reason for us to delay selection for elite and representative levels. We have taken away the time for players like the above to find a way to figure out their way through their personal and environmental constraints that impact the tasks (playing the game)
Both excelled beyond normal expectations to world class levels.
Imagine if there was a NFL type draft in Italy??? They’d be gone, lost forever.
Constraints are positive and negative
Constraints are often given a negative connoctation (like story above), but sometimes even the worst of constraints can lead to success (poverty leading to football stardom) or not fullfilling one’s ability when say genetically blessed players don’t get challenged.
Speed is an interesting constraint. Many fast players will fail to develop their skills as a young player because they can outrun their opponents. But as they go up the levels this becomes less of an advantage.
So what is an advantage can be a negative constraint.
And thats where Constraints Led Approach to coaching can help. If we can constrin that athlete to offer (affordances) opportunities to act that force him to think more and develop other Game IQ skills, we could call it, then those constraints may lead that player to developing broader perceptual skills.
That could be as simple as on every play he has to touch a sideline before getting any ball. This means his positioning will change, he may be more tired recieving the ball and that even things up. You may see “give & go” emerge then. Thats a very important small win in that case. He has used another player to enhance his skills and make him harder to stop. That is a heavy constraint, but many coaches in the real world deal with imbalanced teams of varied growing young people. 3 seconds on the ball for all is maybe a fairer constraint for all and doesn’t isolate a strong player who may respond negatively. Or not. Thats the joy of coaching, and the challenge. You have to figure that out on the fly.
But that dominant player will be contrained to play in a different way, find new ways to dominate and get on the ball. But he or she has to share the ball.
We can call this “shared affordances”. And that, from an ecological dynamics viewpoint, is absolutely central to Constraints Led Coaching.
We constrain the players to work together to find their own solutions and make desired behavioural decisions.
So as coaches, as i suggest above, we can look at constraining to afford.
By constraining one element it affords other opportunities to emerge. We as coaches then have to observe what happens next. And design and tinker with practice as we see fit and as we work towards more successful and desired behaviours.
Within our practices the players will organise themselves based on these affordances.
This is what we refer to when we talk about “self organisation”. In a shared way, all together as a team. Remember these are team sports.
But self organisation is also omnipresent within our lives. We organise ourselves functionally (as efficiently as we can) based on the task and our ability to perform that task at that time.
The task of trapping a ball varies from a 6 year old playing around with his/her friend to when they go training, to when they are 9 and have been playing the game for years to when competition comes in teenage years and so on.
But within any task, we are looking for stability.
The major mistake made in coaching has been that said stability is the “drill”. That players need to find that “stability” before moving on to dynamic practice or games.
But the motor learning reality is they are starting again as soon as they enter that dynamic environment and will still have that search for stability based on the tasks they are presented with - which will involve other players, both team mates and opposition.
Presently we delay and interfere with that search for stability by believing we need to drill players first. We think this helps.
Coaches have become like parents - helicopters
It is harder to design with a more ecologicaly mindset, at the start. We have to place players in appriopriately suited teams or against players of reasonably equal level. This of course is one of the major challenges of coaching. One of the main, and very desired, beneficial by products of this approach is that it prmotes self paced development that we know leads to better retention numbers in sport and is generally more fun also - because we are playing the game.
Unfortunately the rush to have all the technical elements mastered by a certain age has had an incredibly negative affect on youth sport. Add in egotistical maniacs wanting to win u10 competitions and you have a total disaster.
We don’t learn in a top down manner though, regardless of age. We learn in the environment, and in a non-linear way.
So we cannot cirriculum that. Hence we need to develop coach faciltators and designers. Not “Teacher” coaches.
Where isolation and bloacked practice can have a positive impact for a shirt term is in the initial stages of Motor Skill Learning - the coordination stage. But not for that long, and its not absolutely necessary either.
Just look at Messi at age 4-6 in any video you can find of him at those ages. He took to the competitive and opposed environment immediately. Not everyone is Messi of course, but some of the best players i played with or have observed never did the isolated personal practice - they just picked it up at training or at the games. Not immediately, but through the game. This tallies with the best Motor Learning research we have to date. And i think this is the missing piece with the cognitive science beliefs and approach (or Information Processing ideas) - they never talk about the people who didn’t do the isolated work - which seriously questions the need. And they completely avoid the people who did the 10,000 hours and got nowhere?
The comfort of CLA
The Constraints Led Approach (CLA) is the tool a coach can use that is underpinned by Ecological Dynamics (ED). ED is the theory, the research. CLA is a way of understanding your players and designing practice. Its not a short or easy journey, and you need to allow challenge. Challenge of yourself and your beliefs. We don’t really see it, and i still struggle at times with this - but we have been sold a pup into believing education and school is the way we learn and that adults, teachers, coaches or others in positions of authority have the answers. Often they don’t but undoubtedly we learn how to move ourselves, or within whatever environment upon which we exist or are performing tasks. The coach does not give us the answers or the ability to move.
The CLA isn’t perfect. It can’t be, and never will be. No model or theory is. But it is the best we have for now.
Of course a coach or teacher can help, facilitate and support someone.
That though is a very different thing, and often coaches get in the way of growth for a large population of the people they encounter.
Coaches can help.
Greatly in fact. If we think about the “One good adult” theory, a person of leadership can have a very positive affect. But the damage that can be done can be wildly damaging too - and most of it is not deliberate or conscious. It is very often well meaning people who have been poorly coached themselves or poorly supported and they believe this that old approch is a necessity.
And this is why i promote CLA and its values.
Eventually it actually becomes really easy to implement CLA, using some of the simple heuristics like;
“task simplicity”
“constrain to afford”
“repetition without repetition”
“does it look and feel like the game?”
We will delve deeper into practice design later in this series.
However we should touch on other elements of CLA that are important now as well.
Representiveness is a key component of CLA, and in ver simple english you can think about representitive design like this
Does it look and feel like the game?
Seeing as we believe strongly that we learn best IN the game, then training and practice looking and feeling like the game is key.
Of course we can break it up into slices of the game for repetitive practice purposes, but they must still feel somewhat like the game.
Below is an idea of how we can compare Ecological thinking v Cognitive Psychology/Information Processing