Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

An investigation of the in-game behaviours of

professional, top-level youth soccer coaches

Matt Smith & Christopher J. Cushion

To cite this article: Matt Smith & Christopher J. Cushion (2006) An investigation of the in-game
behaviours of professional, top-level youth soccer coaches, Journal of Sports Sciences, 24:4,
355-366, DOI: 10.1080/02640410500131944

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410500131944

Published online: 18 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6886

View related articles

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
Journal of Sports Sciences, April 2006; 24(4): 355 – 366

An investigation of the in-game behaviours of professional, top-level

youth soccer coaches

MATT SMITH & CHRISTOPHER J. CUSHION

Institute for Coaching and Performance, School of Sport and Education, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

(Accepted 7 February 2005)

Abstract
Although research into coaching has increased considerably during the last two decades, an area of neglect has been that of
the professional youth coach. The aim of this study was to investigate the working behaviours of six top-level professional
soccer coaches. Data were collected using a modified version of the Arizona State University Observation Instrument and
semi-structured interviews. The triangulation of the data ensured that both the ‘‘what’’ and the ‘‘why’’ of the coaches’
behaviour were considered. Results revealed a conscious and well thought out pattern of behaviour: silently monitoring,
interspersed with clips of instruction coupled with praise and encouragement. The interviews revealed three themes
underpinning this behaviour: developing game understanding, support and encouragement, and coaches’ role and
influences. The use of silence was the largest single behaviour, the efficacy of which was considered in light of theories of
experiential and discovery learning.

Keywords: Coaching behaviour, soccer, youth

with instruction being the most frequently used

Introduction
behaviour in college, high school and youth sport
The systematic study of coaching and teaching contexts (Gallimore & Tharpe, 2004; Kahan, 1999).
behaviour using descriptive-analytic systems and Similarly, Douge and Hastie (1993), in a review of
direct observation has been a prominent research coach effectiveness using data derived from systema-
methodology in the field of sport pedagogy for over tic observation research, identified such coaches as
20 years (DeMarco, Mancini, Wuest, & Schempp, predominantly (a) providing feedback incorporating
1996; Gilbert & Trudel, 2004; Kahan, 1999). prompts and ‘‘hustles’’, (b) providing high levels of
Indeed, the constant production of articles since correction and re-instruction, (c) using questioning,
1975 (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004), focusing on different (d) involved in giving instruction, and (d) managing
aspects of coach behaviour, would appear to indicate the training environment.
that direct observation of coaches is an appropriate This literature has demonstrated that regardless
method for describing coaches’ behaviour in training of the level of knowledge and skill of the coach, it is
and competition (Gallimore & Tharpe, 2004; Tru- the application of that knowledge and skill which
del, Côté, & Donohue, 1993). Moreover, the studies separates the excellent practitioner from the average
conducted to date, using various observation instru- one (Lyle, 2002; Woodman, 1993). Consequently,
ments, have yielded insights that have contributed only by knowing about coaching behaviours and
greatly to the body of knowledge in sport pedagogy practices does theorizing about current limitations
(DeMarco et al., 1996). become possible (Abraham & Collins, 1998). There-
Consequently, a wide range of literature exists fore, in the development of any model of effective
describing coach behaviour in a range of sports (e.g. coaching, there remains a need to undertake detailed
Bloom, Crumpton, & Anderson, 1999; Lacy & investigations in a variety of settings, to determine
Goldston 1990; Salminen & Liukkonen, 1996; what effective coaches actually do, thus assisting in
Seagrave & Ciancio, 1990; van der Mars, Darst, & providing information on the variables important in
Sariscany, 1991), including soccer (e.g. Cushion & determining effectiveness (Cushion & Jones, 2001;
Jones, 2001; Millard, 1996; Miller, 1992). This body Gallimore & Tharpe, 2004; Jones, 1997; Millard,
of literature has tended to produce consistent results, 1996; Trudel, Côté, & Bernard, 1996).

Correspondence: C. J. Cushion, Institute for Coaching and Performance, School of Sport and Education, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH,
UK. E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02640410500131944
356 M. Smith & C. J. Cushion

Of these settings, it is perhaps understandable that Russell, 1995a; Gilbert & Trudel, 2004). Indeed,
coach behaviour has been observed in practice behavioural assessment has been criticized for being
settings more frequently than in games. Put simply, too simplistic (Strean, 1995), and of being limited in
there are fewer games than practice sessions, so its contribution to coach effectiveness (Bloom,
practice provides greater scope to observe coach Durand-Bush, & Salmela, 1997). Therefore, there
behaviour. This is reflected in the number of studies have been calls to extend overly simplistic observation
in which both practice and game behaviours were systems (Strean, 1995). Indeed, to fully capture the
studied (only 12% of the articles in a review by complexity of coaching, it is argued that direct
Kahan, 1999). Of the few studies that observed coach observation techniques should be supplemented by
behaviour across both games and practice sessions, interviews and/or participant observation (DeMarco,
only four expressly compared behaviour across the Mancini, & Wuest, 1997; Potrac, Brewer, Jones,
two (Kahan, 1999). Chiefly, these four studies found Armour, & Hoff, 2000; Potrac, Jones, & Armour,
that certain behavioural categories register differently 2002). At the same time, without studies specifically
under game versus practice conditions (Chaumeton orientated towards describing the constraints inher-
& Duda, 1988; Trudel et al., 1996; Wandzilak, ent in coaching, knowledge of the coaching process
Ansorge, & Potter, 1988). For example, coaches will remain imprecise and speculative (Saury &
engage in comparatively less instruction and overall Durand, 1998). Nevertheless, research addressing
coach – athlete interaction in competition settings individual coaches’ interpretations of their experi-
(Salmela, Draper, & La Plante, 1993). In accounting ences provides the opportunity to generate theory
for this, Trudel et al. (1996) concluded that game play that is true to the complex realities of sports coaching
offered less in the way of ‘‘teachable moments’’, with (Côté, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, and Russell, 1995c;
the coaching having been undertaken during practice Potrac et al., 2002). Therefore, continued investiga-
sessions. Interestingly, coaches who passively observe tion into the knowledge and strategies that expert
during competition have been described as being ‘‘off coaches use, which in fact underpin their behaviour,
task’’ (Claxton, 1988); however, Cushion and Jones could provide useful information for improving coach
(2001) speculate that silence is in fact a deliberate education (Côté, Salmela, & Russell, 1995b). Con-
coaching strategy. Given the equivocal nature of these sequently, interpretative investigation to enable a
findings, it is evident that more information is deeper understanding of the factors that coaches
needed, especially pertaining to the coach’s cognitive believe explain their performance would seem neces-
processes, before concluding that coaches are passive sary (Potrac et al., 2000, 2002; Strean, 1998).
or off task during moments of silence. Moreover, To this end, and to aid the interpretation and
competition is an important factor that impinges understanding of coaches’ behaviour, rigorous appli-
upon the coaching process (Cushion, 2001). Com- cation of quantitative methods (e.g. observational
petition, it should be remembered, is not only playing techniques) complemented with sound interpreta-
time, but the time spent in immediate preparation for tions of qualitative data (such as obtained from
competition, team talks, half-time, full-time, time- interviews) have been recommended (Martens,
outs, and other stoppages where there are opportu- 1987; Potrac et al., 2000, 2002). Recently, Cushion
nities for coach – athlete interaction. So the examination and Jones (2001) have called for future research to
of practice time alone would appear, by definition, to ‘‘investigate qualitatively the philosophies, beliefs and
exclude an important and, by its very nature, motives of coaches for behaving as they do’’ (p. 370).
spontaneous and ‘‘creative’’ part of the coach’s role. Indeed, such an approach may provide a deeper
No studies have yet provided a complete picture of understanding of the coaching process (Potrac et al.,
youth coaches’ behaviours during games and there- 2000). However, while a triangulation of research
fore more comprehensive studies are needed to try to methodologies has been recommended (Denzin,
explain the link between the coach’s tasks during 1989; Patton, 1990), to date relatively few researchers
practices and games (Trudel et al., 1996). This, have used such an approach (Gilbert & Trudel,
together with the already reported differences in 2004).
behaviour, would suggest that research examining While a variety of sports and levels have been
coach behaviour during competition would arguably studied, most coaching research has been conducted
be a worthy addition to existing knowledge. in North America (Cushion, 2001). And although
While systematic observation of coaches has some researchers have examined the behaviour of
resulted in a wealth of information about coach American youth soccer coaches (e.g. Millard, 1996;
behaviour, observation instruments only measure Miller, 1992; Wandzilak et al., 1988), little is
direct styles of coaching (Sherman & Hassan, currently known about the working behaviours of
1984). Consequently, behavioural research has not English youth coaches. Furthermore, despite the
provided much insight into the cognitive processes accumulation of behavioural knowledge, the profes-
underlying these behaviours (Côté, Salmela, & sional arena in general, and professional soccer in
 In-game behaviours of youth soccer coaches 357

particular, remains under-researched (Gilbert & the participant’s perspective (Griffin & Templin,
Trudel, 2004; Lyle, 2002). Clearly, the demands, 1989).
pressures and goals of professional coaches in
professional sport are quite different to those of
Participants
other coaches (Cushion & Jones, 2001). Thus,
descriptions of professional coaches’ behaviour are The participants were six male professional youth
needed (Côté, Salmela, Baria, & Russell, 1993) and, soccer coaches. Each coach worked with a Football
as has already been stated, there remains a lack of Association Barclarycard Premier League (n ¼ 2) or
research on the competition strategies of coaches in Nationwide League (n ¼ 4) youth team, the top
general (Bloom et al., 1997). Therefore, the aim of professional soccer leagues in England. The partici-
this study was to use a mixed-method approach to pants were aged 28 – 44 years (mean ¼ 37.0 years;
examine the coaching behaviour of professional s ¼ 5.6 years) and had an average of 8.3 years of
youth soccer coaches during games. Systematic coaching experience (s ¼ 2.5 years).
observation and interpretive interviews were em- Previous research on coaching expertise (e.g. Côté
ployed, not only to identify the instructional et al., 1995b; Saury & Durand, 1998) has used a
practices of the coaches, but to explore the cognitive combination of several criteria to select appropriate
processes underlying the coaches’ behaviour. participants for study: (1) the number of years of
coaching experience, (2) the performance levels
attained by their athletes, and (3) officially recog-
Methods
nized qualifications and skills (Côté et al., 1995b).
The initial phase of the research involved the Following on from this work, the selection of youth
application of a systematic observation instrument coaches for the present study was based on the
to produce a quantitative description of the instruc- following criteria. First, a minimum of 5 years of
tional behaviours of the participants during games. coaching experience at professional level was re-
These data were built upon in the second stage, quired. Second, all of the coaches had to be currently
which focused on using interpretive interviews to working within a professional soccer club and to have
examine the experiential, situational and contextual developed players who progressed to the professional
factors that impacted the coach’s instructional game. Third, all of the coaches needed to hold a
behaviour in the competitive environment. The aim current national governing body qualification. Ad-
of combining systematic observation with interviews ditionally, but not part of the selection criteria, three
was to produce data whereby the qualitative findings of the six participant coaches had played professional
would offer explanation and meaning to the quanti- soccer themselves, while the remaining three had
tative research (Jayaratne, 1993). It was anticipated played semi-professionally (see Appendix).
that a combination of methods would facilitate a
more holistic view of the practitioner and the
Instrumentation
multifaceted processes behind instructional beha-
viour (Potrac et al., 2000, 2002). Systematic observation. The instrument used to
It was not our aim to aggregate data or create an collect behavioural data was a modified version of
illusion of the ‘‘whole picture’’, but to recognize that the Arizona State University Observation Instrument
using systematic observation would result in rela- (ASUOI) (Lacy & Darst, 1984). The ASUOI has a
tively objective descriptive behavioural data that was total of 14 specifically defined behavioural categories
context bound and that the nature of the instrument (Table I), seven of which are directly related to the
would not give a sense of that context. Indeed, van instructional process (i.e. pre-instruction, concurrent
der Mars (1989) indicated that to generate a deeper instruction, post-instruction, questioning, physical
understanding of such behaviour, the quantitative assistance, positive modelling and negative model-
data obtained from systematic observation should be ling). Because non-verbal praise and non-verbal
analysed ‘‘in light of the situations in which they were scold are difficult to observe during live recording,
observed’’ (p. 9). Indeed, integrating interviews and the non-verbal and verbal categories of these two
systematic observations facilitated an understanding behaviours were combined (Lacy & Darst, 1989).
of observed behaviours from the participants’ per- Lacy and Darst (1989) argued that the ASUOI
spective, what motivated participants’ behaviour, and meets the criteria identified to satisfy requirements
what meaning observed behaviours had for the for both face and content validity. According to Lacy
participants (Griffin & Templin, 1989). Moreover, and Darst (1989), face validity is apparent because
such triangulation of research methodologies (i.e. the behaviour categories are specifically defined and
using two or more ways to gather data) has been obviously related to coaching behaviours. In addi-
recommended by others (Denzin, 1989; Patton, tion, because a rational basis exists for the selection
1990) and helps to accurately present findings from of the behaviour categories and these behaviours are
358 M. Smith & C. J. Cushion

Table I. Behaviour categories and definitions of the Arizona State University Observation Instrument (after Lacy & Darst, 1984, pp. 59–66).

Behaviour Definition

Use of first name Using the first name or nickname when speaking directly to a player
Pre-instruction Initial information given to player(s) preceding the desired action to be executed
Concurrent instruction Cues or reminders given during the execution of the skill or play.
Post-instruction Correction, re-explanation or instructional feedback given after the execution of the skill or play
Questioning Any question to player(s) concerning strategies, techniques, assignments, etc. associated with the sport
Physical assistance Physically moving the player’s body to the proper position or through the correct range of motion of a skill
Positive modelling A demonstration of correct performance of a skill or playing technique
Negative modelling A demonstration of incorrect performance of a skill or playing technique
Hustle Verbal statements intended to intensify the efforts of the player(s)
Praise Verbal or non-verbal compliments, statements or signs of acceptance
Scold Verbal or non-verbal behaviours of displeasure
Management Verbal statements related to organizational details of practice sessions not referring to strategies or
fundamentals of the sport
Uncodable Any behaviour that cannot be seen or heard or does not fit into the above categories
Silence Periods of time when the participant is not talking.

representative of coaching behaviour as supported Table II. Definitions for the amended silence category (after
by previous research (e.g. Claxton, 1988; Claxton & Lombardo, 1989, pp. 353–359).
Lacy, 1986; Cushion & Jones, 2001; Lacy & Behaviour Definition
Goldston, 1990; Miller, 1992), the instrument also
possesses content validity (Lacy & Darst, 1989). Silence: On-task Coach is not talking but obviously involved in
the action of the game
Following pilot work, the silence category was
Silence: Off-task Coach is not talking and obviously involved in
amended to define ‘‘on-task’’ and ‘‘off-task’’ beha- tasks unrelated to the action of the game
viour (Table II), as described by Lombardo (1989).

Interpretive interviews. In addition to coach behaviour work for the questions was derived from the
observations, each coach was interviewed. While behaviour categories of the ASUOI and the observa-
systematic observation can provide descriptive data tions of the coaches during games. Although the
of coaching practice, it cannot provide an insight into interviewer explored these topics, any others that
why coaches do what they do (Potrac & Jones, 1999; emerged during the interview and that were relevant
Potrac et al., 2002). Furthermore, not everything is to the study were investigated. This flexibility was
observable – for example, feelings, thoughts and essential because any restrictions placed upon the
intentions (Patton, 1990). Thus, to aid the inter- participants can narrow the scope of the interview
pretation and understanding of coaches’ actions and and interfere with the eliciting process (Reitman-
cognitions, systematic observation was followed up Olson & Biolsi, 1991).
with interviews (Martens, 1987; Potrac et al., 2000).
Indeed, Côté et al. (1995a) emphasized the impor-
Procedure
tance of examining, in more depth, the knowledge
of expert coaches to provide insights for coach Systematic observation. Each coach was observed four
education. times during competitive matches. Each observation
Interviews can take several different forms, with a consisted of two 20 min recording periods inter-
major distinction between ‘‘structured’’ and ‘‘un- spersed with 5 min breaks. Thus, the total time
structured’’ interviews. In a structured interview, the recorded per game was 40 min, with each coach
questions are formulated ahead of time and the being observed for 160 min in total. A digital
participants are asked the same questions in the same stopwatch was used for timing.
order (Côté et al., 1995b). In contrast, the unstruc- A trained observer, who stood in or near the
tured interview covers broad topics specified in technical area to accurately record the participants’
advance but the actual questions are formulated behaviours, conducted all observations live. Data
during the interview (Côté et al., 1995b). The were recorded using time sampled event recording
questions focus on providing a better understanding (Rushall, 1977); thus, each time an identifiable and
of the participant’s perspective that emerges during pre-defined behaviour was observed, including any
the course of observations or prior interviews (Griffin change in behaviour, a record was entered on the
& Templin, 1989). In the present study, all of the ASUOI coding sheet. Any behaviour lasting longer
interviews were conducted using a semi-structured than 5 s was recorded again but marked with a dash
approach with open-ended questions. The frame- (7), indicating that it was a continuation of a
 In-game behaviours of youth soccer coaches 359

previous behaviour rather than a new one. This total number of independent behaviours to calculate
allowed the data to be analysed in terms of specific the percentage of behaviours accompanied by a first
events (event recording) and time intervals spent in name (Lacy & Goldston, 1990). The rate per minute
each behaviour category (interval recording). In for each behaviour was calculated by dividing the total
addition, field notes were kept by the observer, as a for each category by the total number of minutes
supplement to help explain and expand upon the observed.
data (Seagrave & Ciancio, 1990).
Interviews. The interview transcripts were analysed
Interviews. The same format was followed for all of based upon the procedures and techniques of
the interviews. Each interview began with gathering grounded theory (Côté et al., 1993). Grounded
general demographic information. Then, through theory is an inductive methodology for developing
specific questioning, the behaviour, cognitions and theory grounded in data systematically collected and
knowledge of each coach were explored. The analysed (Saury & Durand, 1998). It consists of two
interviewer used the language and terms of each main operations: (1) breaking down the data into
coach being interviewed. The interviewer gave no meaningful units and (2) grouping units with similar
hints as to what would be an appropriate or desirable meanings into broader categories. The objective of
response; however, while remaining neutral about this analysis was to organize and interpret the
the content of the interview, the interviewer endea- unstructured qualitative data obtained from the
voured to make each coach feel the information they interviews with the coaches. The first step was a
shared was valuable (Côté et al., 1995c). Use of body detailed line-by-line examination of the interview
language, such as nodding, and words of thanks transcripts and involved highlighting sections of text
helped to create a context in which each coach felt into meaningful and significant excerpts. Tesch
comfortable and motivated to express their knowl- (1990) defined these ‘‘meaning units’’ as a ‘‘segment
edge (Patton, 1990). Each interview was transcribed of text . . . comprehensible by itself and contains one
verbatim. Only minor editing procedures were idea, episode or piece of information’’ (p. 116).
performed on the transcripts (i.e. names or refer- Second, similar features between meaning units were
ences that threatened the anonymity of the coaches identified. This procedure, referred to as ‘‘creating
were omitted). As soon as one coach’s interview categories’’ (Côté et al., 1993), involved comparing
transcript was completed, it was re-read. This meaning units and grouping them together to
process helped the investigator to (a) become organize common meaning units into distinct sub-
highly familiar with each coach’s interview; (b) categories. A sub-categories was named according to
search for any new information for future interviews; the common features that all its meaning units
and (c) facilitate the content analysis (Côté et al., shared (Côté et al., 1995c). For instance, the
1995c). following meaning unit was part of a sub-category
labelled ‘‘use of praise’’:
Data analysis
I think at the kid’s level, I think you just have to
Systematic observation. Data were coded and quanti- give loads of praise, the more the better. I don’t
fied for each behaviour category. Percentages and rate think you should refrain from giving them praise.
per minute for each category were calculated and Every time they do something good, tell them.
totalled. Percentages were calculated by dividing each They need to be smothered in praise at this age. I
independent behaviour category by the total number mean, they’re still young kids and everybody likes
of independent behaviours. However, Cushion and praise. (Pete)
Jones (2001) pointed out that, by definition, use of
first name is not independent in that it must be used The pre-defined behavioural categories from the
in combination with another behaviour. By including ASUOI assisted with structuring the analysis as they
the instances of first name occurrence in the calcula- informed the nature of sub-categories. In addition,
tion of percentages of independent behaviour, the other sub-categories were identified from existing
percentage of each category would decrease and thus literature. Finally, further sub-categories were identi-
the true percentage of the other behaviours would be fied from the data, such as ‘‘decision making’’ and the
distorted (see Table IV). Consequently, the number ‘‘purpose of games’’. As the data analyses proceeded,
of uses of first name was subtracted from the total a further level of interpretation emerged that com-
behaviours. Therefore, to calculate percentages, pared sub-categories to organize them into larger
excluding the use of first name, the total of each and more inclusive themes (Côté et al., 1995c). For
dependent category was divided by the total number example, all the sub-categories that referred to a
of independent behaviours (Lacy & Darst, 1989). coach’s behaviour linked to providing support
The number of first names coded is divided by the and encouragement were assembled into a more
360 M. Smith & C. J. Cushion

embracing and broad theme labelled ‘‘support and (Cushion, 2001; Lyle, 2002; Potrac et al., 2002). This
encouragement’’. section is divided into three categories, each devel-
oped and based upon the meaning units that emerged
from the process of data analysis: (a) Developing
Results and analysis
Performance, (b) Support and Encouragement, and
Following analysis, three overall themes emerged: (c) Coaches’ Role and Influences. These three major
(1) developing performance; (2) support and en- categories were used to conceptually describe and
couragement, and (3) coaches’ role and influences. understand coach behaviour.
The sub-categories represented within each theme
are summarized in Table III.
Developing performance
The data obtained from the systematic observation
are presented in Table IV; the data represent ‘‘what’’ The largest single category of recorded behaviour
behaviours the coaches used during games. The main using the ASUOI was silence. The coaches spent
findings of the systematic observation phase then 40.38% of game time silently observing the play
follow, and are highlighted alongside the interpretive (Table IV). Indeed, a pattern of coaching emerged in
interview data in an attempt to explicate the which prolonged periods of silence were punctuated
quantitative information, thus generating an under- with verbal cues, short reminders and specific
standing of ‘‘why’’ certain coaching behaviours were commands or correction. From a position on the
used (Potrac et al., 2002). The data are interwoven in sideline, the coaches issued comments and informa-
an attempt to demonstrate the richness and depth of tion to the players during play. When the coaches
the coach’s work alongside exemplifying the inter- were not providing feedback, they were intently
related and interdependent nature of coach behaviour watching the action of the game in silence. The
results of this study clearly indicate that the coaches’
silence (40.38%) was indeed an intentional modus
Table III. Emerging themes and sub-categories included within operandi. During moments of silence the coaches
each theme following the inductive analysis. were performing a number of cognitive processes,
which included individual player analysis as well as
Developing performance Support and encouragement
team tactical analysis:
. Use of silence . Use of praise
. Use of instruction . Scold I want to let the players play unencumbered by the
. Mistake correction . Use of names pressure of my voice. So I want to let them go
. Decision making . Hustle through the processes of making decisions and
. Purpose of games
choices during the course of the game unfettered
Coaches’ role and influences by me telling them what to do and when to do it.
. The coach’s job So I’m analysing the game, I’m specifically looking
. Coaches’ knowledge and
experience
at the key moments in possession, out of posses-
sion and transition. (Carl)

Table IV. Total frequency, rate per minute (RPM), interval and percentage of behaviours for all coaches.

Behaviour Frequency RPM % Interval %

Use of first name* 1312 1.37 25.02 1350 14.80

Pre-instruction 448 0.47 8.54 574 6.29
Concurrent 670 0.70 12.78 1030 11.29
instruction
Post-instruction 154 0.16 2.94 178 1.95
Questioning 120 0.13 2.29 232 2.54
Physical assistance 10 0.01 0.19 10 0.11
Positive modelling 16 0.02 0.31 18 0.20
Negative modelling 4 0.00 0.08 4 0.04
Hustle 242 0.25 4.61 250 2.74
Praise 926 0.96 17.66 970 10.63
Scold 60 0.06 1.14 60 0.66
Management 74 0.08 1.41 78 0.85
Uncodable 430 0.45 8.20 566 6.20
Silence (on-task) 1588 1.65 30.28 3684 40.38
Silence (off-task) 110 0.11 2.10 120 1.32
Total 6556 6.83 9124
Total not including* 5244
 In-game behaviours of youth soccer coaches 361

Silence was considered necessary by the coaches to As Hodges and Franks (2002) suggest, ‘‘explicitly
observe and analyse, and was used as a method to directing participants to information may hinder the
encourage the players to learn for themselves. Without processing of additional important information or
intervention from the coach, it was believed that the interfere with the cognitive demands of the task’’ (p.
players could engage in their own sensory feedback: 801). Thus, concurrent instruction, while a frequent
behaviour (12.78%), was restricted to brief direc-
I want the players to learn themselves. I don’t want tions related to specific task performance, for
prescribed motions of play. The kids have got to example ‘‘head up’’, ‘‘turn out’’.
learn, find out through their own learning experi- By looking at the pre-, concurrent and post-
ences, success, OK and negatives or not instruction components, comparison of these beha-
successful. (Mike) viours can provide an indication of the timing of
feedback. The decision as to when to give feedback
Consequently, silence was used a tool for learning. was based upon several factors, including appropriate
The coaches expressed concern that too much opportunities, players’ performance and the context
intervention would deny the players not only of the game. This process of coach decision making
opportunities to learn but also the opportunity to again adds insight to processes engaged in while
demonstrate what has all ready been learnt. In sum, silent. Generally, however, feedback was issued
during moments of silence, the coaches in this study immediately, while similar and/or recurring points
were involved in a number of cognitive processes. were left until the breaks or half-time. The greater
These included: observing and analysing the play, frequency of pre-instruction compared with post-
incorporating team and individual analysis; letting instruction is consistent with previous studies (Kahan,
play unfold, thus allowing opportunities for the 1999) and suggests that the coaches favoured its use.
players to learn for themselves; and checking learn- There was an ambition for the players to ‘‘play in
ing and players’ decision making. the future’’ – players need to anticipate patterns of
The comparatively low percentage of time the movement and predict future events. In addition,
coaches in this study spent providing instruction pre-instruction was used as a pre-emptive tactic.
(22.42%) supports the premise that effective coach- Rather than waiting until something had gone wrong
ing relates to the quality of instruction rather than before correcting it, instruction would be given to
quantity alone (Carreira Da Costa & Pieron, 1992; prevent such an occurrence:
DeMarco et al., 1996). ‘If you’re talking all the time
and giving instructions all the time, you’re probably I’m trying to prompt and remind the players. I feel
operating on a more superficial level, it just becomes the need to reinforce what the players should be
noise’ (Mike). Thus silence, linked with instruction, doing. I want to remind before to actually do it
played an important role in the delivery of informa- rather than wait ‘til afterwards. So it’s a reminder,
tion, perhaps ensuring that the effect of the ins- it is a pre-emptive thing to remind them. (Carl)
truction was not diluted by continuous interaction
(Cushion & Jones, 2001; Hodges & Franks, 2002). The results of this study show that 27.13% of all
Certainly, the amount of instructional feedback given the recorded behaviours were instructional in nature.
at one time was something that the coaches took This is appreciably less than the consensus of
care with. The percentage of concurrent instruction previous literature. However, most research to date
decreased from frequency (12.78%) to interval has investigated practice conditions alone (Cushion,
(11.29%), which indicates that while given often it 2001; Kahan, 1999). It has been established that
did not last long. The coaches seemed aware that coaches engage in comparatively less instruction and
giving too much information during play could overall coach – athlete interaction during competition
overload the players: (Salmela et al., 1993). It is obvious that, because of
the fast and continuous nature of match-play, certain
Give instruction but not overwhelm the kids with instructional behaviours have limited value. For
instruction, you can’t take everything in all in at example, the use of questioning, which has been
once. So I try and keep it simple, especially the proposed as a valid teaching strategy (Claxton,
younger ones and as clear as possible. (Pete) 1988), was not used to any great extent (2.29% of
all recorded behaviours) by the coaches in this study.
Consequently, concurrent instruction was restricted As one coach explained: ‘‘Question and answer is a
to short informative phrases and cues or ‘‘buzz- great way of assessing understanding, but it isn’t
words’’ (for example, ‘‘body shape’’, ‘‘play round’’, appropriate in games unless you pull the kid out of a
‘‘scan’’). Any extra information might overload the game or stop it’’ (Pat). The use of instruction was
players and interfere with their ability to attend to most often related to the correction of mistakes.
task-relevant cues for performance (Schmidt, 1991). Recognizing that it is not possible to correct every
362 M. Smith & C. J. Cushion

single mistake, the coaches in this study set out with the players and was often, like many of the
a game plan and focused only on certain themes: behaviours, linked to instruction: ‘‘So, every time
you give instructions, I think there should be some
If we’re working on something the following week praise involved as well. So you build them up and
and a mistake happened that’s relevant to that, then you give them the instructions’’ (Pete). In
then I’d pick it up. If it’s irrelevant, then I addition, supportive behaviour helped decrease the
wouldn’t, I’d leave it until we are working on it, fear of failure, for example:
because in every game you have a theme what you
are going to concentrate on. If you try and rectify The group of players that I work with respond well
every single mistake and every certain thing then to being told that they’re doing a good job. So I try
you’d go round in circles. (Pat) to encourage them and it’s fostering a positive
environment so that they’re not scared of trying
Consequently, each game would have a different things or doing things. So they don’t have a fear of
emphasis and only the mistakes that related to that failure really. (Carl)
particular theme would be highlighted. This ability to
detect pertinent errors was identified as a vital skill in Too much praise was seen as losing its value
the effectiveness of the coach. For example, one and thus becoming meaningless to the players. This
coach commented: suggests that its overuse, especially general praise, can
be interpreted as non-specific feedback, which dilutes
There’s so much you could change ‘cause there’s its effects (Schmidt, 1991). This appeared to be
mistakes happening all the time. So it’s what you context specific, with the coaches indicating that with
pick out and what you don’t. The good coach is older players praise might be used more judiciously.
the one who picks out the relevant mistake and In addition to providing high levels of positive rein-
tries to rectify it to make them better. (Pat) forcement, the coaches in this study also preferred to
be very limited with their use of scold and criticism of
Thus, having identified a relevant mistake, the the players. Again, this may be particular to the youth
coaches would then offer a strategy, involving coaching context:
instructional feedback, to help improve that aspect
of a player’s game. For instance, one coach described There’s no place at this age group for scolding kids
his approach as follows: and moaning at them. And if you do speak to them
about how they could improve their game, then it’s
The nice thing about the game is that there are a constructive talk rather than pointing out their
certain instances that keep repeating themselves deficiencies. (Pete)
and if you can point that moment out in the game,
then maybe you can give a couple of strategies to However, the coaches demonstrated empathy with
help with that particular situation. You recognize the players and perhaps from their own experiences
the stimulus and you need to have the correct as a player considered scold to be an incongruous
response to it. (Pete) practice:

If the kid’s playing bad he knows he’s having a

Support and encouragement
poor performance. He doesn’t need me there to
The results suggest that the coaches frequently reinforce it in front of everyone. Scolding for me is
provided support and encouragement to their players a thing of the past. Very rarely do I criticize
during games. The praise to scold ratio was 16:1, because I was constantly criticized as a player and I
which was higher than in previous studies (e.g. wouldn’t do it to any of the younger players. They
Cushion & Jones, 2001; Miller, 1992). The coaches don’t need the criticism. (Mike)
in this study employed liberal use of praise (17.66%)
and hustle (4.61%), and restricted use of scold The results indicated that 25.02% of all independent
(1.14%) to engender what can be described as a behaviours were accompanied by the use of first name.
positive and supportive learning environment. This is higher than previously reported (e.g. Cushion &
The second most frequently employed indepen- Jones, 2001) and demonstrates the coaches’ desire to
dent behaviour was praise (17.66% of all recorded personalize their interactions with the players:
behaviours). This is in line with the results of
previous studies that reported praise to be regularly It adds meaning to all behaviours because it
used by coaches (Black & Weiss, 1992; Cushion & personalizes it and a player knows exactly who it
Jones, 2001; Horn, 1992). The liberal use of praise is I’m talking to. It automatically gets somebody’s
was deemed necessary to increase the confidence of attention when you use their name. (Carl)
 In-game behaviours of youth soccer coaches 363

An example of a behaviour that was often accom- performance, concurrent instructional feedback
panied by a name was hustle. The use of hustle coupled with praise and encouragement, further
(4.61%) was generally related to encouraging physi- silent observation, and repetition of this cycle.
cal effort from the players and was also used in
conjunction with praise.
Discussion
Coaches’ role and influences
This study has demonstrated that professional youth
In contrast with previous research (e.g. Chaumeton soccer coaches’ behaviour during games was strongly
& Duda, 1988; Hastie and Saunders, 1993), the linked to developing players’ game performance,
coaches in this study emphasized player development while engendering an environment of support and
above outcome. Interestingly, despite the elite nature encouragement. The emergent pattern of behaviour
of the programme, winning was de-emphasized; no was a sequential cycle of spontaneous and reactive
scores or league positions were kept. The focus was behaviour in the form of silently monitoring player
on improving and developing individual players performance, interspersed with short clips of concur-
rather than the team’s win/loss record: rent instruction coupled with praise and encourage-
ment. While this pattern of behaviour is not strongly
I say, look I don’t mind what the score is at the end associated with notions of coach effectiveness (e.g.
of the game, OK, as long as I can see that you’re Douge & Hastie, 1993), the behaviours in this
trying to try those things out in the game which we sequence are related to research examining teacher
were practising during the week. (Pete) effectiveness in physical education (Rink, 1996).
The use of silence by the coaches provides support
The developmental nature of their role is reflected in for Rupert and Buschner’s (1989) notion of silently
the descriptions given by the coaches regarding their monitoring as a coaching strategy, where the coach
job: reflects on appropriate interventions. For some
authors (Claxton, 1988), however, silence is per-
My job is to improve individuals, skill level, ceived as the coach being ‘‘off-task’’ at best, and at
improve their understanding of the game and do worst an indication of ineffective coaching (Jones,
that through setting them certain goals and then Housner, & Kornspan, 1995); that is, the coach is
helping them identify situations in the game where unable to quickly detect skill-related problems and
they could improve and develop. (Pete) therefore says nothing. In this study, silence was a
deliberate coaching strategy, with coaches silently
It’s opening a doorway to learning. It’s providing monitoring team and individual performance, and
the players with the best opportunity to achieve reflecting upon timely and appropriate intervention.
their goal, whatever that goal is. (Carl) Indeed, research has demonstrated that experienced
coaches focus more attention on information cues
All of the coaches in this study highlighted the about skill levels, abilities and characteristics of the
influence of other coaches on their coaching beha- players (Jones, Housner, & Kornspan, 1997).
viour. The most significant contribution to their Moreover, the use of silence as a deliberate
knowledge came from watching and learning from coaching strategy can usefully be seen as an insight
other coaches. This involved learning not only into the coach’s conceptual position pertaining to
‘‘good’’ coaching practices, but also learning what teaching and learning. This position perhaps reveals
not to do. In addition, the coaches in this study also essentially a more constructivist philosophy where,
acquired knowledge from their own playing and through direct experience, knowledge is constructed
coaching experience, ‘‘doing the job’’ and going on rather than being objective and de-contextualized.
governing body courses: ‘‘I’ve learnt through my Coaches are engaging in, and facilitating for their
own experience and by watching other coaches’ players, a process of reflective thinking (Gilbert &
sessions and from coaches that coach you and Trudel, 1999): ‘‘The kind of thinking that consists of
through FA and UEFA coaching courses’’ (Dan). thinking a subject over in the mind and giving it
In summary, the results of this study show that the serious and consecutive consideration’’ (Dewey,
behaviours of the professional youth soccer coaches 1933, p. 3). Through their own reflective process,
were linked to developing players’ game performance coaches are learning that an effective way for players
and providing support and encouragement. The to learn is through the experience of doing, searching
pattern of the coaching behaviour that emerged can for and discovering solutions without their interven-
be described as a sequential cycle of spontaneous and tion: ‘‘Kids should be left to play and make their
reactive behaviour (Kahan, 1999), which generally mistakes; learning comes from mistakes, thinking
took the following form: silent observation of player about it and working out their own answers’’ (Pete).
364 M. Smith & C. J. Cushion

This time for reflection, reflection in action short selective comments will avoid overloading the
(Schön, 1983) or reflective observation (Kolb, players. The results also suggest that youth coaches
1984) facilitates an engagement with experiential would do well to provide players with insightful
learning for both coach and player. So, rather than correctional instruction following mistakes coupled
silence being an indication of inexperience, arguably with support and encouragement. Negative feedback
the reverse could be true, perhaps reflecting well- should be limited and specific praise given not only
developed propositional and procedural knowledge. for performance outcome, but also for effort,
Indeed, the processes the coaches are engaged in are, improvement and skill approximations. As much as
arguably, highly dependent on a combination of possible, all interactions should be personalized, with
experience and knowledge, and have been character- player performance and skill development being
ized as intelligent unconscious (Claxton, 1998) or emphasized more than winning and outcome. These
creative intuition (Wierzbicki, 1997). These pro- behaviours are somewhat different than the charac-
cesses involve a combination of conscious and sub- teristics of effective coaches identified by Douge and
conscious information processing highly sensitive to Hastie (1993). This suggests, therefore, that effective
the context and coach’s focus. Thus, detailed coaching is not simply behaviour to be copied, but a
observation is a crucial coaching behaviour, with skill to be learnt (Abraham & Collins, 1998).
observation and insightful analysis being vital for
coaching success. Indeed, such a strategy can
Conclusion
facilitate ‘‘discovery learning’’, in which players are
allowed to search for and discover relatively unique This study sought not only to describe the beha-
solutions without direct instruction from the coach viours of coaches during games, but also to further
(Davids, 1998). Moreover, Hodges and Franks our understanding of the context in which these
(2002) contend that with few preconceptions about coaches act and the influence of such context on
a given task, learners’ focus will remain on producing coach behaviour. By looking at ‘‘what’’ the coaches
a solution to the problem posed by the task in hand. did and then considering ‘‘why’’, we wished to
However, while the reported benefits of discovery examine coaches’ interpretations of their experiences
learning include increased motivation to learn and and processes by which meaning and knowledge
higher resistance of skills to stress (Davids, 1998), a were used to guide actions – essentially, considering
less prescriptive instructional approach is not neces- both the cognitive and behavioural processes of
sarily natural for the coach: coaches during competition. Interestingly, silence
emerged as the most common behaviour employed
Your automatic instinct is to help the kids and you by the coaches, and the cognitive processes under-
think helping the kids is actually giving instruction. pinning this behaviour were examined. Further
When maybe it might be more helpful if you don’t, research is required, possibly using methods such
if you let the kids make their own mistakes. I as simulated recall, to analyse in detail task-relevant
mean, that would probably be a better way of thoughts matched to specific player actions and game
learning. But as a coach, you do feel like you need events. Such detail may be particularly useful in an
to have some input and use your experience to applied setting, where links can be made between
always point things out. (Pete) psychological strategies, such as imagery or self-talk,
and coach behaviour. Finally, the question remains,
given the backgrounds of these coaches (four of the
Implications for practice
six participants were graduates; see Appendix),
While this research goes some way to highlight the whether their behaviour and their ability to ‘‘in-
complex and contextual nature of the coaching tellectualize’’ the coaching process in this way would
process, and is a ‘‘snap-shot’’ of coach behaviour, it be common to all coaches working at this level within
is possible to suggest a number of considerations for sport? Is this demographic common within this area
competition behaviour. First and foremost, silent of coaching? Is coaching experience alone enough to
observation allows the youth coach to analyse the produce these outcomes, or are they a product of the
game and monitor the development of his players. coach’s educational experiences?
Without intervention from the coach, the players have
the opportunity to learn for themselves and make
References
their own decisions. This coaching strategy also
allows the coach to reflect before giving pertinent Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (1998). Examining and extending
feedback. This feedback should be measured, both in research in coach development. Quest, 50, 59 – 79.
Black, S. J., & Weiss, M. R. (1992). The relationship among
terms of the amount and the content. Appropriately perceived coaching behaviours, perceptions of ability and
timed specific information and task-relevant cues motivation in competitive age group swimmers. Journal of Sport
appear most effective, while restricting instruction to and Exercise Psychology, 14, 309 – 325.
 In-game behaviours of youth soccer coaches 365

Bloom, G. A., Crumpton, R., & Anderson, J. E. (1999). A Griffin, P., & Templin, T. (1989). An overview of qualitative
systematic observation study of the teaching behaviors of an research. In P. W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek, & V. H. Mancini
expert basketball coach. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 157 – 170. (Eds.), Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (2nd
Bloom, G. A., Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. H. (1997). Pre- edn., pp. 309 – 409). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
and post-competition routines of expert coaches of team sports. Hastie, P. A., & Saunders, J. E. (1993). A study of task systems
The Sport Psychologist, 11, 127 – 141. and accountability in an elite junior sports setting. Journal of
Carreira Da Costa, F., & Pieron, M. (1992). Teaching effective- Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 376 – 388.
ness: Comparison of more and less effective teachers in an Hodges, N. J., & Franks, I. M. (2002). Modelling coaching
experimental teaching unit. In T. Williams, L. Almond, & A. practice: The role of instruction and demonstration. Journal of
Sparks (Eds.), Sport and physical activity: Moving towards Sports Sciences, 20, 793 – 811.
excellence (pp. 169 – 176). London: E & FN Spon. Horn, T. S. (1992). Leadership effectiveness in the sport domain.
Chaumeton, N. R., & Duda, J. L. (1988). Is it how you play the In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 181 –
game or whether you win or lose? The effect of competitive level 200).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
and situation on coaching behaviours. Journal of Sport Behavior, Jayaratne, T. (1993). Quantitative methodology and feminist
11, 157 – 174. research. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Social research: Philosophy,
Claxton, D. (1988). A systematic observation of more and less politics and practice (pp. 109 – 123). London: Sage.
successful high school tennis coaches, Journal of Teaching in Jones, D. F., Housner, L. D., & Kornspan, A. S. (1995). A
Physical Education, 7, 302 – 310. comparative analysis of expert and novice basketball coaches’
Claxton, D., & Lacy, A. C. (1986). A comparison of practice field practice planning. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics
behaviors between winning high school football and tennis coaches. Annual, 10, 201 – 226.
Journal of Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics, 1, 188 – 200. Jones, D. F., Housner, L. D., & Kornspan, A. S. (1997).
Claxton, G. (1998). Knowing without knowing why. The Interactive decision-making and behavior of experienced and
Psychologist, 11, 217 – 220. inexperienced basketball coaches during practice. Journal of
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1993). Organising Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 454 – 468.
and interpreting unstructured qualitative data. The Sport Jones, R. L. (1997). ‘‘Effective’’ instructional coaching behaviours:
Psychologist, 7, 127 – 137. A review of the literature. International Journal of Physical
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., & Russell, S. (1995a). The knowledge of Education, 34, 27 – 32.
high-performance gymnastic coaches: Methodological frame- Kahan, D. (1999). Coaching behavior: A review of the systematic
work. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 65 – 75. observation research literature. Applied Research in Coaching and
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., & Russell, S. (1995b). The knowledge of Athletics Annual, 14, 17 – 58.
high-performance gymnastic coaches: Competition and training Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source
considerations. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 76 – 95. of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. Hall.
(1995c). The coaching model: A grounded assessment of Lacy, A. C., & Darst, P. W. (1984). Evolution of a systematic
expert gymnastic coaches’ knowledge. Journal of Sport and observation instrument: The ASU Observation instrument.
Exercise Psychology, 17, 1 – 17. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3, 59 – 66.
Cushion, C. J. (2001). The coaching process in professional youth Lacy, A. C., & Darst, P. W. (1989). The Arizona State University
football: An ethnography of practice. Unpublished doctoral Observation Instrument (ASUOI). In P. W. Darst, D. B.
dissertation, Brunel University, Uxbridge. Zakrajsek, & V. H. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing physical education
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2001). A systematic observation of and sport instruction (2nd edn., pp. 369 – 377). Champaign, IL:
professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Human Kinetics.
Behaviour, 24, 1 – 23. Lacy, A. C., & Goldston, P. D. (1990). Behaviour analysis of male
Davids, K. (1998). How much teaching is necessary for optimal and female coaches in female basketball. Journal of Sport
learning of football skills? The role of discovery learning. Behavior, 13, 29 – 39.
Insight, The FA Coaches Association Journal, 2(2), 35 – 36. Lombardo, B. J. (1989). The Lombardo Coaching Behaviour
DeMarco, G. M. P., Mancini, V. H., & Wuest, D. A. (1997). Reflec- Analysis System (LOCOBAS). In P. W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek,
tions on change: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of a base- & V. H. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing physical education and sport
ball coaches’ behavior. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 135 – 163. instruction (2nd edn., pp. 353 – 359). Champaign, IL: Human
DeMarco, G. M. P., Mancini, V. H., Wuest, D. A., & Schempp, Kinetics.
P. (1996). Becoming reacquainted with a once familiar and still Lyle, J. W. B. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for
valuable tool: Systematic observation methodology revisited. coaches’ behaviour. London: Routledge.
International Journal of Physical Education, 32(1), 17 – 26. Martens, R. (1987). Science, knowledge and sport psychology.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act – a theoretical introduction to The Sports Psychologist, 1, 29 – 55.
sociological methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Millard, L. (1996). Differences in coaching behaviors of male and
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective female high school soccer coaches, Journal of Sport Behavior, 19,
thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath. 19 – 31.
Douge, B., & Hastie, P. (1993). Coach effectiveness. Sports Science Miller, A. W. (1992). Systematic observation of behavior
Reviews, 2, 14 – 29. similarities of various youth sport soccer coaches. Physical
Gallimore, R., & Tharpe, R. (2004). What a coach can teach a Educator, 49, 136 – 143.
teacher, 1975–2004: Reflections and reanalysis of John Woo- Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.
den’s teaching practices. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 119 – 137. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (1999). Framing the construction of Potrac, P., Brewer, C., Jones, R., Armour, K., & Hoff, J. (2000).
coaching knowledge in experiential learning theory. Sociology of Toward an holistic understanding of the coaching process.
Sport On-line, 2(1) (available at: http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/ Quest, 52, 186 – 199.
v2il/v2il.htm). Potrac, P., & Jones, R. L. (1999). The invisible ingredient in
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching science coaching knowledge: A case for recognising and researching the
research published from–2001. Research Quarterly for Exercise social component. Sociology of Sport, 2(1) (available at: 5http://
and Sport, 75, 388 – 399. physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v2il/v2ila5.htm4).
366 M. Smith & C. J. Cushion

Potrac, P., Jones, R. L., & Armour, K. (2002). ‘‘It’s all about Sherman, M. A., & Hassan, J. S. (1984). Behavioural studies of
getting respect’’: The coaching behaviours of an expert English youth sport coaches. In M. Pieron & G. Graham (Eds.), The
soccer coach. Sport Education and Society, 7, 183 – 202. 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress Proceedings: Sport Pedagogy (pp.
Reitman-Olson, J. R., & Biolsi, K. (1991). Techniques for 103 – 108). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
representing expert knowledge. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith Strean, W. (1995). Youth sport contexts: Coaches’ perceptions
(Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. and implications for intervention. Journal of Applied Sport
(pp. 240 – 285). New York: Cambridge University Press. Psychology, 7, 23 – 37.
Rink, J. E. (1996). Effective instruction in physical education. In Strean, W. (1998). Possibilities for qualitative research in sport
S. J. Silverman & C. D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical psychology. The Sports Psychologist, 12, 386 – 398.
education (pp. 171 – 198). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research analysis types and software
Rupert, T., & Buschner, C. (1989). Teaching and coaching: A tools. New York: Farmer Press.
comparison of instructional behaviors. Journal of Teaching in Trudel, P., Côté, J., & Bernard, D. (1996). Systematic observation
Physical Education, 9, 49 – 57. of youth ice hockey coaches during games. Journal of Sport
Rushall, B. S. (1977). Two observational schedules for sporting Behavior, 19, 50 – 65.
and physical education environments. Canadian Journal of Trudel, P., Côté, J., & Donohue, J. (1993). Direct observations of
Applied Sports Sciences, 2, 15 – 21. coaches’ behaviours during training and competition: A
Salmela, J. H., Draper, S. P., & La Plante, D. (1993). Development literature review. In S. Serpa, J. Alves, V. Ferreira, &
of expert coaches of team sports. In S. Serpa, J. Alves, V. A. Paulo-Brito (Eds.), Proceedings of the VIII World Congress of
Ferreira, & A. Paulo-Brito (Eds.), Proceedings of the VIII Sport Psychology (pp. 316 – 319). Lisbon: FMH.
World Congress of Sport Psychology (pp. 296 – 300). Lisbon: van der Mars, H. (1989). Systematic observation: An introduction.
FMH. In P. W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek, & V. H. Mancini (Eds.),
Salminen, S., & Liukkonen, J. (1996). Coach–athlete relationship Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (2nd edn.,
and coaching behavior in training sessions. International Journal pp. 3 – 19). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
of Sport Psychology, 27, 59 – 67. van der Mars, H., Darst, P. W., & Sariscany, M. J. (1991).
Saury, J., & Durand, M. (1998). Practical knowledge in expert Practice behaviours of elite archers and their coaches. Journal of
sailing coaches: On-site study of coaching in sailing. Research Sport Behavior, 14, 103 – 112.
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 254 – 266. Wandzilak, T., Ansorge, C. J., & Potter, G. (1988). Comparison
Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Motor control and performance: From between selected practice and game behaviors of youth sport
principles to practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 11, 78 – 88.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals Wierzbicki, A. P. (1997). On the role of intuition in decision
think in action. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. making and some ways of multi-criteria aid of intuition. Journal
Seagrave, J., & Ciancio, C. A. (1990). An observational study of a of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis, 6, 65 – 76.
successful Pop Warner football coach. Journal of Teaching in Woodman, L. (1993). Coaching: A science, an art, an emerging
Physical Education, 9, 294 – 306. profession. Sports Science Reviews, 2, 1 – 13.

Appendix
Participant background information.

Coach Age Professional coaching Highest educational Coaching qualification Playing experience
experience (years) qualification

PB 44 10 MSc FA Licence Semi-professional

CC 35 12 PhD UEFA‘‘A’’ Semi-professional
DR 28 5 GCSEs UEFA‘‘B’’ Semi-professional
RH 36 7 BEd UEFA ‘‘B’’ Professional
PH 42 7 MSc UEFA ‘‘A’’ Professional
MJ 37 9 O levels UEFA ‘‘A’’ Professional