Introduction
Most coaches spend hours painstakingly planning every detail of the training program, and periodize their training with great detail. Often, not nearly as much time and effort is devoted to periodization of the technical plan. Planning the teaching of necessary technical skills is as crucial to success as fitness levels, and should be considered just as closely. The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines for periodization of the technical training year and choosing training activities for each session.
Good teaching progressions and drills are often
considered a panacea in athletics, and are pursued relentlessly. Often in this
pursuit, we lose sight of the actual purpose of these activities. So often well
meaning coaches want a progression of drills that, when completed, produces a
technically perfect athlete. This happens rarely and only by chance.
A coach should realize that a drill is not a
teacher, but an opportunity to teach. Certain fundamentals should be identified
prior to practice, then taught and rehearsed within the context of the drill.
The effectiveness of a drill has little to do with the drill itself. Its effectiveness
is determined by the skill the coach uses in identifying fundamentals and
recognizing chances to teach them in within the drill.
The technical training year should be divided into phases of training, just as we divide the year into phases in our fitness training. Before naming and elaborating on the content of these phases, we should state that each is a process, not just a period of time. We break the year into these phases for the sake of discussion, yet these phases blend smoothly into each other and indicate an evolutionary process that should be unfolding.
Generally, we should start with a period of drills
and partial skills. The drills in this phase provide an opportunity to address
fundamentals. The partial skills are basically just that…. the actual
competitive event broken into manageable teaching portions.
While this is a necessary and useful time, we must
realize that the key purpose of this period is to familiarize the athlete with
certain concepts so that a basic understanding of concepts is developed prior
to bringing them to the whole event. The purpose here is not to develop
complete mastery of them. Mastery should be developed within the event itself,
and generally speaking, most programs spend far too much time in this period.
A period of synthesis of these fundamentals should
come next. During this period fundamentals are brought to and implanted into
the event. The partial skills learned are synthesized into bigger parts and
eventually a model that resembles the competitive event.
This process includes not only synthesis of these
parts, but also the increase of demands until the practice session involves
intensities and speeds that approach those of competition. Generally speaking,
the planned synthesis period should be complete prior to the start of the
competitive season.
Finally, a period of problem solving should be
planned. Regardless of the effectiveness of the teaching and planning, problems
arise. In spite of high mastery of spatial concepts in the early stages of
learning, temporal and rhythmic demands differ, and much time must be allotted
for these adaptations.
The key element of and reason for the necessity of
this problem-solving period is the adaptation to competitive demands.
Competitive demands are higher than those we create in practice, so technical
breakdowns will occur at this point. This is why we generally associate the
problem-solving period with the competitive season.
Some coaches try to create competitive type situations in practice in an effort to prevent these problems. These attempts usually fail, because emotional and arousal factors present in competition are seldom present in practice. For this reason, it is often best to schedule competitions so that the first few can effectively serve as very specific practices.
One additional phase must sometimes be included.
This would be a period of time for radical technical changes. Any radical
change that must be accomplished should be done so that much time is available
prior to competition. Thus if this phase is required, it should precede the
other three.
All coaches have an inherit understanding of the
overload principle. The human organism is adaptable, but will only adapt to a
stimulus to which it is unaccustomed. The demands of training must increase
over time if increased fitness levels are to be gained.
The overload principle must be considered in the
learning environment as well. Each technical training session provides a
stimulus. The demands of this stimulus must be increased over time for learning
to occur and continue.
Mastery of a skill is our ultimate goal, and an
admirable one. Yet, mastery of a skill at a particular level cannot be attained
until the level of the training stimulus has surpassed that level. Expecting
mastery to occur without an increase in the level of the training stimulus is
unreasonable and halts progress. When mastery is partially (but not completely)
achieved, then training stimulus should become more demanding so that learning
will continue to occur.
For example, lets consider a male shot putter in the
developmental stage, throwing a lighter shot in the practice environment. Lets
say that this shot putter exhibits 90 percent mastery of the skill at this
level, but still exhibits a few minor faults. We could, in spite of the fact
that perfection hasn’t been attained with the light shot, progress to a
slightly heavier shot for a session. This would increase the intensity of the
stimulus. When the athlete returns to the lighter shot, it feels more
comfortable than before, and he demonstrates a higher level of mastery than he
did before working with the heavier shot.
Of course, a high degree of mastery is required
before we increase the demands as such. We can, just as we can in training,
increase demands and difficulty too quickly. But, to expect mastery without any
such increase is unreasonable. We must realize that the increase in training
demands will always precede an increase in mastery.
This increase in demand should be progressive, and
may take many forms. Heavier implements, more complex exercises, longer
approach runs, and increased velocities. Are common tools coaches may use to
achieve this overload.
We have briefly commented earlier separately about
partial learning and synthesis. Lets now examine these activities by
contrasting them. The debates over the benefits of whole practice and partial
practice have raged for some time, and will continue.
Partial practice serves as a more controlled,
effective atmosphere for teaching rudimentary concepts, but for the beginner it
may be confusing, as it is tough for a beginner to see how the skill fits in.
Whole practice presents such a great number of variables that coaching purely
within this context (before some understanding of rudimentary skills is
established) may be confusing.
Yet, it is inarguable that whole practice is more
specific and more demanding. Therefore, if the demands of the practice stimulus
are to be increased, whole practice has a valuable place in these training
schema.
Motor learning research tells us much about variance
in the practice environment. While variety in practice may not improve
performance in practice, variety in the practice environment does improve
performance in competition. Variety in training forces the athlete to adapt in
a variety of ways, learning to deal with a greater variety of situations and
becoming better at adaptation itself. Variance in the practice environment is
necessary to foster a conducive learning atmosphere.
The increase in demands of the stimulus we have just
discussed is just one form of this. Others must be used in order to maximize
the learning achieved in the time available.
Changing the drills used, exercise choice, approach run length,
implement weight, hurdle height, drill sequence, or location in the training
regimen can all be used to create this variety. This does not mean an infinite
number of drills and exercises must be taught. Using certain ones for a period
of time, going on to others, then returning to the original ones can be
sufficient.
Scheduling of these changes can take many forms. They may be altered in a cyclic fashion on a daily, weekly, and or monthly basis. For example, lets assume that we will schedule two triple jump technical training sessions per week. For one month, the first session could consist of triple jumping from a seven step approach. The second could consist of drills that are different from but related to the event, such as various combinations of bounds. During the next month, the first session could consist of triple jumping again but from a longer nine step approach. The second could be a review session of remedial drills done earlier in the training year.
Purposes of Practice
One goal of technical training practice is obvious. Its purpose is to teach and perfect the execution of the skill. Generally speaking, with developmental athletes, the first part of the training year is dedicated to teaching this skill to a level that will enable the athlete to execute it flawlessly under the demands of competition.
There is a second goal however, and an often neglected one. Once the skill is taught, what are we trying to accomplish with these practices the remainder of the year? These practices provide an opportunity for coaches to develop and rehearse cues they will give their athletes during competition and examine athlete’s responses to them. These practices give athletes an opportunity to practice responses to these cues and develop understanding of them. In short, the goal of these practices, once the skill is learned, is to rehearse athlete-coach communication during competition.
It is important that we keep this second goal in mind later in the season. As important competitions approach, a wise is using past competition experience to determine what problems are likely to arise, and is, with the athlete, developing dialog and cues in practice to handle these situations.
Contrast in the Practice Environment
As stated earlier, the earlier parts of the training year is devoted to teaching the skill, then preparing the athlete to execute it under the demands of competition. We also stated that the goals later shift to a rehearsal of meet dialog, cues, and responses. During this time, since the purpose of practice changes, so must the intensity of the practice stimulus.
Sometimes, skills are so similar that the body becomes confused and finds it difficult to effectively shift from one skill to another while executing both well. At this time of year, ideally the athlete is keenly attuned to competitive velocities and intensities. Velocities and intensities in practice that are only slightly different than those in competition only serve to confuse.
For this reason, it is best to provide a sharp contrast in intensities between practice and competition. Slower practice velocities and lower practice intensities still provide an opportunity to develop and rehearse cues and responses. At the same time, the different velocity enables the body to interpret practice and the meet as differing skills, rather than similar ones that interfere with each other.
For example, a pole vaulter may spend time vaulting from an 18 step, meet length approach in practice in the weeks prior to the start of the competitive season, and will probably continue to do so for a few weeks after the season has started. At some time, however, having the vaulter practice from a 10 step approach would provide contrast to the meet approach and minimize interference. The vaulter could continue to practice the competition approach in a different manner, drilling without a takeoff or with a sliding box, for example.
It is important to note that the decrease in intensity advocated here pertains only to specific technical training sessions, not to the remainder of the athlete’s fitness training regimen.
Conclusion
In closing, the acquisition of technical skill is often by chance. Proper planning and applying the principles of training theory to the motor learning field can result in much more effective teaching in much shorter periods of time.