Not trying to blind anyone with science, that's the way it is in Elite level sport pretty much without exception.

The Community game is a bit different as you can just gather up the best players or biggest lads and bulldoze your way through to titles. However, IMO, That's perhaps one of the most irresponsible ways to coach that I can think of as the potentially good players you have learn next to nothing unless they're tested.

I disagree that you can't coach side steps, body swerves, positional sense and fixing defenders before passing. We've got 23 lads who would have thought such things were akin to witchdoctery 18 months ago but now they all do it instinctively.

all due respect bren the nutrision part of the game comes at a later age and usually comes from selkf dicipline dont know what age you watch from the touchline ;but my coaching experience was mainly from 16 to 20 but also at open age these are young men and the ones that want to progress will look after themselves and i repeat the thingslike side steps and body swerves are natural talents and a football brain is another, getting them to use and develop their talents is the secret

Well I'll respectfully disagree with you try scorer,
Nutrition becomes very important from the age of about 14 and some will take the messages on board and some won't but that doesn't meant hey shouldn't have the information and advice provided to them.

Some players have a great deal of natural ability and some don't but ALL can be developed to one extent or another, you just have to know how and have the will and patience to do it.

jason robinson;paul newlove , steve macmanara among anothers i know it was a while ago but you cant get more elite ,sorry to sound a bit condecencing ,but i think ive done my bit with the ELITE

You don't sound condescending but you'll have to accept that others have experience as well and by the sound of it more recent and more up to date.

No ones suggesting that some, a minority, players have such natural ability that they are able hone their natural tallents without the aid of sports science however, I would argue that even in the days before the term sports science was prevalent it was a rudimentary version of sports science that was occurring. The difference now is that we understand it more and therefore have the ability to sharpen the practice.

I'd argue that in today's world it's more important than ever that we know how to maximise the athletic and sports specific potential of players. In years gone by I, like thousands of others, gained my speed, agility awareness etc by playing out on the street or at a local field every day, today's kids don't do 10% of what we used to. I've no doubt that Jason Robinson, Paul Newlove etc did much the same I know such as Ellery Hanley did and coupled with his natural ability and exposure to the game he became a great player.

We have the knowledge to take a wider number of potentially good players and manage their development so that almost nothing's left to chance. The biggest travesty in our game since I've ever been involved is the consistent flow year on year of 15, 16 and 17 year olds who've been playing the game for 10 years and have such poor skills development that their opportunities are fatally limited when they could have been so much more. As a coach I feel that responsibility and it frightens me to death that I might hinder the development of a single player because I coached him poorly, to avoid that I work my nuts off and leave nothing to chance.

That said its always done in an environment that the players love being in, with practices that incorporate science but also within game related activity.

Completely agree.

To those of us reading rather than contributing its an interesting discussion.
Thanks for explaining how you work guys.

In that case I'll make another contribution,

No ones denying that great players have learned the game and taken care of their well being for a hundred years before now and before we really knew what about physiology, psychology, biomechanics and the rest. Unfortunately in many ways the world has changed and there are precious few young Alex Murphys, Neil Fox's, Vince Karalious's etc playing out in the streets with their mates every night until they get dragged in by their mum. Me and my brothers turned every daylight hour into a Test match and that along with touch n pass at training is where we learned how to run onto a ball, catch an up n under, beat an opponent etc. The harsh truth is that, for a multitude of reasons, kids very rarely do that anymore and coaches must teach agility, side stepping, in and aways, ball skills and so on because of the absence of hours of games played on the streets like we did in yesteryears. In the precious few hours a week that you get to work with your players you have to maximise the skills learning that's needed otherwise there's a skills gap when they reach Scholarship or Academy age and that's been the bain of contention for professional coaches for years.

What sports science does is allows you to understand what affects that learning which in turn allows you to use a scalpel instead of a hatchet to maximise the development of players. I'd love to have years to wait for the players to reach their potential by just playing games but the truth is we don't have that time. Why? because our opposition use every advantage to be the absolute best they can be and if we don't do the same we'll never ever compete with them.

I can't beleive that anyone with knowledge of modern day coaching methods really thinks that player development is not massively enhanced by the knowledge and application of sports sciences!

the clan speaks a lot of sense..my son is 13 plays league and boxes at 42kg..has body fat of 4.2% eats properly and the only crap he eats is fish and chips once a week on thursday after training! some kids are naturals but a good coach can teach the skills to kids who want to learn..as we all know the biggest at 11,12,13,14 don't always make it..

4.2%?? You need 3% just for connective tissue. That can't be right.

Yep , but there are things that cannot be put there now matter how much you you damn well coach... George best ,Alex Murphy, Sam Tomkins.

Yep .Take your point Clan that in today's society kids cannot really get the street
playing experience that we could.
Sad.
I was always Harold Poynton. Ha ha.
Later as teen tried to keep up with Bruce Burton on the playing field back of Kettlethorpe lake.
As an aside my dad recommended Bruce to Trinity but they would not match the offer of Halifax.

I agree with this Jaques, there are always those who will excell, those who's natural abilities border or even cross over to being genius and they'll make the top anyway. Alex Murphy worked harder than most on his core skills, Sam Tomkins is a massive advocate of sports sciences and knows their value to him and their role in enhancing even his skills.

However, whilst they too are subject to modern sciences they're not particularly the ones I'm referring to.

I couldn't disagree more - I think good nutrition is relevant from a young age. I wouldn't advocate giving protein shakes and supplements to youngsters, but helping them to understand, for example, which foods produce energy, the importance of good hydration and what to eat to promote recovery are quite basic things that will help them perform and feel better in training and on the field. Hopefully, they are also useful lessons for life in general, some of which might just stick and regardless of whether a kid goes on to play sport professionally or not, will have some positive effects.

Given the obesity and resulting diabetes epidemic we're facing, I can't imagine running a sports club for juniors and not at least trying some of this stuff - it seems like a no-brainer to me.

So are we signing this guy?