Feedback of GPS training data within professional English soccer: a comparison of decision making and perceptions between coaches, players and performance staff

Perry Nosek, Thomas E. Brownlee, Barry Drust, Matthew Andrew

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the study was to examine the perceptions of training data feedback from key stakeholders within the coaching process of professional soccer clubs. A survey assessed the importance of training data towards reflection and decision-making, potential barriers and player preferences.

Methods: A total of 176 participants comprising coaches, players and performance staff completed the survey.

Results: The training data coaches most commonly identified as wanting to see to support reflection was ‘high-intensity’ actions and variables recognised by the coach as ‘work rate/intensity’. All stake- holders reported training data as at least somewhat important in guiding their coaches’ practices, with lack of a common goal and high volumes of information being the main barriers to effective feedback of training data. Players deemed feedback as positive to change their behaviour, with total distance, high-speed running and sprint distances as the information they would most like to see. It would be likely to be looked at via message or pinned up in the changing room.

Conclusion: Training data are seen as an impactful and effective tool for use by all key stakeholders. Despite this, its use can be optimised by increasing opportunities for informal reflection, using less information, and improving communication of data.
Original languageEnglish
JournalScience and Medicine in Football
Volume5
Issue number1
Early online date14 Jun 2020
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Keywords

  • Decision-making
  • reflection
  • evaluation
  • coaches
  • performance staff
  • players

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Feedback of GPS training data within professional English soccer: a comparison of decision making and perceptions between coaches, players and performance staff'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this