Understanding the Mismatch Between Coaches’ and Players’ Perceptions of Exertion

Brink, Michel; Kersten, Anna W.; Frencken, Wouter

doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0215

Cited by 24 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If coaches are not provided with structured feedback about external and internal load, it is difficult for the coach to plan future training on an individual level. Indeed, a mismatch is seen between the training load intended by coaches and the perceived load by players (Manzi et al 2010;Andrade Nogueira et al 2014;Brink et al 2014Brink et al , 2017Rodríguez-Marroyo et al 2014;Rabelo et al 2016;Redkva et al 2017). When assessing this lack of agreement in more detail, findings indicate that sessions intended as easy or intermediate by the coach are perceived as harder by the players, whereas sessions intended as hard are perceived as less hard (Andrade Nogueira et al 2014;Brink et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formative feedback for the coach reduces mismatch between coach and players’ perceptions of exertion

Brink

Frencken

2018

Science and Medicine in Football

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of formative feedback for the coach on the agreement between intended, observed and perceived exertion in soccer. Methods: A quasi-experimental study design was conducted using a feedback intervention. Agreement between coach and players was assessed with and without feedback. The coach filled in the Rating of Intended Exertion (RIE) before training and the Rating of Observed Exertion (ROE) after the training for all individual players. Twelve U23 (age 20.3 ± 1.5; height 180.5 ± 4.8 cm; weight 74.8 ± 6.6 kg) soccer players registered Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE). Furthermore, training duration (minutes), total distance (km), average speed (km•h −1), number of sprints, distance >14.4 km•h −1 (km), TRIMP and time >85% maximal heart rate (min) were collected. Results: About 231 RPEs were collected and paired with RIE and ROE of the coach. The average discrepancy between ROE and RPE, decreased from 1.0 ± 0.89 without feedback to 0.7 ± 0.73 with feedback (p < 0.003, ES 0.4). Further analyses revealed that this reduction in mismatch was particularly present in hard training sessions (p < 0.004, ES 0.6), but not for easy and intermediate sessions. The mismatch between RIE and RPE did not improve. Conclusions: The results indicate that feedback improves the ability of a soccer coach to observe individual player exertion for most players, with small to moderate effect sizes. The mismatch between intended and perceived exertion did not improve with feedback. The use of formative feedback about load to coaches is recommended, particularly after hard sessions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formative feedback for the coach reduces mismatch between coach and players’ perceptions of exertion

Brink

Frencken

2018

Science and Medicine in Football

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If so, coaches would have a rational basis for individually managing the training load. It has been demonstrated by a number of investigators [60][61][62] that the training program designed by coaches is not always well executed by athletes. Indeed, even when coaches are present to observe training, their perception does not always match well with the training program as experienced by athletes.…”

Section: The Presentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, even when coaches are present to observe training, their perception does not always match well with the training program as experienced by athletes. 61,62 Simple techniques allowing visual matching of the designed and executed training programs offer much relative to optimizing the training process. Finally, we need to keep in mind that the information base of how athletes respond to training is actually very thin.…”

Section: The Presentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring Training Loads: The Past, the Present, and the Future

Foster

Rodríguez-Marroyo

Koning³

2017

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

197

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Training monitoring is about keeping track of what athletes accomplish in training, for the purpose of improving the interaction between coach and athlete. Over history there have been several basic schemes of training monitoring. In the earliest days training monitoring was about observing the athlete during standard workouts. However, difficulty in standardizing the conditions of training made this process unreliable. With the advent of interval training, monitoring became more systematic. However, imprecision in the measurement of heart rate (HR) evolved interval training toward index workouts, where the main monitored parameter was average time required to complete index workouts. These measures of training load focused on the external training load, what the athlete could actually do. With the advent of interest from the scientific community, the development of the concept of metabolic thresholds and the possibility of trackside measurement of HR, lactate, VO 2 , and power output, there was greater interest in the internal training load, allowing better titration of training loads in athletes of differing ability. These methods show much promise but often require laboratory testing for calibration and tend to produce too much information, in too slow a time frame, to be optimally useful to coaches. The advent of the TRIMP concept by Banister suggested a strategy to combine intensity and duration elements of training into a single index concept, training load. Although the original TRIMP concept was mathematically complex, the development of the session RPE and similar low-tech methods has demonstrated a way to evaluate training load, along with derived variables, in a simple, responsive way. Recently, there has been interest in using wearable sensors to provide high-resolution data of the external training load. These methods are promising, but problems relative to information overload and turnaround time to coaches remain to be solved. Watching athletes perform well, set personal records or win competitions, are great pleasures for sports scientists. To think that the information that you have collected on the athlete, or synthesized from the literature, has helped the athlete achieve optimal performance is "as good as it gets" for support staff. Conversely, watching a poor performance inspires analysis of what went wrong, with preparation, tactics, or execution of the competitive plan. This provides the basis for the questions that drive sport-science research. Because so much of the preparation of athletes is related to the structure and details of the training program, there is a natural emphasis on how training influences performance. This interest goes into history, to Milo of Crotona, the Italian farm boy who lifted a growing bullock daily until he became the strongest man in the world and legend of the ancient Olympics. This story provides the historical grounding for the quest to understand the training response, most uniquely characterized by the concept of progression of the training load, and to...

show abstract

“…no time, unresponsive players immediately after the match, match location) it is harder to gather this information in the real-match-context instead of the training context. 12 In order to guide the training process following these matches, a realistic view of the match exertion is needed for each individual player, especially during fixture congestion. Coaches that are well informed about players' match exertion are thus crucial to find the optimal balance between exertion and recovery and to subsequently prevent underperformance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impaired Player–Coach Perceptions of Exertion and Recovery During Match Congestion

Doeven¹,

Brink²,

Frencken³

et al. 2017

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During intensified phases of competition, attunement of exertion and recovery is crucial to maintain performance. Although a mismatch between coach' and players' perceptions of training load is demonstrated, it is unknown if these discrepancies also exist for match exertion and recovery. Purpose: The aims of this study are to determine match exertion, subsequent recovery and to investigate to what extent the coach is able to estimate players' match exertion and recovery. Methods: Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and Total quality of recovery (TQR) of 14 professional basketball players (age 26.7±3.8 y, height 197.2±9.1 cm, weight 100.3±15.2 kg, body fat 10.3±3.6 %) were compared with observations of the coach.During an in-season phase of 15 matches within 6 weeks, players gave RPE after each match.TQR scores were filled out before the first training session after the match. The coach rated observed exertion (ROE) and recovery (TQ-OR) of the players. Results: RPE was lower than ROE (15.6±2.3 and 16.1±1.4; p=0.029). Furthermore, TQR was lower than TQ-OR (12.7±3.0 and 15.3±1.3; p<0.001). Correlations between coach' and players' exertion and recovery were r=.25 and r=.21, respectively. For recovery within 1 day the correlation was r=.68 but for recovery after 1-2 days no association existed. Conclusion: Players perceive match exertion hard to very hard and subsequent recovery reasonable. The coach overestimates match exertion and underestimates degree of recovery. Correspondence between coach and players is thus not optimal. This mismatch potentially leads to inadequate planning of training sessions and performance decrease during fixture congestion in basketball.

show abstract

Understanding the Mismatch Between Coaches’ and Players’ Perceptions of Exertion

Abstract: Coaches base their intended and observed exertion on what they expect players will do and what they actually did on the field. When doing this, they consider the intermittent endurance capacity of individual players.

Cited by 24 publications

References 21 publications

Formative feedback for the coach reduces mismatch between coach and players’ perceptions of exertion

Formative feedback for the coach reduces mismatch between coach and players’ perceptions of exertion

Monitoring Training Loads: The Past, the Present, and the Future

Impaired Player–Coach Perceptions of Exertion and Recovery During Match Congestion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About