Several years ago, I was in conversation with another
windsurf instructor and trainer. He was recalling a recent trip to watch the GB
Olympic windsurfers train. Nick Dempsey, a three-time Olympic medallist was
dominating the training at the expense of the rest of the squad. When back on
the shore the coach I was chatting to was asked about his impressions of Nick’s
sailing. He was obviously very impressed generally but made the comment that
Nicks tacks lacked consistency of movements with any number of different hand
and feet combinations, and timing getting him from one side of the sail to the
other. He considered this a negative suggesting this as a way the rest of the
squad may be able to gain an advantage. At the time I was in agreement with
him, surprised there was still such an obvious way in which an Olympic
medallist’s sailing could be improved. With experience and exposure to minds
greater than my own I have come to realise how wrong we both were. We were both
products of the RYA instructor training programme which focuses on one way of
doing things, at step 1 you do X, Y and Z, then comes step 2 and so on. While
this may be an appropriate way to train beginners to achieve enough success and
gain sufficient knowledge to be able to continue in the sport it is frequently not
the way to coach higher level athletes.
I now understand what Dempsey was doing was skilfully
selecting any number of different combinations of movements to best match the
differing demands of each tack. Tacks will rarely be identical as the
conditions of wind and waves will vary as will the strategical demands of the
situation and physical condition of the sailor. Learning a set routine doesn’t
allow for the brilliant adaptability that Dempsey displayed in this training
session, it also needs to be learned explicitly, that is through conscious
thought. Interestingly when questioned Dempsey wasn’t aware of his inconsistent
movements through tacks, suggesting perhaps how he had learned his trade and
also high lighting another benefit of his lack of specific routine.
Psychologists commonly explain the phenomenon of choking by
proposing pressure leads a performer to consciously analyse actions rather than performing skills automatically. This results in a regression in performance to a time the performer was learning the routine. Under such situations a skill learned
explicitly will be susceptible, but a skill learnt implicitly will not.
Implicit learning results from activity that demands adaption and improvement
in technique but does not involve conscious learning.
To put this in a coaching situation coaching for explicit
learning would involve clearly outlining areas to improve, probably land drills
to enforce correct technique before practice afloat demanding concentration on technique, coaching involving feedback on said technique and lots of
repetition of the same movement. Coaching for implicit learning would involve
minimal knowledge input from the coach and carefully designed activities afloat
that challenge current technique. Improvements are demanded by the activity
rather than the coach. Activities will be varied frequently in response to the
learning. Done well sailors will be pushed to find novel solutions to problems
and will seek to adapt to the continual variations in the tasks.
It would be hard and impractical to teach
every aspect of sailing through varying activities. There is unquestionably
variation within good technique, but there is also just as unquestionably
technique that will be detrimental to the sailor’s development and needs to be
taught or corrected by the coach, and unlike land-based sports it is hard to
pull one sailor to one side and work on technique with them.
The skill of the sailing coach, as I see it, lies in being able to identify which
techniques will prevent continuing development and therefore intervene in a directive style, and which ineffective
techniques are just a part of the learning process and will evolve into good
technique in response to challenging activities. The
best solution for coaches is probably to use a combination of both. Knowledge
and correct technique should be shared and discussed, sailing is a very
technical sport. On the other hand successful sailors require a huge amount of
adaptability, variation in task and learning through solving challenging
problems is important to develop adaptability of technique.
As an example of how a session could be set up differently.
Stopping and holding position on a start line, one method could be to spend
time on shore looking at techniques then on the water getting sailors one at a
time to stop next to the coach boat. Another method could involve a much
shorter briefing. Outline the aim of the session (improve stopping and holding
position) and ask a few questions to wake the brain up (what equipment can you
use to stop?). At this point I would also outline the nature of the session and
how the sailors should learn from the challenging tasks. Set a range of
challenging tasks on the water that mimic situations the sailors would find in
a real race (set a very short line; mystery whistle; go will sound when all
boats are on the line; etc). Vary the activities, keep the sailors challenged.
Keep on water coaching to a minimum, allow the learning to happen. The coach could also use a hybrid of the two,
starting with some information on how to in the brief and initially setting an
activity that allows coaching, before moving onto activities that challenge the
technique.
Frequently sailing coaches can be directive, reluctant
to release control of the session and knowledge. As this has become the
established and often expected method of coaching, practitioners may feel they
are not performing their role as coaches without continual output of knowledge.
This may lead to short term gains but retention and transfer to a race
environment may be poor. For alternative coaching methods check out Teaching
Games for Understanding; Game Sense; Constraints led approach to coaching; and
differential learning.
