Utilisation of Performance Analysis Among Touch NZ Coaches and Players
•
0 likes•21 views
Elite players and coaches from Touch NZ gave their thoughts on how, when, why performance analysis is used in their sport. Implications for coaches and administrators are discussed for the best way to use PA to enhance performance in Touch NZ
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Utilisation of Performance Analysis Among Touch NZ Coaches and Players
Similar to Utilisation of Performance Analysis Among Touch NZ Coaches and Players (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Utilisation of Performance Analysis Among Touch NZ Coaches and Players
- 1. Utilisation Of Performance Analysis Among Touch NZ Coaches And Players Dr Kirsten Spencer Auckland University of Technology, Youth Development Research Group in collaboration with Touch NZ and funded by the Trillion Trust
- 2. Touch in NZ 107,000 players participated in Touch competitions in New Zealand in 2018
- 3. Background Why use PA in Touch NZ? Previous research: Coaches in the UK (Wright et al, 2012) and South Africa (Paincyzk et al 2018; Magwa, 2015) agreed that PA enhanced the: • Quality of their coaching • 93% (UK coaches) emphasised positive effect on short-term planning • 85% (SA coaches, Magwa 2015) stated PA positively affected the tactical decisions. Ambition Touch NZ = Win Touch World Cup (lost to Aus in all 6 finals since 1999) Touch NZ has access to the Sportscode (Hudl, USA) PA software Research suggests it is beneficial to performance. So, Do they use it? Analysis/FB/coaching/KPIs/Value? Considered two Perspectives: Coach Player
- 4. Methods • Adapted Wright (2012) questionnaire • Pilot tested and amended to be culturally appropriate Response: Responses Coaches Players Total Potential number 29 55 84 Respondents 10 18 28 Response rate (%) 34 33 29
- 5. Results Wright et al. (2012) framework used to present the results: • Demographic Information • Analysis process • Feedback process • Implications for coaching practice • Performance Indicators parameters • Value of Performance Analysis
- 6. Results: Touch NZ Demographic Coaches • Experience mean 10.9 6.36 yrs • 30% coached >16 years. • 50% at National/International level • 50% provincial/module level. • Volunteer (80%) or part- time (20%) Players • Experience mean 20 1.55 yrs • 72% International • 83% experienced in PA • 50% provincial/module level.
- 7. Results: Touch NZ Analysis Process Coaches: • 40% of the coaches rarely received video footage (2/3 times a year) • 20% received no video footage • International/national coaches receive video footage (40%) more frequently than the provincial coaches (20%). • 90% of the coaches do not use a performance analyst to provide video • For 60% of the international coaches, this analysis work takes them approximately up to 4 hours after the game • 60% of the provincial coaches this analysis work takes them approximately up to 1 hour after the game. Players: • 89% found individual video feedback very useful • 78 found team feedback very useful • 67% Knowledge of team game statistics very useful • 72% Knowledge of indiv statistics very useful • 78% always used PA to assess strengths/weaknesses
- 8. Results: Feedback Process Coaches: • Team FB: Int whole team (100%) prov (20%) • Indiv FB Int (80%) Provincial indiv (40%) • Key plays (all 50%; Int 100%, Provincials 0%) • Opp FB(all 50%; Int 80%, Prov 20%) • Issue of time constraints (Int 80%, P 60%) • Issue of availability of gear (Int 40%, P60%) Players: • Analysis was more thorough after a team loss (100%) • Individual feedback (89%) • Lasted longer than 41 minutes (33%) • Prefer from the coach (43%) • Feedback on the same day (61%) as the game
- 9. Results: Implication to Coaching Coaches: • Plan Short Term (I 100%, P 60%) • Plan Long Term (I 80%; P 20%) • Next game plays (I 80%; P 80%) • Goal setting (I 100%; P 20%) • Film Training (I yearly 60%; P never 80%) • PA influence tactics (I100%; P 80%) Players: • PA influenced their decision- making at set pieces (attack, 94%; defence 100%) • Positional play (marking, 76%; passing, 71%; receiving, 88%) • 44% thought that their opinion of their own performance was changed after receiving individual feedback • 94%, 94% and 94% respectively indicated that video feedback positively affected their motivation, self- belief and confidence.
- 10. Results: KPIs Coaches: • KPI selected by player FB (I 36%, P 33%) • KPIs used (I 60%, P 80%) • KPIs flexible (I 40%, P60%) Players: • 100% felt KPIs of Opposition analysis beneficial • 35% preferred the opposition analysis to occur 1 day before the game
- 11. Results: PA Value Coaches: • 63% very confident PA useful to success • 70% use pen and paper • 0% had external PA provider • Organisation values PA (I 80%, P 100%) • Coach values PA (I 100%, P 75%) Players: • 68% Valued PA essential • 89% very important to post- game review • 67% very important to pre- game review
- 12. Summary (Touch NZ Coaches) The study revealed that; • 100% of the coaches agreed PA was beneficial to develop coaching and game plan. • 100% of the coaches provide their own analysis (70% used pen and paper) • The main factors that constrain the coaches ability to provide feedback are: • the time it takes, • availability of technology • concerns over player information overload. • The majority of Coaches state PA informs short-term planning and ‘next- game’ strategizing. • Goal setting and positional play were the primary topics in PA feedback. • Video feedback of training was infrequent (80% never), and when it did occur it was mainly used for assessing the coach behaviours and tactical awareness. • Most performance indicators used were constant with minimal game-to- game variation. • Performance indicators were selected (mainly) through player feedback. • Few coaches felt they were up-to-date with PA developments in sport.
- 13. Summary (Touch NZ Players) The study revealed that; • 72% of the respondents played at International level • Players felt PA (individual and team) feedback was very useful • Players agreed that video analysis critically enhanced player knowledge of team structure, role ,current form and opposition strategy. • Feedback duration was longer than the previous research recommendation of 30 min • PA feedback influenced decision-making, set pieces and positional play. • Pre-game review was usually one day before the game • Post-game review was more detailed after a loss than a win, and usually same day as the game. • Players agreed that PA feedback increased their confidence, motivation and game understanding. • Video feedback is considered highly beneficial in briefing and feedback sessions • Players value PA as essential to improving.
- 14. Thank You
Editor's Notes
- - Touch is a big particpation sport across NZ (senior, mixed, age group, social) - very popular in pasifika culture
- - Touch NZ keep losing to Aussie (every final since inception of the competition - Coaches from other countries enthuse about the benefit of PA....planning/ decision-making/technical - So Touch NZ does have PA software...do they use it? Does it get 'buy-in' from those in the sport? - what do the coaches think - what do the players think
- - I contact Craig Wright in the UK as he did the research with football and PA inclusion for his PhD. Also read Wilbur's work with the SA rugby coaches - Touch NZ considered it we agreed that it needed to be amended to be culturally right - language, and structure of questions so we tested it to get it right - we asked 84 coaches and players...but response rate was lower than hoped and possibly reflected of the use of PA in Touch NZ?
- - to keep a coherence we used the framework of Wright
- - coaches had a good level of experience - balance between international and provincial (similar to Wilbur's rugby research here) - very high percentage of coaches are volunteers...this is important when we are considering time as an issue in their use of PA - players were a mix of international and provincial....interestingly we had 83% who said they were experienced in PA so it gave us confidence that we were going to get some useful feedback
- -coaches rarely got footage unless they got it themselves (90% of them were the analyst) - it takes a long time to for the coaches to conduct the analysis (4hours at international level) - players think PA is useful - good at team and indiv level - allows the 'work-ons' to be determined
- - differences were noted between coaches of international teams and those of provincial teams as to how they gave feedback - international coaches gave WHOLE team and INDIV feedback - Provincial coaches gave limited team (20%) and limited indiv (40%) FB - INT coaches use PA on 100% of KEY PLAYS...provincial coaches do not - Time Constraints were noted as an issue for all the coaches regardless of their level - players said the coaches used PA more thoroughly after a loss - they said they received a higher percentage of FB at the individual level - their FB sessions more frequently lasted longer that 41 minutes (Wright and previous research suggest that this is too long if it goes beyond this 41 min timeframe players may loose their concentration) - they preferred FB to come from the coach, yet this may be what they are used to, as due to the high level of volunteers there are not 'other' staff to give the FB - most preferred the FB on the same day as the game...again this is slightly different to the research recommendations where a bit of 'thinking time for reflection' is shown to be beneficial to the FB process, but again may reflect the volunteer nature of the players and the coaches
- the different levels of coach showed some variation in HOW they used PA. INT coaches focussed PA in their planning (next game, short and long term). They determined the goal setting strategies from the PA feedback. Provincial coaches mainly used the PA to influence their NEXT game. Neither level had much use of PA during training - the comments suggested that this was a reflection of availability of personnel and the difficulty of just getting it sorted. Players were very positive about PA influencing their decisions at set pieces and positional play. Their responses supported the previous research that PA can create greater self-awareness and afford the opportunity for positive change at both physical and psychological levels
- Coaches tended to pick their Key Performance Indicators from the feedback they received from players. Players were agreed that they felt the use of PA to analyse opposition was beneficial, with this occuring one day before the game to allow them time to embed that information.
- To the question of 'value', the coaches of Touch NZ responses were similar to that of previous coach research i.e. that PA is benefical to team success. These coaches are still very much restricted in access to PA software and PA assistance - they have to spend a large proportion of their time doing PA by pen and paper - which from a volunteer coach perspective a huge time constraint All the coaches and the players gave PA a very high value rating and felt that the Touch NZ organisation rated PA highly as well.
- Our next step in this project with Touch NZ is to consider how we can address some of the issues, starting with: - time constraints - software access and supporting the coach (knowledge and people) initial solutions... 1) Investigate software solutions which are financially viable for Touch NZ budgets - this will increase the use of PA for coaches and players 2) work with their coach development team to incorporate PA in their coaching modules to increase the knowledgebase.
- players are positive about the use of PA to improve both their knowledge, their confidence and their decision-making...they see it as essential in them beating AUSTRALIA in the next World Cup in 2023!!