Systems thinking in sport

During a conversation with a colleague I was challenged as to the relevance of ‘systems thinking’ within sport.  My (and I regret to say) uneducated stance was that the theory wouldn’t carry much relevance within the sporting world; the description that followed however was of much greater significance than I originally thought.

Although I still cannot profess to understand the intricacies of systems thinking there is one anecdote that rang true, that of the ‘Trim Tab’.  A Trim Tab, as I understand it, is a small component that attaches to the rudder of a ship, or propeller of a plane, and facilitates the fluid movement of these often massive pieces of machinery, improving the manoeuvrability of the vessel.  Essentially this is a very small addition that has a significant, positive effect on performance.  There are many scenarios in sport where the addition of a hypothetical Trim Tab may be preferable to more wholesale changes when performance levels are not as we would have hoped.  Some may argue this sounds a lot like the pursuit of marginal gains however I would suggest otherwise.  Marginal gains apply in situations where performance is ‘good’ however small, incremental improvements are needed to become ‘great’, the accrual of 1% improvements over time.  Systems thinking and the analogy of the Trim Tab suggests that small changes can have a large impact on underperforming teams and individuals – more of a tipping point to use the analogy of Malcom Gladwell.

When we encounter players and/or teams that are underperforming, how often do we in the first instance try to make a large change to an aspect of their preparatory or completive routine? This may take the form of extra training, a change in dietary habits, a new and innovative intervention or, in some cases, removing an individual from the team, as often happens within professional team sport.  These may be valid courses of action, however, do we first consider whether small tweaks can be made to what we are already doing?  When trying to help an individual learn a new skill I have seen an array of approaches taken including the use of video analysis, biomechanical profiling and additional practise hours.  Very rarely however have I seen people maintain the training environment yet try different coaching cues, be they visual, auditory or kinaesthetic.  Subtle alterations in the way we deliver our message may be all that is required to bring about a long and permanent change in behaviour and should perhaps be the first port of call.  This is just one example; however I can think of many more that would make this post rather longer (perhaps some are thinking it is too long already!)

This is also true in paradigms of thought.  Within team sports there appears to be a reliance on external markers of training load, predominantly through the use of GPS, whilst internal load, especially monitoring via the use of heart rate has fallen out of favour.  This is not meant to be a critique of new technology, more an acknowledgement that its adoption has signalled a paradigm shift in how we prepare athletes without, to my understanding anyway, the identification of a genuine problem with the old method (In the case of heart rate, yes there were aspects of performance it was unsuitable for quantifying however there are still a range of training practises where its use is valid).  A wholesale change when a small ‘tweak’ or indeed addition may have been more beneficial.  We see this in a range of scenarios; for a period, Olympic lifts were ‘in vogue’ irrespective of the sport you were taking part in; however we are now seeing a move back to callisthenic-based exercises.  I recently learned a football club had installed a ‘play area’ for young athletes to encourage them to jump, climb and swing rather than conducting S&C in the gym environment.  The shift in training practises associated with developing strength and power represented a fundamental change rather than making small adjustments and improvements over time.  I can attest to personal experience in this instance.  A couple of years ago I attended an excellent two-part course developed and delivered by a physiotherapist and movement specialist.  After the course had finished I found my programmes taken over by exercises and techniques I had only recently learned.  As good as these new approaches were they certainly should not have replaced in totality what I was doing before; after being presented with an alternative I had forgotten all the good things that were going on previously.  There is no doubt that advances in technology and our understanding of the training response have helped athletes and coaches; there is perhaps a danger however that we have forgotten the benefits and qualities of the processes and procedures employed before their introduction.

When considering making a change to your personnel and/or training/completive routine, start with a simple question; what can we improve.  Once you have answered this question you can move onto aspects that can be changed in instances where improvement is not possible.  This may help to identify all the things that are working well, even in instances were performance is compromised, of which there will be many. This may be difficult in an industry that seems more and more driven by technology, gadgets and gimmicks resulting in a pressure to keep up to date with current trends.  Remember, most of what you are doing will be effective, if it wasn’t you wouldn’t have started using it in the first place.  Musing over how practises can be improved may be a far more productive use of your time than pursuing an alternative.