Dr Matthew Fiander

The emergence of ‘pracademics’ in the field of sport coaching, individuals who blend practical coaching expertise with scientific enquiry, has garnered increasing attention. Positioned to bridge the gap between academia and practice, pracademics are expected to bring practical wisdom and contextual knowledge into scholarly activities. However, we pose the need to critically examine the concept of the pracademic, and their service to both industry and academia while sounding a note of caution in an increasingly commercialised sector. We do so by exploring the retrospective reflections of an early career researcher (the lead author) in navigating the role of pracademic in an increasingly neoliberal space. We contend that caution is needed in the blind pursual towards the role of the pracademic, calling on greater collaborative efforts to protect early career academics, challenge neoliberal structures and for the continued engagement with thoughtful and critical research and knowledge exchange in sport coaching.

Selecting players for a team is one of the most important and recurring decisions sport coaches regularly make, impacting athletes, teams, and coaches. Despite this, relatively little is known about the information coaches use to make team selection decisions. In response to this, the following scoping review aims to (1) present literature that can offer insight into the information coaches use to make team selection decisions and (2) provide a platform from which researchers, practitioners, and coaches can explore this often taken-for-granted decision. The systematic literature search was conducted following guidelines set out by PRISMA. Given the small number of studies found (N=16), the extant literature fails to fully answer the question of why some players are selected and others are not. Results are therefore discussed in light of key theoretical approaches to decision making (i.e., information processing, naturalistic decision-making, and ecological psychology) to demonstrate the value of adopting each in specific instances in order to further our understanding of coaches’ team selection decisions.

In the sport domain, game-strategy efficacy is the belief that coaches can lead teams or athletes to a successful performance in competition. Developmentally focussed youth sport coaches, however, may define success differently to those working in other contexts. Researchers suggest that if youth sport coaches define successful performances in terms of winning only, the psychosocial development of young athletes could be hindered. Therefore, scholars and practitioners need to understand how developmentally focussed youth sport coaches cultivate their game-strategy efficacy beliefs to improve coach education and personal development programs. The purpose of this study was to explore UK developmentally focussed youth sport coaches’ development of game-strategy efficacy beliefs and to examine the sources and outcomes of perceived efficacy. A secondary focus was the generation of practically relevant and useable findings that developmentally focussed youth sport coaches could utilize. Method: Data was obtained by interviewing 10 male youth sport coaches and analysed using an interpretive description methodology. Results: Results are presented as a representative bricolage from the perspective of two fictional coaches who either have high or low game-strategy efficacy. These results highlighted sources of game strategy efficacy within the UK developmentally focussed youth sport context, including acknowledgement, playing experience, relationships with athletes and peers, results, self image, and success. Additionally, two outcomes of game-strategy efficacy included releasing control and self-evaluation. Conclusions: The findings offer coaches a chance to explore their own game-strategy efficacy beliefs against others in similar positions while opening a dialogue between research findings and those in the field.

Coaches and practitioners recognize that talent identification and development have a crucial role in the pursuit of excellence. National governing bodies routinely allocate youth participants, irrespective of biological age, to chronological age categories in an effort to ensure developmentally fair competition and opportunity. However, differences in the timing and tempo of maturation provide evidence to exclude chronological age and can lead to the misclassification of children in relation to their biological maturity. The purpose of this study was to explore coaches’ perceptions of how they use chronological age and biological age in coaching practice, and the importance they place on the measurement and utilization of biological age to develop young athletes. We conducted semi-structured interviews with six coaches and analyzed data using a qualitative description methodology. The results revealed three main themes relating to the delivery of the long-term athlete development model, the limited or lack of knowledge of all aspects of the long-term athlete development model, and a desire for a different model. Results provide scholars and practitioners with a greater understanding of coaches’ perspectives of the use of chronological and biological age in the identification and development of talented athletes.