Death of the ‘MultiSport Athlete’ Model?
——————————————————————
Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking… —-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
——————————————————————-
I was on the phone with a friend last week when he called me out for speaking against the ‘3 sport athlete’ model he firmly believes in.
Despite my best effort, I could not convince him that I simply never said there was anything wrong with such a model.
It’s just not necessarily what’s best for your athletes…
Clearly the lack of clarity is coming from my end because several of you also wrote in to say that this ‘anti-3 sport athlete’ position (or pro sport specialization position) seems to contradict what I have said in countless articles and videos over the years.
For example, a long time subscriber wrote me and said:
“I got a little lost in your “specialized coaching” response. At first glance it appeared that you were arguing against the multisport athlete as a general rule. At least that’s what it appeared to be with your use of the “3 sport athlete” concept. I’ve never heard you argue for athlete specialization before, and I’ve been under your cyber-tutelage for several years now. In fact, I’ve heard support for the opposite, that sport specialization is harmful. If you were arguing that the multisport model is defective if there is crappy instruction in all three sports, then the problem lies with the coach, not the model. If the argument is that sound fundamental training principles must be applied throughout all athletic training, then I was just confused by the term “specialized coaching.” I just wouldn’t want any of your other protégés confused either.”
Fair points, Ken.
To avoid further confusion, it’s time for the full truth on the ‘multi-sport’ model vs ‘specialization’ model.
Fasten your seat belts, friends. Because some of you are going to be upset…
Before I begin, let me clarify two points:
1. Tradition frightens me. I’m uncomfortable with the prospect of doing something a certain way just because that’s the way it’s always been done. I can’t wrap my mind around this concept. Blindly following a set of rules or principles without questioning whether or not said philosophy is in line with contemporary practices or, in this instance, the athlete’s best interest, sets a disconcerting standard I want no part of.
There’s another term for such a line of logic. It’s called ‘Groupthink’. And it is Dangerous.
That’s why I’m a ‘reason why’ guy. I’ll sign up for your philosophy. And I’ll buy into it hook, line and sinker. As long as you have a critically evaluated and objectively analyzed ‘reason why’. But some combination or variation of ‘because I said so’, ‘because that’s the way we’ve always done it’ and/or ‘because that’s our Tradition’ doesn’t cut it for me.
And it shouldn’t cut it for you. Because that is Groupthink. And it is Dangerous.
2. Any time I embellish on the potential benefits of sport specialization, understand I’m talking about high school aged athletes. There are innumerable reasons why kids 13 and younger should engage in a varied athletic experience.
But the bottom line is this: If an 11 year old is so talented that sport specialization seems a reasonable option, four years of ‘specialized’ focus at the HS level will surely enable such an athlete to earn an athletic scholarship to a top school and be in a position to compete at the next level. If the athlete needs to specialize in 5th grade to get there, they’re not really that good in the first place. Sorry, dads.
OK, let’s begin.
The 20th Century Argument for the ‘Multisport model’ is based on the premise that playing 3 different sports is better for the development of the athlete than specializing in one sport for 12 months out of the year.
All things being equal, I don’t disagree. I don’t necessarily agree, but I certainly don’t disagree. Many studies show that, generally speaking, an athlete who plays soccer, basketball and track during the school year will be less likely to burn out, over train, develop repetitive range of motion and/or overuse injuries, lose interest and/or reach a competitive plateau than an athlete who plays soccer all 12 months out of the year.
All things being equal, no arguments from Latif.
The problem with this scenario, however, is fundamental to our discussion. Here in the real world, all things are NOT equal.
And that’s where the ‘playing 3 different sports’ philosophy immediately breaks down and loses some, if not all, of its viability.
It’s also where psychological discomfort will set in for those of you unwilling to consider the possibility you may have an outdated belief system.
Here are the primary arguments I hear from Multisporters when defending their position.
1. It’s better for the overall development of the athlete. 3 different sports prevents athletes from the aforementioned drawbacks: repetitive range of motion injuries, burnout from lack of variety, plateaus, etc.
2. The 3 Sport Model keeps young athletes from being overtly or covertly coerced into specialization by selfish coaches. Because if a coach offers an athlete an alternative, the power over the athlete held by the coach makes it impossible for the athlete to make their own independent decision.
3. Playing 3 different sports is better for the athletic department as a whole because it prevents a coach in a particular sport from monopolizing the best athletes, which would hurt all the other sports. Because the athlete, again, is incapable of saying ‘No thanks Track Coach, I’m going to play softball this spring’. (See previous argument)
Let’s take a deeper look at these 3 arguments to see if they really hold their own against the contemporary athletic environment.
1. The ‘better for overall development’ argument
This argument is based on the variety of studies that show athletes who engage in multiple sports at a young age perform at a higher level when they get older (and specialize). On the surface, this leads one to believe that multi-sport athletes peak higher and compete in their sport longer (as opposed to burning out and quitting) than those athletes who specialize (at an early age).
If that was the end of the story, it would be the end of this article. The 3 sport model would win outright. But it is not.
These studies come, almost exclusively, from countries where athletics are Nationalized. This means athletes begin multilateral, multisport training from a very young age under a ubiquitous, unified system of athletic development. Their coaches are National coaches whose job is coaching. These coaches teach essentially the same system of developing foundational athleticism regardless of sport (because ‘sport specific’ training is mostly BS for young athletes). They engage in ‘multilateral’ training, which means they don’t just play their sport as the totality of training (like in your high school), but they engage in a variety of activities and movement skills that prevent repetitive ranges of motion and overuse injury, i.e., training to be the greatest football player you can be involves, when you count up all the training hours, very little actual playing of football.
The point?
The multi sport theory only works if every coach in your school possesses comparable coaching knowledge. If athletes transition from fall sport to winter to spring and all their coaches are training them under a commonly accepted/promoted system of athletic development such that speed, strength, power, coordination, mobility and endurance are continuously being developed throughout the year based on the particular needs of the sport, then I have absolutely no problem fully endorsing the 3 sport model.
But that isn’t reality, is it? The reality is that coaching is not consistent across sports. In the last few programs I worked in, I coached track and field. Taking cross country, winter and spring track and subtracting myself, my mentor and the coaches I personally brought in to coach, I can count the number of coaches who had a USATF certification or athletic development certification of any type, for any sport, on one hand….if you cut 4 fingers off of that hand.
Outside of track and field, I can count the number of sports who safely used the weight room throughout the season on one hand. If I had no hands.
Speed development with technical feedback? Timed intervals? Teach specific movement skills? I don’t need hands or feet to count up those programs.
(You’re only offended right now if you’re guilty of the above. If you’re certified and educated, you’re nodding your head in agreement. Or laughing.)
To be considered a good coach and run a good program we have to address BOTH elements of coaching:
1. Sport Specific Skills (offensive/defensive schemes, ball handling, passing, catching, hitting, penultimate step, drive phase, etc.)
2. Athletic Development (biomotor skill development, movement skills, etc.)
The coaches at most high schools are, no doubt, quite excellent at #1…
But they ignore #2. So if I’m generous and give the average coach a 100% in Sport Specific Skills, they’re looking good. But they get a 30% in Athletic Development (and that’s being generous). So, when you consider what should be expected out of coaches in 2010, most coaches and programs get a generous D.
(There are no expectations out of coaches in 2010. Ditch diggers have a longer list of expectations if they want to get a job or keep one than high school coaches do. If you have a pulse and watched a sport once or attended a particular school in the last 30 years, you can get a job being in charge of 40 kids after school.)
In my opinion, any coach who has zero certifications from their sport’s governing body or zero athletic development certifications, has attended zero seminars covering the athletic development HALF of their sport in the past 6 months or has invested in zero DVD programs, etc. covering their sport in the past 6 months, has no right to claim they’re doing a commendable job coaching their athletes or program. Or that they have the best interest of the athletes at the forefront of their decision making.
(If you’re on the verge of a full blown, rage induced heart attack right now, take a deep breath and post your thoughts below. Just be sure to have some logic to support your argument.)
Let’s paint a specific, yet theoretical picture.
Let’s say I’m a high school athlete who comes into the typical high school planning to play football, basketball and track. During football season I play football. During basketball season I play lots of basketball. But during track season, something changes. I don’t just run workouts and practice long jump and throw the shot put.
My coach has us do speed work where I have to actually run a very specific way and explain what I’m doing right and wrong. We’re in the weight room 3 days per week and the coach teaches me how to lift and corrects me when I’m doing things incorrectly (instead of sitting in the back talking to his friends). My coach lets me ask him questions about why we’re doing certain things. I have to set specific goals that my coach talks to me about and helps me work toward. We talk about nutrition and what I should be eating. My coach asks me how I felt about workouts and actually makes them harder or easier based on what I tell him. My coach believes I can achieve my goals, memorizes my times and gives me specific times to hit in all my workouts. He tells us why we’re running a certain workout at a certain pace and how it’s going to make me a better runner.
All of a sudden, running track has become a totally different experience than the other sports. Instead of it being something I did to get in shape for football, football and basketball have become something I do to kill time before track. In fact, track is so fun, I don’t want to play basketball anymore. I want to do indoor track because I’m getting better results and coaching. In fact, I don’t want to do football either. My coach says doing cross country will have me in midseason form by the time winter track starts.
That sounds pretty sweet. Where do I sign up? Because nothing succeeds like success.
So, now I have options. Which one would you choose? What would you suggest your son or daughter do?
More specifically, which is better for my ‘overall development’?
- 3 different sports where, in 2 of them, all I do is play that one sport for several hours a day, but do a negligible amount of athletic development.
- Play the same sport year round – but engage in a variety of athletic and movement skills: speed work, mobility work, strength and power development, technical feedback, mentorship from my coach
Who benefits most from my playing 3 different sports? Me or those other coaches?
My point is this:
The 3 Sport Model is only better for the athlete if the coaches in all 3 sports have comparable coaching SKILL.
If the track coach is far superior in skill and trains the athlete properly, the track specialist will go through a greater variety of drills and exercises and develop far greater overall athletic ability, via developing biomotor skill through a critically evaluated and objectively analyzed athletic development program.
In this situation, playing 3 different sports is actually a detriment to the athlete’s overall athletic development. A system that ignores the disparity in knowledge, education and qualification between coaches does a far greater disservice to the athlete than a system that encourages the athlete to make their own choice based on the potential for maximizing fun and success.
If all the coaches in a school system are typical, then the 3 sport model is a lesser evil than specializing. Because specializing in a sport run by a typical coach *will result in all the horror stories we are afraid of. But if a coach in one sport is truly exceptional, specialization will provide a better athletic environment where kids will maximize their potential, develop greater levels of self esteem and work ethic, and, flat out have more fun.
Now, some coaches will attempt to dismiss their lack of certification and education by bringing up the amount of time they’ve been coaching. Patently irrelevant.
Let’s say you and I have been coaching for 15 years each. During that time, you’ve become certified and continued your education. You evolve your system of training each season by adding and subtracting certain training modalities based on your experience implementing such protocols and keep track of every workout and its results.
I just show up, point and yell.
You have 15 years of coaching experience.
I have one year of coaching experience, 15 times in a row.
Your athletes have achieved success because the combination of their commitment and your coaching knowledge and skill brought them to new levels of success.
Mine (may) have had some success…in spite of my lack of coaching knowledge and skill.
We all know that most coaching positions are handed out based not on skill, knowledge or education, but nepotism. It’s how they’re maintained. It’s how they’re handed down. And if we continue to accept the status quo, nothing will change.
But we don’t have to blindly follow the false premise that 3 sport model is magically better than specializing. In some cases it might be. In other cases, it isn’t. But to regurgitate such an ideology with no explanation beyond ‘because I said so’ is unprofessional. It’s Groupthink. And it’s dangerous.
Now, if all coaches are good at their jobs (which I have never seen before) which is better?
Remember, I’m talking about potential specialization starting in high school. But it has to be taken case by case. Sport by sport. Coach by coach.
But, if you want to get down to brass tacks, it really comes down to choice. If the athlete has an excellent soccer coach who runs an excellent soccer program and does both player development and athletic development, the athlete lives and breathes soccer and wants to focus on that sport once they get to high school, isn’t it their choice to decide what they want to play?
And that’s where I’ll end today and pick up next time. The second argument made by Multisporters in defending their honor: Choice. The 3 sport model in the typical program attempts to hijack the athlete’s choice under the guise of their ‘best interest’.
But I’d argue it’s not the best interest of the athlete that’s on the line here…
But more on that next time.
Feel free to post your comments and opinions. Take a deep breath and proof read your post before you send it. Have the courage to use your real name. I do.
Latif Thomas
P.S. Resources I recommend:
Complete Speed Training (How to teach athletic development)
Complete Program Design for Sprinters (How to write more effective workouts)
Sports Nutrition Blueprint (How to maximize the results of your athletic development)
P.S.S. Don’t forget to check out the responses. There are some great posts that contain excellent questions and also a few clarifications on my end that I must not have been clear about in the above article.
March 30th, 2010 at 11:37 am
You discuss some valid points. I think you need to consider things from a high school coach’s viewpoint to to complete the process. As I see personal trainers, I want to know what background and education THEY have. As a licensed teacher, I have not only my degrees, but also certification testing, mandatory in-service and learning, and also college credits that have to be taken to keep my certification current. I have many questions on the qualification of personal trainers. Here is how I see it as a high school coach. The kid, and their parents are told that if they “just work with us (our company, program, etc) that you will be a scholarship athlete.” When it does not work out, it is because the high school coach “screwed the kid up.” You make a general judgment that most high school coaches are not quality coaches. I disagree with that – and should you consider that my view is wrong – you need to re-read the above article. I have coached in two states (Michigan and Georgia) and I can tell you that most coaches work very hard. If they seem not to agree with you, they are wrong and old-fashioned. I am incensed at what you’ve written from the standpoint that kids should not be persuaded to do anything. Parenting is at an all-time low, and I believe that the kids I teach and coach are far better off being around three quality adults than around just one. You make some good points about what needs to be done to run an athletic program of any kind. However, you fall short in assuming that coaches don’t do that. I know there are many more good ones that bad ones – just like teachers. I hope that you’ll consider that what you’ve written is inaccurate on a general scale. With kids having the choice of schools to attend in open enrollment situations, the ability to hire “trainers” and so much competition it would be hard for you to imagine what we go through as high school coaches – if we did not do a good job we would be fired. That is true in Georgia and it is true in Michigan. Kids play sports to enjoy themselves. They don’t play to get scholarships. I’ve had great players not get any interest from recruiters. I’ve also seen kids that aren’t great players – but tremendous athletes who have a great upside be recruited. The bottom line is that in recruiting as in beauty – the eye is in the beholder. I coached at a Big 10 school for two years. There are many kids who get the chance, and many more that don’t. Any time you take a good look at drafts, you see people from all sizes of schools being selected. This is living proof that the best are not always rewarded – and that many are missed. I must say that I totally disagree with you on this one. Kids are hurt by specializing because they will never get this chance again.
>>>Coach Sigler – Thank you for the well written response. It is appreciated. However, I must say this: I am a high school coach and have worked at this level for years.
In regards to personal trainers, I completely agree. My stance is that we should all be qualified to do our jobs and that includes trainers – whether working with the general population or with athletes. You have to continue your education to continue teaching, coaches should be held to a similar (though not as rigorous) standard.
I have never told a kid that working with me would get them a scholarship. In the schools I’ve worked in, I don’t get the sense that coaches of other sports have made such promises either. But I would argue that, on the average, most coaches are not quality coaches as I have defined a quality *coach* – certified by their sports governing body and/or a respectable strength and conditioning or athletic development organization, plus continuing to acquire new information in the form of attending conferences/seminars and or investing in informational resources which give new information on improving athletic ability and sports performance. This does not mean I think these underqualified coaches are bad people, lack moral character or deserve to be tarred and feathered. Most coaches are excellent teachers and fine people. But, in my direct experience, their knowledge of athletic development is insufficient, based on the parameters I described above.
Kids should not be persuaded to do one sport over another. I agree completely. But I don’t think there is anything wrong with giving a kid a choice or explaining what one sport will offer. For example, this winter I had a freshman girl who was undecided about spring sports, but leaning toward softball. I told her spring track would be a great option and that she would excel. No pressure, I just offered her a choice. She chose softball. No problem. Everytime I’ve seen her since she made that choice it was ‘Hey Coach Thomas! Blah blah blah whatever little girls say’. I didn’t get mad, judge her or ignore her. And she was perfectly comfortable talking to me knowing I wasn’t upset. I gave her a choice. She made the choice that was best for her and we all went about our business. Not all coaches react that way.
There are many, many good coaches. And, in writing this article, I’m mostly preaching to the choir. I just make a clear distinction between being a good person or a good teacher and being a good coach. When I was in HS I had a coach who was like a big brother to me. He was a great human being and still is. But he was not a great *coach* and that lack of knowledge did not enable me to meet my potential. There is a difference and I’m not saying a lesser coach is a lesser person. Not in the least.
Where I live, you simply will not get fired if you don’t get results. Results are completely irrelevent (except maybe in football where you’ll get run out of town if you don’t win enough). It doesn’t matter how bad of a *coach* I am, as long as I don’t punch kids in the face, I’m not going to get fired due to lack of results. I should, but I wouldn’t. I think the reason people go outside the school to personal coaching is *because* the HS coach isn’t getting the job done. If such an option was available when I was growing up, I would have gone that route.
I think our disagreement may come, in large part, because of the different coaching environments we come from. You do raise some good points and I will think about them when crafting my upcoming articles and videos.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 11:41 am
I would normally be against encouraging an 11 year old to be National Champion, or World Champion even, if it means too much pressure to win.
Amazingly there are those who not only promote this, but organize this.
Do I understand rightly that we are soon to have the first staging of the “Youth Olympics” – I just did a web search and I see that is for 14 to 18 years of age.
Counter to that, it is impossible for the 11 year olds in my club to play 3 sports, because the same intense pressures apply to the other 2 sports.
So what is the answer.
I think the answer is that we are likely to see 11 year-olds on drugs to keep them going, so that the proud parents can have the “Athlete of the Year Award” on the sideboard.
Look! Kids will have enough pressure when they grow up. At least let us give them the right to enjoy their childhood.
>>> Brendan, interesting points. And I agree. Too many parents place their own failed athletic hopes and dreams on the backs of their kids. And that places a terrible strain on the child. All the more reason to avoid specific focus until at least high school.
It’s also why I cringe when I see little girls being entered in beauty pageants. It’s even worse when the media encourages it by making ‘reality’ TV shows on the topic.
The problem is likely to get worse. However, if coaches at the preteen level are more educated and focused on guided discovery, keeping things fun and teaching general skills, they are less likely to put the pressure to win on these kids. It’s the ones who aren’t educated and certified who treat 11 year olds like tiny 20 year olds.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Oye. When I first found your website, I was excited to look at some of your materials and get your emails. But… I have to say… this email/thread is sufficiently turning me off to wanting to hear more of what you have to say.
The more I read from you, the more I feel that you are someone who needs to cut others down in order to make yourself feel important. I have noticed that you constantly cross the line between advocating for professional development and insulting the qualifications, or lack there-of, of others. Anyone who has checked out your site in interested in learning something new- that’s a given. However, because I have done so, does not mean that there are colleagues of mine who have no expertise and are lousy coaches because they are not looking for the same. As much as you brag about certifications, I can equally find you just as many lousy coaches who hold certifications. Studying and holding a certificate do not necessarily make someone a good coach or a professional; and vice-versa. So, if you would like to earn some credibility from me, stop trash-talking because instead of making you look smarter, it makes you look ignorant and arrogant- not wise and confident. You can tell me what you know and I will be able to judge if it’s legit without you slamming other people.
As a physical education teacher, I think that specialization is a detriment to our athletes. Regardless of how creative a coach tries to be with training, there is no getting around that you must use the same repetitive motions in a sport. I, personally, think it is worse that kids and teens are specializing because their bodies are still forming and can’t handle the stress that is being placed on them. The number of injuries that these kids have are staggering- including kids who pay A LOT of money to be coached by those with “credentials”. You can not say it’s coaching when it’s just science.
I also think it irresponsible to convince athletes to specialize in hopes of winning a scholarship because, in almost all sports, less than 1% of athletes in that sport actually obtain a scholarship.
However, the argument that is not being addressed is the development of an athlete as a whole person. I, personally, do not look at my athletes as performing machines. As a coach, it is my responsibility to make sure they are mentally and socially healthy as well. I can tell you that I do not consider the majority of the “specialized” athletes that I teach in class to be healthy. If anything, for most of them, the arrogance and elitism they develop from specializing prevents them from developing healthy social relationships. And many have so much stress in regards to their athletics and the pressure of having to be the best (which is the point of specializing) that they deal with it poorly and suffer in many ways such as depression, fear of failure, decreased self-esteem from always having to keep up… and, sometimes, poor academics.
>>>Jen – thanks for the post. Calling me, in essence, a narcissist is not an unexpected reaction. And, depending on one’s reality, I can understand why you would come to such a conclusion. Though, not surprisingly, I do not agree with your assessment.
I do advocate for professional development. And I do call out those who can’t be bothered to engage in professional development. Because I think it is doing a disservice to athletes. I’ve corresponded with enough athletes and parents to know the impact that substandard coaching has. I can also speak to this on a personal level.
Some people stumble across my site/s just looking for a smattering of information. That’s no problem. I just don’t think these people should be in charge of the athletic development of a large group of developing kids. That’s like saying you’ve read a few articles about teaching and you really like kids so therefore you’re qualified to be a teacher. I disagree.
You do, however, bring up an excellent point. Just because a coach has a certification doesn’t make them a good coach and vice versa. I agree. But there has to be some starting point. Some foundational base of education that we can use as a starting point. I don’t expect every coach to be an information junkie like me. But every coach, if they’re serious about improving the profession, should be engaged in ongoing professional development. It’s mandatory in every other field of relevance, why not in working with young people?
I disagree with you, to an extent, on specialization. When done properly, the actual playing of a sport is only a small part of training for it. However, I also never argued that promoting the 3 sport model is wrong or bad. It should be the general rule held by athletic departments because, on the average, it’s the best approach to take. I just think athletes should have the choice. I would also ask you to consider that your blanket statement about athletes who specialize being arrogant or unable to form healthy social relationships as being unfair. Even an athlete who focuses on one sport spends the vast, vast majority of their time outside of the sport, so such a behavior pattern can’t, with respect, be attributed to specialization. Some kids want to be the best. I have athletes who literally ask me to yell at them and demand perfection from them because they perform better that way. It’s not undue pressure unless the coach (or parent) judges that athlete if they do not perform. But I know *plenty* of multiple sport athletes who are arrogant, perfectionists and who are unable to socialize appropriately.
As for scholarships, I agree. I have never suggested specializing to get a scholarship, told an athlete to do so, told an athlete I could get them one, etc. I think parents have a bigger role in those situations than coaches.
I apologize if my opinionated persona turns you off. I am who I am. Stick around and I think you will see that I am a far more altruistic person than you give me credit for. But, of course, that is your choice. You can always scroll to the bottom of any email I send you and unsubscribe so you never have to hear from me again.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Dear Latif,
I could not agree with you more. Your perspective and insight is very refreshing. It motivates me to want to continually improve and use all of the resources at my disposal to be the best coach I can.
I am the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Coach at SUNY New Paltz as well as a Total Immersion Swim Instructor.
Thanks
Mike
>>>Hey Mike – thanks for the post. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I’m grateful to coaches like you who are passionate about doing the best they can for the development of their athletes. Best of luck in your coaching.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
latif,
i wan to thank you for openly sharing you views of which i have found to be very accurate and i look forward to more of your emails in the future. noone is smarter than all of us and your willingness to share your beliefs not only strengthens me and my program but give me the courage to keep learning and improving as a coach. nate woods galt, ca
>>>Nate – thanks for the post. That’s all I’m trying to do, man. Share what I know and believe and try to help others improve their knowledge.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Here is reality for you Latif: kids and parents don’t recognize what it is that makes a coach an excellent coach. Where I live, the distance coach is a god even though he does almost zero athletic development and has no certifications, but he has been a part of the community forever and is respected by many people. I am new to the area and I am also Level 1 certified for track and field. I work on speed development. I work on athletic development. I do as much of those things you mentioned in your article as I can in the very limited time I have (1 – 1 1/2 hrs/practice–the distance and throws coach don’t think kids need more than 1 hour to get in a good practice, so that is all the time we get). I am looked down upon by the distance coach and all his athletes because he has brain washed them into thinking I am an idiot for doing all these things. Not only that, but he has gone around and told parents and other coaches that I am a crappy coach, all because I am spending time doing speed work and athletic development work with the sprinters, hurdlers, and jumpers. I get fewer and fewer kids every year even though they have success. I also never see the fastest kids in school because either they are already committed to specializing in soccer, or basketball. So the reality is, and I am guessing I am not alone, due to the competitive nature of club sports, you are going to get a lot of kids specializing with mediocre coaches because kids and parents don’t realize what it is that makes a great coach, and that coach will do or say whatever they need to to keep kids working with them year round. Parents and kids should be told to do the 3 sport model at least through their sophomore year, so that they can be coached by three different coaches, and then decide where they are going to get the best results. If the kid is really good enough to make it collegiately, then they can wait until they are juniors in high school to decide what to specialize in.
>>>Melanie – wow. I just want you to know that you are not alone and you are completely correct. If I had signed my name to that email, people in my world may have thought I wrote it myself. Many of us find ourselves in situations comparable to yours, myself included. It’s amazing how childish adults can act when they feel threatened. They’ll sacrifice the best interest of their athletes or their program just to maintain their power. This is the nepotism based ‘good old boy’ coaching that I speak of. And it is a problem, to be certain.
You are in an extremely difficult situation and I have a great deal of empathy for you. I know it is easier said than done to change programs or to speak up and fight fire with fire, which would only hurt the athletes you are helping, especially trying to fight a local mafia boss like you coach with. Keep learning and doing what you can. Nothing succeeds like success. It will get better or another opportunity will present itself. Keep following my emails, there are those of us working to change the status quo.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Latif,
I’ve been a complete speed training disciple for two years now, and I have to say that MOST of what you say is right. I wouldn’t be coming on here and posting if I didn’t believe in the fundamentals you throw out. However, sport specialization is still not a good idea..I will even contend it is so all the way through high school. Yes, it all comes down to good tactical and technical coaching for every sport. But, there are studies done by American sport scientists in peer reviewed journals that contradict your statement. A high school age student that begins specialization is still apt to have overuse injuries. You are right…it takes good coaching in all the disciplines to avoid this…but, if you are a high school student and your sport specialization is football, then you can certainly gain from the training regimens of basketball and track. The same goes across all of the disciplines. Each distinct sport allows for a certain development of different muscles, and muscle memory.
Matt – I don’t disagree with you man. I never said the 3 sport model was bad and I certainly didn’t say athletes *should* specialize once they get to high school. Nor do I *recommend* specializing. I just said that, if they have a particularly qualified coach and love the sport above all others, they should have the *option* to specialize once they get to high school. Is the 3 sport model better? In most cases, probably. I agree that the athlete who specializes is more apt to have overuse injuries. My argument was just that the athlete who specializes with a great coach is less likely to have overuse injuries than the athlete who does 3 different sports with no athletic development to speak of. Debatable? Absolutely. That’s the point of these discussions. My argument, ultimately, is that in the majority of situations, there is no ‘training regimen’ in sports. Just some general conditioning work and continuous reps of different part of that particular sport. But, on its merits, I have no disagreement with your argument.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
I have enjoyed your cyber-training for over 2 years and I have found your training protocol and columns to be right-on. Your discussion on the 3 Sport Athlete vs. Specialization is something that all Parents/coaches/athletes/ADs should read. Rather then kick the 3 sport athlete under the bus, wouldn’t it be great to develope competent, comparable coaches for all sports. Unfortunately, the truth is that most coaches have only one year of experience (x times over). Where for ‘art thou enlightened coach?
>>>Martin – thanks for the post. I agree, everyone should read it. But objectively and not react emotionally if they are on the receiving end of my frustration. There are enlightened coaches like you out there who are doing the right things. It’s the ones who aren’t online looking for this type of information who need it the most. If we’re going to develop these competent coaches, the good coaches need to keep getting better and try to give sight to the Blind, parents and athletes need to put more pressure on the AD to demand more from their coaching staff and ADs need to hold their coaches to a higher standard. We all have to do our part in order to change the status quo.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Latif, I’ll use your example of cross country/indoor/outdoor track versus football/basketball/track to give you my reason for not fully agreeing with your point of view. For the 99% of kids who are not going to get scholarships, specialization will leave them with less of a variety of skills to use later in life. For your kid who runs year round, when he’s 27, will he be able to join a softball league? Or will he be this generation’s Herb Washington, the fastest guy on the bases who never gets on base because he doesn’t know how to hit. Will he be able to join an adult rec basketball league? Or will he just be the fastest guy on the court who plays the fewest minutes because he can’t shoot or dribble and doesn’t know how to play defense or box out. You mention the importance of enjoyment and how it will lead to success. I agree. But will the grown man or woman know any competitive enjoyment outside of running if running is all he/she has been trained to do?
You make a lot of great points (the weight room, especially) and your arguments are very thought provoking. My main observation is that I believe your philosophy benefits the very elite young athlete and neglects the very good, good, average and below average athlete. Thanks.
P.S. It’s brass tacks, not tax.
>>> John – Great post. And, man, it grates on me that I wrote ‘brass tax’. Shameful.
I must first clarify that my argument is not that kids should specialize. In the vast majority of cases, I don’t recommend it. I’m simply trying to get people to consider another perspective. My junior year of high school I switched to being a year round track athlete because it was more fun for me and I was more successful. But from the age of 6 to the age of 15, I played multiple sports. And they certainly made me a better overall athlete (which is why I, again, don’t endorse specialization until *at least* high school, if at all) Many years later, I can still do more than run. I think your argument is 100% correct if a kid is specializing at age 6 or 7 or 9. But at 14 or 15 when they’ve probably only got 2 or 3 more years of organized athletics left and have many years of multiple sports under their belt? I’m not so sure.
But if that’s all they’ve been trained to do, no they probably won’t get that enjoyment. I just think it takes more than a couple years of specialization. Interesting post, though. I’m going to think about that some more.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Latif,
I do not disagree with you in any way, however some of us are in situations that almost require all athletes to participate in 3 sports. We have only 160 kids in the high school and if too many of them specialized, we would have to eliminate the other sports. My attempts are focused on getting all athletes to be involved in a year round weight training program that will benefit all sports.
Our main 3 main sports are football, basketball and baseball. I am the football coach and know the importance of “speed” work. I have been researching your information for a couple of years now, have purchased your North/South Football Speed information and am attempting to improve the strength and speed of our athletes the best I can. I also must support the other sports and encourage all athletes to participate in as much as they can.
It would be a dream to coach in a large school where your football boys were 95% “only yours”, but our reality does not allow for that.
Do you have any advice on how to keep speed and strength the focus for my athletes when I have to give them up for 2/3 of the year?
A loyal reader,
Eldon Merrell
>>>Eldon – In your case the focus should be on playing multiple sports. In fact, in 99% of cases the focus should be on multiple sports. My argument is only that kids shouldn’t be purposely prevented from specializing at the high school level in most instances.
The world needs more coaches like you who are trying to unify the entire athletic program under a commonly accepted system of biomotor development. The problem isn’t you. The problem is the coaches who *don’t* have their athletes lifting or doing speed work, etc. Because by the time you get these kids stronger and faster you have to hand them off to a coach/sport that ignores athletic development. So they detrain and lose what they’ve gained.
I have no good solutions for maintaining strength in athletes you lose 2/3 of the year. Talk to the coaches of those sports and hope they understand how such training benefits their sport’s success. Otherwise any effort to help athletes may be seen as interference and create drama for you. But if it doesn’t, post workouts for 2x per week in the weight room and encourage kids to train ontheir own.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
This is what I LOVE about you Latif. I think you will force these so called coaches to have to get better or get out. This will only benefit the athlete’s and isn’t that the true reason to do it, anyways! The one thing I don’t get is why would you not expect more or want more as a parent or athlete, from the one who calls himself your coach. I have felt some frustration in the same way. I offer more than sport specific training and I still have parents taking their kids to other sports whose coaches don’t have a clue and they come back to me with NEW bad habits that have to be corrected. I can say without a doubt that seeing one of my athlete’s make gains or get to specific goals that we set; is the true reward. However, I am getting cases where some of my athlete’s are coming back to be with issues of strained muscles or pulled muscles and it just makes me UPSET and I feel the need to call some of those coaches out. If I didn’t need the money I would do this all day and for free, so this way these athletes’s wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of coaches not wanting to be better coaches. I say this because some of those coaches can’t stand me and they have that thing of; this is the way it’s always been done and the way they have been doing it since they were younger and Anthony doesn’t know what he is doing. It is my athlete’s that are making these coaches look good and this only confuses other parents who think that these clueless coaches are the reason for the successes in their sport. I say, at least in my city no on 3 sport model.
If you are coaching from the heart than you will feel compelled to be better, at least the ones that have the best interest of our young athlete’s. There is something about giving and doing it from the heart that makes training and life worth wild and I believe that is where you are coming from Latif; continue to speak the truth.
Anthony Munoz
Victorville,CA
>>>Anthony – We are on the same page brother! Your post is the exact frustration I experience every day! Get a kid faster and stronger and they go to another coach and come back worse than they started. Infuriating for you and for the athlete. Get better or get out. I may steal that from you for later use, but that is what I believe. It’s what we all have to demand.
Just remember, these coaches’ hatred of you means you’re on the right path. It’s jealousy, pure and simple. Keep getting them better and keep teaching them the truth. We’re going to replace these people with qualified coaches, but they’re going to fight it because it’s taking their identity from them. But the more you know and the better results you get, the more people will wake up. Keep doing what you’re doing. Change is coming.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Latif:
It’s been awhile. Great attention getter!! Title different than the details – you got me hooked
. I’m with you all of the way…I tell my clients leave the kids alone until 13. May be splinter off one sport as they start to zone in on their best two sports by 13. Once in HS determine if the coach & sport compliment the development if their goal is playing in college at a high level. Ask that question every year. If not, which to me is one of the discriminators D1 vs. D3 level I may leave them alone if their goal is D3 and they are talented. The social dynamics of girls is another factor, I let them get away from me for 3 months to play volleyball or XC before winter track, spring and summer club. The key point we both agree. I think all of the kids need to focus on their athleticism atleast 3 mos out the 12 to avoid burnout, injuries, physical improvement etc.. That’s assuming they have a good curricula during the 9 mos.. Now if they are kids that have no aspiration to play in college you’ll probably enjoy all 3 sports but understand you’ll get the spirit plaque at the end of the year not the scholarship unless you are the a god-give Manchild or Amazon athlete already.
Adios time to practice…Nick
>>>Nick! haha is has been awhile! Great post, we’re in agreement. You have to take things on a case by case basis, but for some of us common sense will set the standard. New track stuff is on the way!
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Latif,
You make a very well-reasoned argument here, which I really appreciate. I also appreciate your distinction between good people/teachers and good coaches; we may never get most coaches as technically proficient as we’d like, but I think there’s value in pressing the issue a bit more that it is today. Regardless of their technical proficiency, I suggest that coaches greatest value may lie in their development of the person, not necessarily of the athlete.
I would ask a couple of things about the value of multisport participation. These are issues about which I’m not sure myself, and I wonder how others see them:
1. What is the ultimate goal for a HS coach: to develop well-adjusted, productive members of society; or to develop athletes that succeed at the highest levels possible? That’s an important question for framing this discussion.
2. How important is it for HS-age athletes to experience different types of movement throughout the year? How much time will a track athlete spend moving laterally and in a reactive or stop-and-start manner? How important is it for them to experience those types of movement as well as more linear types, even if their multidirectional sport coaches aren’t as technically proficient as their straight-line sport coach?
3. A small undergraduate research study that I conducted in college suggested that one of the most important factors in continued sport participation through college was, essentially, how much the athlete enjoyed the coach and the sport. If a kid likes their technically weak coach and still has fun playing their multiple sports, how much is that worth?
I’m inclined to believe that multisport participation is usually the better option until 11th or 12th grade. Because of the way the US school system runs, I think that most kids have a small chance of encountering even one coach in their school that is as technically proficient as you advocate. I certainly hate to admit that fact, but I think we have a LONG way to go before we reach a critical mass of coaches in our schools with the level of training and knowledge that you suggest. There’s just not that much finaicial incentive for lots of continuing ed for coaches.
Without that critical mass of technically STRONG coaches, I think that you have to go back to the “all things being equal” caveat in your original statement. I think that the inherent benefits of having varied experiences will do more for a kid’s development in most cases than spending all year focusing on one sport.
>>>Ahh yes, Eric. You’re smart. Nice job. Let me attempt to address your questions.
1. I don’t believe these concepts are mutually exclusive, either/or propositions. The answer is both. That doesn’t mean ‘the highest level possible’ is going to be going to The League. Or even running varsity. But our goals as HS coaches should be to develop quality of character *and* help achieve the highest level of success possible. In fact, I think inspiring a kid to be the best athlete they can be is instrumental in building that quality of character. One does not take away from the other. An athlete does not have to sacrifice moral fiber if they want to chase a scholarship. The better I am at coaching, the greater the degree of success I can help the athlete achieve. And every athlete can be FAR better than they are now. Once they realize it, they believe they can achieve greater things outside of sports as well. When athletes tell me ‘Thanks for not giving up on me coach’ because I wouldn’t allow them to half ass their way through the season and I demanded a higher level of effort, that carries over to other elements of their existence. They become better people because they have higher expectations of themselves and better athletes because they commit to their own excellence, whatever that means to them.
2. During track season, it is not my responsibility to teach lateral movements and start/stop movements required in field/court sports. It is my job to prepare them for the demands of track season. It is the job of the, say, football coach to teach those movements during football season. Not just practice football plays and schemes. But if the football coach doesn’t teach it, am I to spend track season teaching lateral movement so the athlete doesn’t overdevelop linear speed/strength/skill at the cost of the ability to decelerate and change directions? It’s important that they get appropriate athletic development throughout the year, but the demands of the sport season they are in take precedence. It’s very important for kids who also compete in multidirectional sports to learn those movements so they can reach their potential and avoid injury. My technical proficiency and system for developing biomotor skill, even under the parameters of a linear sport still makes the kid a better athlete and therefore a better football player. But the football coaches’ lack of skill in this area increases the likelihood of injury during football and sets the athlete back during track. If we both were proficient at our jobs, the athlete would continue to improve in skill and efficiency all year, leading to a better track program and a better football program.
3. It is worth everything. The kid should do what the kid wants to do. We should encourage the athlete to do what is in his/her best interest. Most often, that is play multiple sports. I never suggested otherwise. As you said, it is rare that a HS sports program is going to have many, if any, truly exceptional coaches. My fundamental point in this discussion is this: just like we should have a ‘reason why’ for every element of our practice, we should have a ‘reason why’ if we’re promoting a particular training philosophy. I don’t have to agree to accept your ‘reason why’, I just think your ‘reason why’ has to be based on something more than having always done it that way.
We do have a LONG way to go before reaching that critical mass. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be attempting to reach that point. When I was a young, poor coach I didn’t need financial incentive to educate myself. I was intrinsically motivated to work as hard to help my athletes reach their potential as I could. The better they did, the better they experience they had on my team. In my opinon, if people need a financial incentive to be better coaches, they should get out of coaching.
Great post Eric.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Kia ora Latif,in New Zealand we basically play winter and summer,Rugby/league and netball in the winter and touch/cricket and softball in the summer with basketball and golf all year round but we generally play the 2 sport model,but,cousin who raised her 2 boy’s by herself,introduced her son’s to tennis at an early age,and,being in N.Z,they played rugby as well as playing basketball with their mormon cousin’s.My point?i believe that this cocktail mix of sport was great for them as they were growing up,as they reached their mid 20’s they chose rugby as their sport of choice and both excell due to their speed(lateral,fwd,back),eye and hand coordination(tennis)ball handling skill’s,reading offense/defense,great leaping abilty(basketball)good anaerobic fitness,strength(rugby)although their coaches were av to above av the mix was good enough to create the excellent athlete’s inside of them,as well as a great mother.
>>>Eru – sounds like they came from a great situation and their background of various sports contributed to their overall success. As I’ve said, I endorse what’s best for the athlete, not a particular philosophy that is set in stone.
LT
March 30th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Not only is change coming, CHANGE IS HERE. I received a masters degree in Sports Conditioning & Performance last year and I am telling you that the points of your entire article are EXACTLY in line with what is NOW being taught in accredited universities. I have zero disagreements and found myself feeling as if it were me speaking.
I, too, live in a small town and most (not all) athletes here play multiple sports. The athletes who specialize tend to be pressured into it by their parents. Go figure; can’t control that. But I have a solution for the problem that you have described as far as getting coaches of multiple sport athletes on the same page–don’t even try. INSTEAD, I think that high schools should have a strength/conditioning coach, just like colleges/universities do. Let the skills coaches teach the skills and let the strength coach(es) develop the athleticism of these athletes (strength, power, speed, agility, coordination, etc). Not only will this ensure proper/safe conditioning of the athlete throughout the year, but it will also allow the skills coaches to focus their efforts on what they do best. And I can all but guarantee that the teams would be more competitive–for the simple fact that MOST high school teams DO NOT train beyond the skills of their sports…injury prevention, increased performance. Off my soap box……..thanks Latif.
>>>Erin – that’s a good sign. Welcome to the Light side! I agree with your idea wholeheartedly. But with budgets as they are, very few, if any, public high schools could afford a strength coach on staff. This past winter I literally had to pay for buses and pay for track meet entry fees or we couldn’t go to meets. An on staff strength coach isn’t an option. However, the level of success a town would experience, in every sport, if they had a strength and conditioning coach on site to focus on athletic development while the coaches focused on offense/defense schemes would boggle most peoples’ minds. But that’s part of the problem, coaches and ADs don’t even know enough to know what a monumental impact it would have! Stay on your soap box, Erin. If we want to coaches to wake up, we can’t keep silent.
LT
March 31st, 2010 at 12:33 am
Im really torn on this issue, as I coach 3 different sports and believe in the 3 sport model to a degree. I coach football wrestling and track and throughout the year never stop trying to learn something new about any sport I coach. I am constantly going to clinics, speaking with other coach’s, buying videos, and reading new articles about the latest training methods. I do this to ensure that I can provide the best level of coaching I can possibly provide. I think I am a decent coach with a thirst for knowledge, but I have not met one other coach on the campus that I coach at thats shares the same passion or quest for knowledge in their specific sport. I have attended other practices to endorse the track program to no prevail, but the interesting part is that none of the teams besides volleyball spent much time actually teaching the motor skills necassary for their sport. It was all about learning the plays. I have never been a fan of having an athlete specialize because its high school. When will you ever get to compete in three different sports again. Building social relationships, memories, and long lasting friendships. On the other hand having unqualified coaches teaching you as an athlete can be very detrimental to your sports career. So I have to side with Mr. Thomas on this one. There are too many coach’s out there that have no business coaching kids bio-motor skills, i know I coached with 3 of those people last year.
>>>Here’s the problem Steven – you’re not the problem. I’m not even arguing for specialization. I would be perfectly comfortable with my athletes training with you because when I got them, they’d be in shape! They’d be skilled athletes! They’d be better than they were when our season finished! Long live multisports! The problem I have is handing kids off to programs that are run by the coaches you speak of. Dinosaurs who don’t learn anything new. Again, if you have a ‘reason why’ you don’t like specialization, I’m satisfied. It doesn’t have to be MY reason why, it just has to be thought through. You’re one of us, Steven. Keep doing what you’re doing.
LT
March 31st, 2010 at 2:45 am
“More specifically, which is better for my ‘overall development’?
1. 3 different sports where, in 2 of them, all I do is play that one sport for several hours a day, but do a negligible amount of athletic development.
2. Play the same sport year round – but engage in a variety of athletic and movement skills: speed work, mobility work, strength and power development, technical feedback, mentorship from my coach”
But say your favorite sport is football, and you want overall development as a footballer, then in your scenario, it is better not to specialize, it is better to do Football and Track (maybe you could leave basketball alone). If you only did track you would miss out on Football skills (and enjoyment). If you did only Football, you would miss out on the athletic development offered by track.
>>>And that is why you should do whatever is most fun for you. That is what I tell my athletes when they realize that their other coaches aren’t going to make them better. They love a sport, but they’re torn between that sport and another season with me. They don’t know what to do. So I tell them all the same thing “You should do whatever you think is going to be the most fun.” It’s high school sports, man. If you want sports to be a job, then get a scholarship. Until then, do what’s fun.
March 31st, 2010 at 4:07 am
Finding the balance between specialization and general development is a tough task. When it comes to sports like soccer there is very little time for general training at young age. If you look top soccer players like Messi, Ronaldo all they did at young age was play soccer – NOTHING else. For instance soccer requires so much repetetive work on leg-eye coordination that adding much Fintess/other sports would be waste of time in 21st century. It is hard enough to find time for kids to train soccer skills, do homework and have a life, that adding extra sports would actually limit time for so much needed coordination training.
I have no problem with my son playing basketball for fun but there is no time to have him on basketball team.
Perhaps once the “skills window” is “closed” at age of 12 the time would be to pick some other sports for fun and variety… but again, if you are best you make into state squads and all you do is more soccer…
On the other hand, if a kid is participating in activities as baseball, horse riding or athletics – you could probably train 10 of them in a year…
>>>There are no hard and fast ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers. That’s what I’m arguing here. Let’s not make blanket statements or set philosophies we haven’t thought through. Every athlete is different. Same with sports, coaches, ADs, programs, etc.
LT
March 31st, 2010 at 8:43 am
Latif,
I work in a small high school, so my perspective may differ from yours due to that fact. As much as I would like to have my very dedicated athletes for cc, indoor and outdoor, I believe that this is a disservice to them. I do generally believe that a multi-sport approach is good for most high school athletes, because the truth is that most will not be college athletes and they need a variety of experiences that will lead to a rich recreational (thus healthier) lifestyle as adults. However, the biggest frustration I have is the college scholarship model. I can have a state champion that say runs a 1:53 800m, and a 47 point 400m and they may get a quarter scholarship from a middling school. This same athlete can be a solid, but not overwhelming basketball player and get a full ride. Baseball is an even easier sport in which to earn a scholarship. This disparity almost makes me reticent to take great athletes from another sport. I had an athlete recently who ran the aforementioned times. He received a lackluster scholarship (he had to pay a lot out of pocket), ran 4 years under a less qualified coach than me and graduated (thank goodness!). However, three of his far less athletic classmates recieved a baseball, basketball and football scholarship respectively and earned far superior deals. He was better than all three in their sports (he was also a 47′ triple jumper w/ very little training) and now I regret working so hard to get him to run track even though he was a 5 time state champ and led us to the state championship in cc as well. He could probably be playing baseball in the majors right now if not for his love of track. With the scholarship limits in track, an athlete almost has to be national class to get significant money. It’s a shame, but it’s true.
>>>Jay – I have no problem with your reasoning for a multisport model. In terms of scholarships, let’s be honest – track and field is a second class citizen sport. And if you’re a male athlete, you’re even less likely to get a scholarship because of Title IX. When I was in college, *by far* the best collegiate program in New England, we had 6 scholarships to go around. We had NCAA D-1 All Americans who didn’t have full rides. The women had 18 scholarships (fully funded). There were girls who couldn’t score points in scrub meets who got full rides.
LT
March 31st, 2010 at 11:44 am
I am a high school football and track coach (throwers at this time) and have been for 30 years. I also am CSCS certified. Our school bought your base program to help coaches get on the same page. We thought that that plus my help could get them training kids properly. It would have been just as helpful to give them a book full of chinese proverbs (in chinese) based on how much it was used. One sentiment is that I am the football coach and it is just for football players. We have our PE teacher/athletic trainer trying to implement the program to have someone more “neutral” in their eyes but it hasn’t seemed to do much. At this point trying to get everyone to at least deadlift or squat seems to be the only hope. I mirror your thoughts almost exactly. Some of my collegues who read your article thought it was me at first because I always give them stuff to read. Keep the info coming. At some point people should see it is right, not just me.
John
>>>Great email John. We had a good laugh here at the office. This might make it into an upcoming email. I feel your pain, believe me. Keep fighting the good fight.
LT
April 1st, 2010 at 8:39 am
the expression, “jack of all trades, master of none” really hits home with me. I am a parent, former youth coach of basketball, baseball an soccer. My teenage son is very adept at soccer an plays on a regional ODP team. He wanted to play high school soccer but, the coach has NO experience nor license to coach the sport(first year).This coach would not allow son to participate in his Olympic Developement program sessions even, only a few that may or may not come up. Son talked to the track coach, he had no problem with the ODP program sessions if one did come up..in fact, he was glad to get son an he is a very experienced coach, son made varsity team after one meet. This extra speed training we figure it will help son in his soccer an even tho he can not get soccer playing in high school, he will get practice sessions on his own an with his odp team as they come up…this for him, may be a blessing to take a short time out from soccer, plus increase his speed at the same time in his conditioning….an he enjoys the workouts in track an the competition…I can not believe a student athlete can excell in all sports to the degree that is needed to become an elite player, participant.
>>>I agree that a top athletes can’t maximize their potential in one sport by playing many. Good to see parents like you thinking through their approach to athletics.
LT
April 1st, 2010 at 12:09 pm
-In Massachusetts, only 5% of kids that play a sport in high school go on to play that sport in college. The implication here is obvious and that is, for most kids, their athletic moment(s) in the sun are over by the age of 18.
-The requirements to coach at the high school level aren’t stringent which means there are some sports with bad coaches. I think track and field is one of those sports and, as an earlier poster mentioned, most parents aren’t enlightened enough to know the difference.
-The problem isn’t “IF” an athlete should specialize, it’s “WHICH” ones should and, more importantly, “HOW” should they? Athletic preparation, both general and specific, should be centered around the development of the proverbial 5 biomotor abilities. This should be done in a way which is specific to the sport and/or events that an athlete competes in.
-Today, specialization typically means that kids with average ability are playing one sport year round, often resulting in burnout or overuse injuries. Parents are allowing their kids to be a part of this madness because they want them to feel special and not feel excluded.
-What’s sad is that the truly gifted athlete is not only lumped in with these average athletes, but they’re also exploited
(read: score points) by their coach. When it comes time for them to shine (read: National Meet) they often come up short because they’re either cooked from their season or haven’t been prepared by their inept coach.
-Most enlightened coaches out there are advocating that kids play as many sports as possible before the age of 12 to take advantage of “optimal windows of trainability” when it comes to speed, agility, and coordination. The hilarious thing here is all these bozo coaches are, in reality, screwing the parents by offering a two week long summer SAQ camp for 16-18 year olds when SAQ has been cemented for 4-6 years! Can you say…fraud?
So, what’s the answer? Kids should play as many sports as they can before the age of 12 and, perhaps, up until the age of 14-15. After that, if they show great promise in a particular sport, they should be asked if they want to specialize. Naturally, all the pros and cons of this decision should be laid out in front of them. If they say yes, the parents should do some research to identify the coaches in their area who can best help their child. This coach should have relevant certifications and experience and, more importantly, have documentation of the progressions of his/her athletes.
One more thing, that 47. 400 meter runner should not have run cross country. Any high school kid running 47. should be fully devoted to getting down into the 46’s and cross country shouldn’t be part of that process. I might be wrong, but I think 46. would have opened up all kind of doors for him.
>>>Truly an excellent post. This could be an article in and of itself.
LT
April 1st, 2010 at 3:08 pm
I’m not going to disagree with either point because unlike when I was a kid more than one sport was just a way of life because I enjoyed being outside and competing. Today’s youth think being a three sport athlete is competing in XBox, PS3 or texting. Anything that get a kid active and teaches them to keep their bodies up I’m for.
>>>Agreed
LT
April 5th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Reply to Mike (post #18):
I hope you don’t mind, but I’d like to address a couple of the comments you made in your post. If I understand correctly what you’re saying, I think you just shined some light on a common fallacy that many well-intentioned parents make as they manage their kids’ development.
Forgive me if I’ve mis-interpreted your post, but it sounds like you’re taking more or less the opposite approach with your son than what Latif and others have outlined here. You said that it’s hard to fit in non-soccer activities because so much time is required to work on soccer-specific skills.
I would suggest otherwise.
In fact, time spent AWAY from soccer before age 15/16 or so will probably do more for your son’s chances than extra time spent ON soccer. I think you’d find there that Latif and most of the experienced coaches posting here agree that specializing before age 12 is a great way to be a superstar at 14 and out of the sport by 17.
Many coaches have to deal with this misconception by parents who believe that they have to push-push-push their kid to help them succeed, when in fact that is more likely to push-push-push the kid away from the original goal than toward it. It’s hard to take a step back when you only want the best for your kid, so I applaud your obvious interest in helping him be successful.
May I suggest that you read some more on the concept of Long-Term Athletic Development to help you better understand how to better maximize the “skills window” of which you spoke?
I think you might see that to build an athlete up to their highest possible point, you need to start with a broad base and taper upwards from there rather; if you start with a narrow, specific base, you have nothing to provide support when things start to teeter.
Respectfully,
Eric S.
April 7th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Latif, great article. I have a 10-year-old boy that I coached in soccer starting when his team was 4 years old until last year. We started doing speed, quickness, and agility training at every practice when they were 5. Our boys stopped falling down and soon were the fastest, quickest team around. My son now plays 4 sports, baseball, football, basketball, and soccer. He is a good athlete who is getting the attention of the coaches from all the sports. It is not a coincidence; all the boys from our original team are being recognized. Last summer at football camp, three of them won camper of the week for their age and position group. My son said “Dad, I think I won because I was the only one that could do all the drills right, but it the same thing we do at soccer practice every day.” That was the greatest compliment I think I have ever gotten and it should be to you too, since I have stolen much of what we do from you.
I believe; let (I emphasize LET, not force) him play all the sports he wants to until he is good enough in each sport to make an intelligent, informed decision, even if the coaching is not great. I suspect he will try to play two or three sports in high school. Most of my son’s new coaches do not like that approach. They are already talking about year round baseball, basketball, soccer…. you name it…in fourth grade!!!
So, back to my point, I have personally seen the benefits of athletic training. We are not getting any speed and agility (athletic) training from his current coaches except a little from his soccer coach. When I ask, “Hey, are we ever going to do any speed and agility stuff?” I get the excuse, “We don’t have time for that”. My response is “So, I guess the quickest, fastest team doesn’t win anymore?” Then I hear the infamous “You can’t coach speed! Your son is just blessed with speed”. I think of you every time I hear that. I normally just drop it and don’t mention the hours of hard work my son has put into his “speed”.
The parents of our original soccer team who are seeing the same thing with their boys in their new teams (whatever the sport) have approached me and expressed the very concerns you bring up in your article. We fear our boys are regressing under the new coaches, not in the specific sport, but in overall development and conditioning. We think that if we are going to continue to develop our boys into athletes, we are going to have to the athletic training on our own time away from the other programs. So, that is what we are going to do. We’re not professional coaches, just a group of parents trying to do right by our boys.
PS: Not trashing our coaches, most of these people coaching at the fourth grade level are just dads trying to help out and we do have limited practice time. I do have the same problem that you mention many times. These guys are set in their ways and take any suggestion as criticism.
>>Robert – great post and great coaching job. You are certainly one of the good ones. Your athletes will continue to pull away from these other kids and once they get to be teenagers the superior skill set your athletes are acquiring and developing will really start reap big rewards.
LT
May 20th, 2010 at 8:21 am
My son played three sports through his freshman year in High School and then he just played Basketball. He just completed his first year of playing college BB. Specializing in high school definitely helped him prepare for the next level.
August 18th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Great article. There are many, many different opinions on this subject. I happen to coach at a high school where my athletes play soccer (futbol, football) year round. 70% of my athletes recieve the opportunity to play in collegiate soocer programs. They don’t get ‘burned out’ and if they do, they can walk away freely. We win consistently and our injury rates are incredibly low. I have never discouraged a young man from participating in other sports, but I do remind them that every state championship team has players that almost exclusively play soccer year round. A Jack of all trades is Master of none. Many of the arguments against specialization fall flat here. Maybe my circumstances are rare, I am always open to discuss it. 928-246-3187