Do We Rob Athletes Of Their Creativity?

I'm a big Will Smith fan. From "Summer time" to Ali, I even have the Fresh Prince theme song as my ringtone and don't plan on changing it, ever.  One of his underrated roles was I, Robot.  It was an futuristic concept where humans created domestic robots that functioned off of 3 laws.  The robots end up evolving from these 3 laws and try to revolt and take over.  Spoiler alert, Will Smith saves the day in the end.

How does this connect to youth sports and performance training?  I was watching a soccer game with my good friend and great physical therapist, Cari McClemons, and we always get into talking about youth sports and coaching.  She was telling me about a team her son, who's 6, played for where the coach would constantly yell to the kids about where on the field they should be.  It got to the point where many of the kids would just look over to him all game long waiting to get yelled at for being out of position.  Zero creativity, zero spontaneity, zero fun.

Unlike Hollywood movies, I don't think these kids will pull the "I, Robot" and turn the coaches rules against him for total power domination.  Unfortunately, these kids end up either quitting because playing is no longer fun, or become robots waiting for there next command.

Talk about creativity, Parkour is the epitome of it.

It made me question what I do as a coach.  Am I creating robots in my own setting?  Do I ask enough questions and use the rights drills to enhance creative skills?  This is why I have my athletes go through a FedEx Day once a trimester.  It shows my areas of weakness as a coach, and also gives them a day to be creative and program their own workout.  

I want my programs to enhance the ability to be a critical and creative thinker.  I do this by asking a lot of questions, encourage athletes to ask a lot of questions, and set up drills that enhance creativity within movement, e.i. mirror games, human foosball, etc.  I can only coach them for 4 years.  I want them to take this knowledge of movement for the rest of their life. 

Creativity within the movements and rules of the sport are what makes it fun.  We all go after the same result but in so many different ways.  It's what make us human, but we can't rob our youth athletes by making them follow a piece of paper everyday.  Be creative in ways to teach creativity. 

One last video to show you a creative way to fish.  I think I need to try this....

Finding the Edge with Practice

In youth sport leagues, teaching skills is usually coached by demonstrating, then simply expecting the kids to benefit from repetition. What about the kid who is athletically underdeveloped and the basic skill you expect everyone to perform is too hard for them? What about when the drill is too easy for the 8 year old "stud" athlete?

Either way it's wasting valuable practice time.

The edge is when we find that spot that is just a little out of reach, and we can quickly make adjustments to get there. Some have called it deliberate practice, deep practice, or meaningful practice. If it's too easy, little progress is made and the brain can quickly fill up with ideas and thoughts that hard work isn't necessary because everything comes easy to me. Fixed mindset. If it's too hard the brain can shut down with frustration.

Maybe better practice was what Shaq needed?

Finding this edge is an art. Every skill and exercise can be different for each kid. After recently teaching some young athletes the skill of jumping and landing, we quickly realized breaking down the skill is MUCH, MUCH harder than making it complex. Narrowing the focus to one aspect of the skill and building from there is necessary for laying a successful foundation for growth. Keeping the kids engaged by asking questions about how they are performing and how there peers or the coach is performing allows them to be apart of the process and continues the ignition to expand the skill.

The amazing part after breaking these skills down to the very basics and giving success, we saw nothing but smiles and a desire to keep staying at their edge. We even had a couple kids say, "I don't think I'm at my edge." So we progressed them.

There is no reason we can't have a young child understand this concept and apply it to other skills like music, math, science, etc. Understanding how they can get the most out of their practice time makes learning fun and engaging, rather than something they're told to do.

If you're in the San Diego area, Encinitas/North County, I am working with a company called Brain Highways to teach young kids, ages 6-8 and 9-12, this ability to find their edge by using 8 fundamental movement and sports skills. The class starts October 5th on Wednesday evenings. To sign up visit this link,http://www.brainhighways.com/c/sports, or shoot me an email @ Caseywheel@gmail.com.

Ajax FC..... The Science behind Talent Development

Even though it's been over a year since this article came out by Michael Sokolove in the New York Times entitled How a Soccer Star is Made, I felt compelled to write about how far behind the United States is with youth development in sports.

Ajax has always been known as a European soccer power. Since much of the money for soccer is now in the Spanish, English, Italian, and German leagues, AJax has recently been unable to purchase the best players to compete at the highest level. What they did to adapt was create the world's best youth development program nicknamed "De Toekoms"- The Future. It has produced some of the top players in the world including Wesley Sneijder and Rafael van der Vaart, and many players currently on the Dutch National roster.

Ajax now supports it's club by developing these young players into absolute super stars and having the major clubs, who the players would probably end up with anyway, purchase their rights. This has become a very lucrative business, making the clubwell over $80 million.

Now if you talk to many American coaches, they'd probably think these kids are so much better than the players in the States because they play more and against better competition in tournament after tournament starting from the day they can walk. Oh how wrong you would be.....

There are three main points that I will compare from how Ajax develops players to how the USA has been know to develop players.

1. 12 and Under....LTAD vs Peak By Friday

Ajax- The players who are chosen to enter the Ajax club are only allowed to play in one game on the weekend and only practice 3 times a week for about 2 hours a day up until the age of 12. The other times they let them play games outside of structured practice with their friends. They found the value of not having anyone telling them what to do with the ball is essential for future development. Since the country is so passionate about football, it is often not hard for these kids to find games in the streets, parks and neighborhoods. Ajax realizes they want these kids to be world class, not elite 10 year olds. The best part? Ajax pays all expenses but a $12 insurance fee per year.

American- "Is he gifted? Lets have them sign up for 2 clubs teams and play with their school. Averaging over 100 games a year." This logic is not that uncommon. Our coaches only prior experience is playing the sport in high school or college and have not been educated at all on how young athletes acquire skills. We kill their creativity by the constant coaching, which is synonymic with yelling what they're doing wrong, and the pressure the parents get to put them in the next competitive 8-under team. By the way parents, you have to pay for all expenses.

2. Small Sided Games
Ajax- This is the heart of the practice with Ajax, especially at a young age. Ajax has done their research and looked at how playing small sided games for young players gives them touches than playing 11 vs 11. It also forces them to make quicker decisions, learn to move and control the ball in a small space, and not get lost on such a big field. Combine this over many years and hours of practice, making players much more effective than ours. Why?
USA- Right away kids are thrown into 11 vs 11 without practicing skills and how to move within the sport. We may use small sided games to warm up, but we will then go into block practices where everything is choreographed and over coached. Instead of putting players into a situation to learn, we instead put them in situations where the is only one way. This kills the creativity of the sport.

Develop the Athlete First
Ajax- Ajax has pulled players away from games to teach proper running technique and improve fitness so they have the ability to use their skills through an entire game. They look to change improper running technique and other movement patterns that may hurt them in the future.
USA- This has become much better in the past 5-10 years but it would take a special parent, coach and athlete to take a kid away from the game for a short period of time to work on athleticism. Many parents freak out that their kid won't be seen in the next tournament by the college scout in a 12-Under Show Case.

I certainly don't agree with why Ajax develops their players, as it seems more like slave trade than anything. However, we should take notes on how they put their system together. They encourage long term development, look for the science behind skill, and make sure the body can hold up with the rigors of training as they get older. I'm asking coaches, parents and athletes here in the US to take a second look on how we can improve our youth sports. In other places of the world they have competed and beat us with less selection of athletes and more understanding of talent development.

Sport Performance Coaches: Athletic Development vs Strength and Conditioning

I haven't been able to write in a while because I was in Yosemite and Northern California with a group of 10th grade students from my school. I was forced to go on a the trip to one of the most beautiful places on the face of the planet with 10 outstanding young adults, fellow faculty Emma, and our fearless leader Josh. We got rained on, hailed on, and attacked by a baby cub. No worries though, I'm a bear whisperer and was so intimidating that it ran away (picture to the right proves that).


Time to get to the post......

Three Examples of Athletes:

Athlete #1: 22 year old senior in college. He's going into his final season of hockey and most likely will not turn pro after the season.

Athlete #2: A 10 year old girl who enjoys soccer, lacrosse, and swimming. Long legs and very skinny.

Athlete #3: A 19 year old Red Shirt freshman on a division I football team. Needs to put on strength, power and size to be able to compete with the bigger athletes.

Obviously you would not train these three athletes the same. If you coach these three athlete's, what your trying to prepare them for differs drastically due to their needs and the needs of the sport. I like to break it down into what percentage needs of short term training, 3-12 months, and long term training, 1+years. Short term training is looking at preparing for upcoming seasons, matches, fights, etc. Long term is looking at Long Term Athletic Development (LTAD) that will maximize the potential of the athletes when they reach a competitive phase.

No matter what athlete you are don't start this program...


Athlete #1- Probably 90-95% short term training. Since this is their last go round, all focus is on getting them as strong as possible for the season as well in the best condition possible.

Athlete #2- 100% long term training. You could care less about getting them prepared for their weekend soccer tournament. All your focus is how can I help this young girl become the best athlete possible when she's ready for tough competition.

Athlete #3: I would give this about 65% Long term and 35% short term. You trying to prepare them for their sophomore through senior year, and possibly a professional career. Your goal is not having them in top condition for the season but you do want them to be prepared for the practices with them team. Conditioning is a important aspect but you're still considering this athlete as a long term project.

What does this all mean? In the future we may need to break the sport performance world into two different coaches. Athletic Development Coaches and Strength and Conditioning coaches. Programs like TPI and IYCA have already started certifying and education those interested in working with 5-18 year olds. Strength and Conditioning Coaches are well established and work with ages 15-???. There is an obvious overlap depending on the sport, athlete, and schedules.

I propose this division of coaches because working with young kids has become very important due to P.E. classes being dropped, obesity/overweight problems (25%+ with youth), and technology causing increased lazyassness (trademarked). If you've been introduced by IYCA or TPI Junior Program to a LTAD model, you know that you can have a HUGE impact on developing athleticism from a young age. I've also seen very good strength and conditioning coaches who coach a group of young kids and do almost the same things they would with a college athlete. This can potentially be a big mistake. Children are not young adults!

The strength and conditioning world continues to develop with great coaches like Mike Boyle, Eric Cressey, Todd Wright, Dave Tenney, Joel Jamieson, and MANY others constantly pushing the envelope. Topics like energy system development, unilateral training, load vectors, and others continue to push the field into new ideas and better programs.

Can one person wear both hats? Absolutely, but I think specializing in one will benefit the athletes much more than trying to learn everything. Additionally, working with a 5-8 year old is a much different animal than a college football player. Learning to communicate effectively with each type of athlete will take years to master.

Below is a table I've developed that is a very broad diagram of how an average athlete may progress from long term development into preparing for particular seasons. This can change drastically due to the sport (think gymnastics vs golf), to an athletes goals, role on the team, and other variables. The blue area consists of Athletic Development Coaches and the red area is directed towards strength and conditioning coaches.

Long Term vs. Short Term Athletic Preparation

Nature vs. Nurture: Round 1-Kenyans

Over the past couple years my opinion on how genetics affect environment has changed greatly. Thanks to the infux of "talent" books from Daniel Coyle, Geof Colvin, Malcom Gladwell, Matthew Syed, and David Shenk, they have put together the research and case studies that can essentially prove that the environment and circumstances have MUCH more of an effect than what people think others are "naturally gifted."

I wanted to start a series of posts that I will do periodically that disprove genetics are the main factor into what makes athletes and others talented. My reason for doing this is to get rid of the excuse that someone is more gifted genetically, and look for solutions that can improve our athletic ability and give ourselves and the youth a chance to be great. The first step is to believe that anyone can be great.

Nature vs Nurture Round 1: Kenyans

Everyone loves to talk about how great Kenyans are at long distance running, especially marathons. There's reason for it as a Kenyan has won all but 3 Boston Marathons in the men's division since 1991, and the women have 8 winners since 2000. Not too shabby.

Most people think that area of the world has been genetically grown to run marathons. They all are built of slow twitch muscle fiber that is key for any great long distance runner. But is genetics really the reason why?

Matthew Syed in his book Bounce brought my attention to why they're so good. The Nandi District of Kenya lies at the heart of the running world. What has the Nandi District produced? Out of 11 of the Boston Marathon winners, 7 were from the Nandhi District. I tried fidning the other winners birthplaces but it was not listed from multiple sites. This area is roughly 1.8% of the Kenyan population. The average person would say that this area was mutated for long distance running.

Then you look at the other factors. Nandi district is at a high elevation, which is essential for any great marathon runner. It lies around 2000m or 1.2 miles above sea level. However, altitude isn't enough as we would have plenty of great marathon runners coming from Denver and the Rockies if that were the case.

Another major factor is public transportation. There really isn't any at all. Kids from a young age average 8-12 km per day, sometimes up to 20 km, to get to and from school. As Syed said, "This adds up to 80 minutes of running per day, more than 90 hours per week, five hundred hours per year, and in excess of six thousands hours before their sixteenth birthday"(p.273).

The last factor is also the cultural obsession with the distance running. This area isn't know for it's wealth and now with marathon winners coming back with more money from one race than an average person makes in a lifetime, it provides deep motivation to improve the standard of living. As well as become a local and national hero.

Combine these 3 factors and you get one hell of a long distance runner. I will leave you to reason if genetics still had a large part to play but ask your self this.... if we switched two kids at birth, one from Nandi district and another from the 'burbs in Denver, who would be better at marathons. Genetics would have to say the Kenyan, but my money is on the kid from Denver in the Nandi environment, and I would bet a lot of it. You can make your own conclusions though.

What does this teach us?
Notice what your child takes interest in a place a positive environment that can foster learning. Then praise effort.