Athletic Skill Development: Where Does It Fit Into Player’s Preparation?
Paul Gamble PhD
I was involved in the late-stage rehab of a high profile NBA player returning from surgery to repair a patella tendon rupture. I was surprised to discover that the basic athletic movement skills I was taking him through on court to prepare him to return to live scrimmages seemed entirely new to him. I asked him if he had been exposed to this type of training before and he replied ‘No. Never’. The player in question was a model professional and very diligent with his practice and preparation, so it would certainly have been evident if he had. He was also approaching a decade in the league and had played for multiple teams over that time, so I don’t believe that his experience was atypical.
As in the example cited, on court training that is part of the injury rehabilitation and return to sport process typically includes some element of movement skills training. Movement training or retraining is a key pillar in the ‘on-field rehab’ undertaken to prepare athletes to return to team training and practices following injury [1] . Otherwise, athletic skills tend to be neglected in players’ routine training when they’re healthy, particularly once they advance to higher levels of competition. Clearly we don’t want the first time a player encounters dedicated athletic movement skill practice to be when they are returning from a significant injury.
This raises two questions. Firstly, given that players spend the vast majority of their time on court engaged in activity without the ball, should we not account for these athletic skills at senior professional level, just as they continue to routinely practice technical skills with the ball? Secondly, is the movement skills training that is provided in an injury rehabilitation and return to sport context fit for purpose?
The Differing Issues in the Performance vs Rehab Domain
The general picture seems to be that athletic movement skills are overlooked in the performance domain, whereas there is a tendency for them to be over-coached in a rehabilitation and return to sport context. Whilst there is a need to control the conditions to restrict the degree of unpredictability and potential harm, there is equally a danger when we are too rigid and prescriptive with our instruction. Beyond how we are delivering this technical input, the other major concern is whether what we are teaching is appropriate and consistent with what is required in a performance context. This is a topic we will return to later.
To understand where we might be falling short in regards to athletic skill development, we need to differentiate between technique and skill. Technique is a rehearsed movement pattern. Skill on the other hand is far more dynamic, as it is expressed in a specific context.
It is necessary to understand and master the fundamental techniques involved. However, we need to recognise that expression of all sports skills (including athletic movement skills) involves the application of technique in context. This necessarily includes adapting to conditions and modifying how the technique is executed to fit the constraints of the specific situation. The term used to describe this is behavioural flexiblity. It is this feature that defines skilled performance as it is the ability to achieve the desired outcome under varying conditions and constraints. It is not sufficient to have one solution that is highly repeatable under controlled conditions, as players must be able to accommodate a variety of conditions, adapt to the circumstances and may be required to find alternative ways get the job done according to what the situation demands.
The necessity and bandwidth of behavioural flexibility is much greater with open skills due to the need to read the situation, react to events as they unfold, respond to other players (both team-mates and opponents), exercise judgment in deciding what action is appropriate and then execute in a timely manner, typically determined by external factors.
In the performance context, the techniques that underpin athletic movement skills tend to be neglected and the acquisition and refinement of these skills is largely left to the athlete to figure out. In the rehabilitation context, technique instruction is arguably too rigid and fails to account for other facets of athletic skill development.
Specifying What and How
Athletic movement on court encompasses a host of different technical elements. The expression of athletic movement skills is likewise specific to the context. We therefore need to specify what and how if we are to be systematic in our approach. That is, we need to be clear on categories of movements we need to cover and give some thought to how these movements should be trained, not only in terms of mechanics and technique but also from a practice design perspective.
The importance of the what part is obvious. Broadly, we can categorise the athletic movement skills on court as (1) locomotion skills, (2) jump/land skills and (3) change of velocity skills. We also need to differentiate between types of actions within a category. For instance, executing a 60-degree change of direction versus a 180-degree pivot places relatively different demands on respective capacities and capabilities and the biomechanics involved differ substantially [2] . Beyond differentiating the types of actions within each category, we also need to think about task conditions. For instance, even with the same change of direction task, how much speed we are carrying into the manoeuvre has a major bearing on what movement solutions are viable or even possible
Locomotion Skills
Players engage in a range of different modes of locomotion in variety of directions to move around the court. Skilled performance in relation to locomotion skills can be described in terms of movement dexterity, which encompasses lower limb dexterity (‘feel’, control and precision with respect to how the athlete interacts with the ground [3] ), as well as timing and rhythm. Our aim should be developing a high degree of proficiency with each of the different modes of locomotion that players might use on court. The combination of style and ease we are looking for can be described as movement fluency, such as the facility to use different modes of locomotion interchangeably and switch between them at will.
Jump/Land Skills
Players require the ability to get off the ground quickly and jump high from a variety of starting conditions. An important element of technique is the preload action used to initiate propulsion, such as a countermovement from a standing start, step-in approach or multiple step run up. Key technical elements for single-leg take-offs include the use of penultimate step, the coupling between swing leg and take off leg and harnessing hip abductors and lateral flexors to contribute to propulsion [4] . Landing skills include not only the ability to effectively dissipate force on touchdown but also to be in position to quickly transition to the next action. In the case of repeated jumps, a related skill is using the initial touchdown to preload for the successive jump effort.
Change of Velocity Skills
Change of direction is an incomplete term, as it does not specify all the relevant information – notably, it omits that approach speed is a critical variable [5] . Developing the relevant athletic performance skills for changing velocity requires accounting for not only the different tasks but also the range of conditions, which is why I contend we should rather employ the term change of velocity [6] .
Change of velocity also brings under the umbrella multi-direction efforts executed from a stationary start. On that basis, change of velocity movements encompass starts, stops, pivots and turns. We need to train each of these elements both in isolations (e.g. starts and initial acceleration in different directions) and in combination (i.e. changing velocity whilst in motion under different initial conditions and varying degrees of change in direction).
Devising Training and Providing Coaching Input
Now that we are clear on what elements should be included, the next step is to figure out how we should approach training to improve the relevant capabilities. What is optimal and even what is possible will depend on the individual, not least due to differences in anthropometry, strength capacities and athletic capabilities. For instance, a relatively heavier but strong athlete will be more likely to opt for a strategy that allows them to apply force for longer to develop the necessary impulse, whereas a lighter and more elastic athlete will tend to favour speed to leverage their natural bounce.
To navigate all this complexity and the differences between groups and individuals a good starting point is to identify that which does apply universally. There are common elements and fundamental physics that apply to all, which helps provide a framework to devise drills and provide instruction. Newtonian laws of motion govern the mechanics of motion on the court and should inform coaching input. Possessing a better understanding of the fundamental physics helps players to come up with viable strategies.
From a practice design perspective, we need to identify the key task parameters, including starting conditions, approach velocity (i.e. both speed and direction of travel), degree of direction change and any specific considerations and constraints related to the playing position [6] . Each of these elements needs to be accounted for in the selection of drills and activities. From both a performance and injury risk mitigation viewpoint we also need to convey the relevant principles, instruct the athlete on the rudiments of the component movements and refine technical execution.
When assessing form we are essentially looking for certain shapes. A big technical theme is achieving positions most conducive to creating leverage, applying force to the ground and steering momentum in the desired direction. Important things to look for are the orientation of the body, placement of support foot in relation to centre of mass and the positioning of limbs and limb segments at key phases (e.g. touchdown, weight-acceptance, propulsion, take-off). Finally, we should be looking for how the athlete holds shape and maintains integrity as those ground reaction forces are transmitted through the kinetic chain to express movement.
Developing Flexibility and Fluency
Once the athlete has acquired the fundamentals, there will be a need to provide athletes with the opportunity to develop flexibility in how they execute these skills as well as refining techniques. There will be some variability in terms of what movement strategies are viable and the range of options that are available to the individual, according to attributes, capacities and capabilities. This will also vary over time. For instance, when the athlete is hindered by injury this will tend to narrow the available options. Conversely, with increases in capacity through training and as capabilities develop this will naturally open up new possibilities in terms of different options and alternative movement solutions.
Once again, we should provide the conditions for players to expand their repertoire of movement skills over time. The process of compiling and refining the movement playbook largely occurs through trial and error, so athletes should be encouraged to try different things and learn from each other. Returning to the theme of avoiding over-coaching, it is important that we regulate our own input and feedback to permit this exploration. It also follows that we need to provide some consistency in drill selection to afford athletes the opportunity to experiment, trial different strategies and see what works under different movement conditions.
Final Thoughts: Aligning Outcomes
The final source of confusion is that the focus of biomechanical investigations to date has been injury rather than performance. Understanding this helps to explain some of the discrepancy between the guidance from injury prevention focussed biomechanical studies and what works from a performance perspective [7].
The tension and apparent conflict between performance and biomechanics that are deemed to be ‘safe’ from an injury perspective has been noted by other authors on the topic [8]. Irrespective of what might be advocated in the interests of safety, the physics of motion are as they are. Any recommendations that do not accord with the fundamental physics of jumping high, moving fast and changing velocity effectively will inevitably compromise performance. If we are unable to reconcile the apparent conflict then we are left with distinct and different recommendations, depending on whether we are speaking about performance, injury prevention or injury rehabilitation and return to sport.
When dealing with elite performers especially, there cannot be a separation between performance and injury risk mitigation outcomes. Any trade-off in terms of performance soon becomes impractical. If what we are advocating compromises performance to any significant degree (i.e. at all) it makes it far less likely that athletes will adopt the particular technique or movement strategies, particularly under competitive conditions [7]. Indeed, given the nature of performance sport, it would arguably make it less likely that they would be selected if they did. Our challenge therefore is to come up with strategies that best satisfy both performance and injury risk mitigation outcomes.
References
1. Buckthorpe M, Della Villa F, Della Villa S, Roi GS. On-field Rehabilitation Part 1: 4 Pillars of High-Quality On-field Rehabilitation Are Restoring Movement Quality, Physical Conditioning, Restoring Sport-Specific Skills, and Progressively Developing Chronic Training Load. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy. 2019;49(8):565-9.
2. Dos'Santos T, Thomas C, Jones PA. The effect of angle on change of direction biomechanics: Comparison and inter-task relationships. Journal of sports sciences. 2021:1-14.
3. Lyle MA, Valero-Cuevas FJ, Gregor RJ, Powers CM. Control of dynamic foot-ground interactions in male and female soccer athletes: females exhibit reduced dexterity and higher limb stiffness during landing. Journal of biomechanics. 2014;47(2):512-7.
4. Sado N, Yoshioka S, Fukashiro S. Hip Abductors and Lumbar Lateral Flexors act as Energy Generators in Running Single-leg Jumps. International journal of sports medicine. 2018;39(13):1001-8.
5. Vanrenterghem J, Venables E, Pataky T, Robinson MA. The effect of running speed on knee mechanical loading in females during side cutting. Journal of biomechanics. 2012;45(14):2444-9.
6. Gamble P. Comprehensive Strength and Conditioning: Physical Preparation for Sports Performance (Revised Edition). Informed in Sport Publishing; 2019.
7. Fox AS. Change-of-Direction Biomechanics: Is What's Best for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Prevention Also Best for Performance? Sports medicine. 2018;48(8):1799-807.
8. Dos'Santos T, Thomas C, McBurnie A, Comfort P, Jones PA. Biomechanical Determinants of Performance and Injury Risk During Cutting: A Performance-Injury Conflict? Sports medicine. 2021.
About The Author
Paul Gamble PhD
Paul Gamble PhD has worked with elite athletes of all ages from an array of sports during a career in elite and professional sport that has spanned three decades and three continents. Paul consults with organisations and leaders in sport, providing guidance, mentoring and continuing education. Paul completed his PhD in 2005 and has written a number of books, publications and learning resources for coaches and practitioners who work with sports injuries. Paul is also a track and field athletics coach and coach developer.
