Coaches’ Assessment of Players Physical Performance: Subjective and Objective Measures are needed when Profiling Players

Abstract

This mixed methods study aimed to assess the agreement between coaches ranking of youth rugby league players compared against objective physical performance data and gather coaches' subjective descriptions of their players performance. Five hundred and eight male rugby league players (U16 n = 255, U18 n = 253) completed a fitness testing battery of anthropometric and physical performance measures. Subsequently, 22 rugby (n = 11) and strength and conditioning (S&C) coaches (n = 11) ranked each player's physical qualities using a 4-point Likert scale (1top 25%; 2-25-50%; 3-50-75%; and 4bottom 25%) and described their performance. U16 S&C coaches displayed fair agreement when assessing players body mass (39.3%, κ = 0.20). U18 rugby coaches demonstrated fair agreement for strength and size (42.5%, κ = 0.23) and body mass (48.7%, κ = 0.31) whilst both U18 rugby and S&C coaches showed fair agreement levels for endurance (39.8%, κ = 0.25, 44.3%, κ = 0.29), respectively. Three higher-order themes were identified from coaches' descriptions of players including physical, rugby and attitude characteristics when evaluating performance. Overall, coaches cannot accurately assess players physical performance against fitness testing data. Though, findings suggest coaches adopt a multidimensional approach when evaluating players performance. Practitioners within talent development systems should utilise both objective and subjective assessments when making decisions regarding players performance. Highlights. Rugby and S&C coaches cannot accurately assess all aspects of players physical performance.. The greatest assessment agreement was for body mass, strength and size, and endurance, while the poorest were for strength, acceleration, and maximum speed. . Rugby and S&C coaches considered rugby, physical and attitude attributes when evaluating players. . Findings highlight the complex nature of physical profiling. Subjective and objective measures are required to provide an accurate description of players physical performance.

Are you lookin’ at me? A mixed-methods case study to investigate the influence of coaches’ presence on performance testing outcomes in male academy rugby league players

“…These views were shared by Assistant Coach B: "I have got more things to worry about, I let the head coach worry about that". These observations corroborate those reported previously that the support around, and selection of, players adopts a multidimensional approach of which physical performance testing is only part of the process 20,21 . Meanwhile, players often stated that they simply did not like testing and viewed it as "one of those things you got to do.…”

“…Furthermore, how the data collected is used throughout the club by players, coaches and other members of staff is of particular interest given they are likely to have different uses for these data. 20 McCormack et al 20, 21 revealed the multi-dimensional use of objective physical testing beyond its intended use to complement other subjective assessments (e.g., tactical, technical) that inform athlete preparation, selection, standardisation and player motivation. 21 Jones et al 12 also noted the head coach might use particular variables to ensure players were meeting her/his expectations and as a form of disciplinary power.…”

“…20 McCormack et al 20, 21 revealed the multi-dimensional use of objective physical testing beyond its intended use to complement other subjective assessments (e.g., tactical, technical) that inform athlete preparation, selection, standardisation and player motivation. 21 Jones et al 12 also noted the head coach might use particular variables to ensure players were meeting her/his expectations and as a form of disciplinary power. In contrast, Jones et al 12 reported performance analysts and S&C coaches used the data to monitor training load in an attempt to minimise injury risk.…”

Methodological Approaches to Talent Identification in Team Sports: A Narrative Review

“…Discrete and controlled tests ("signs"), whether conducted in the laboratory or field, lack ecological validity and transference to actual performance within team sports. Accordingly, a samples-based approach may be more appropriate in TID programmes, where judgements are made based on assessments that more closely mimic the context, environment, and task of team sport performance [23,64,81,83], including the subjective expert opinions of relevant staff [84,86,93].…”

“…Research has shown that inclusion of subjective ratings from coaches improves predictive models within TID in comparison to objective data alone [55,74]. However, the basis of and validity of such ratings is yet to be established with research showing a lack of agreement between coaches [85], an inability for coaches to accurately rate performance within specific disciplines (e.g., physical, [86,87]) and suggestions that ratings are potentially biased [82] and could be based on a coaches' perceived ability to influence and develop a player rather than solely on athlete ability alone [88,89]. Evidence of such biases has shown subjective ratings may vary based on an individual's stage of maturation and rate of growth, with a trend for ratings to decline for players around the time of their growth spurt, before increasing again post growth spurt [84].…”