Shedding Light On The Elite Coach-Athlete Dyad: Perspectives Of The Participants In The 2008 Men And Women's Olympic Trials Marathon.

The results of a survey of U.S. Trials marathoners yields some interesting information about athlete priorities and expectations in the coach-athlete relationship.

By Brad H. DeWeese, Director of Exercise & Sport Science, Director of Sport Performance, UNC Asheville

INTRODUCTION
    The desire to compete at the highest level of sport is a common trait that drives most athletes to take part in demanding practices and make short-term sacrifices in order to attain peak readiness. For the purposes of acquiring the necessary skills and development, many of these individuals look to the guidance of a coach to provide specialized and meaningful instruction that enhances performance. This guidance is thought to likely influence the outcomes during competition. In an attempt to assist their athletes with goal attainment, coaches of various disciplines study the sport sciences in order to develop an understanding of the current knowledge in their field and seek a resultant edge in program design and orchestration.
    As a collective body, many coaches focus on metabolic systems, volume-loads, biomechanical efficiency, and physiotherapeutic modalities in order to provide the athletes under their supervision with the best training plan possible. After much internal debate and drafting, coaches then rely on their instinct in the process of delivering the plan. Specifically, coaches rarely spend additional time delving into the research focusing on the coach­athlete dyad; rather they tend to learn from previous experiences gained through the interaction with athletes. This reflective process is extremely powerful and enriching, but additional study could lend to a greater knowledge on how the coaching process influences performance.
    It has been posited that some successful athletic endeavors can be correlated to "non-periodized" variables such as athlete buy-in and self efficacy. It is interesting to note that factors such as these are the result of both proper training and effective coaching strategies, not simply just a well-constructed program built on the scientific rigor of the physical component. Keeping this in mind, if it is then assumed that the process of program design and implementation is a strong suit of a coach, as it may be at the elite level of competition, then is the ability of that coach to translate the plan through effective communication and motivation tactics the limiting factor in performance?
    Unfortunately this question can­not immediately be answered. Part of the problem with this aspect of coaching is that the current body of literature surrounding the coach­athlete relationship is rather limited. Specifically, research done to date has focused little on independent sports including track & field, cross country, and road racing. Additionally, the existing research that has been completed on these sports has primarily focused on scholastic and collegiate athletes due to the convenience of the sampled population. As a result, there is currently a very limited amount of information regarding this unique relationship between the athlete and coach as it occurs at the top level of marathoning.
With this in mind, the purpose of this research endeavor was to close the gap in the literature by measuring the desired coaching characteristics and levels of satisfaction of the male and female participants in the 2008 Olympic Trials marathons. In addition to the characteristic and satisfaction vari­ables, information such as weekly training mileage, marathon racing experience, employment status, and sponsorship were collected in order to determine if any relationships existed between levels of elitism participating in the races.

DEMOGRAPHICS

    In order to undertake this research project, a survey with a variety of open and closed-ended questions were provided to each of the participants in the 2008 Olympic Trials marathons. With the help of Jim Estes, who serves as the Senior Manager of Long Distance Running & Marketing for USA Track & Field, the surveys were distributed successfully. Given that performing research on traditional team-sport athletes is difficult because of their strenuous training and competition schedules, it is even more of a challenge with individual-sport athletes since most do not train at a centralized location. Therefore, an online survey tool was utilized for data collection due to its broad accessibility. Of the 134 men and 161 women (295 total) took part in the Olympic who Trials marathon, 61 (45.5%) and 47 (29.2%) (108 total, 36.6%), respectively, completed the online questionnaire. Of the 108, a majority of those (81, 75%) were competing in their first Olympic Trials at that distance. As a result, a majority of the athletes taking part in this study were "B" standard qualifiers (32, 52.5% of men and 42, 89.4% of women), although male athletes were almost equal for both reporting groups. Interestingly, within this reporting group, most competed in track & field/cross country in college (99,91.7%), which signifies the importance of talent identification and development by coaches at the collegiate level of sport.
    Understanding that there are limited financial resources available to the athlete competing in road racing/track & field in the United States, it was important to take into consideration the employment and sponsorship status of the athletes who qualified for the 2008 trials. As a collective, most of the athletes (67.6%) sampled held a full-time position while training to compete in one of the biggest races of their career. In contrast, only 8.3% (9) of these individuals considered themselves professional athletes, having no job outside of training and competition. In addition, more than half (56.5%) had some level of sponsor ship for their efforts, although no specification was made whether this was in the form of monetary allowance or products/services. It can be surmised that working full-time in order to provide support to themselves and their families can result in a reduction in training time and competition opportunities. The lack of financial support that may lead to this employment status may also relate to the fact that a significant amount of turnover occurs at the developmental stage of this sport, as noted by the high number of first­time qualifiers who participated in the 2008 Marathon trials. This turn­over could also effect the long-term development of elite athletes and decrease the talent pool available for international representation at the World Championship and/or Olympic level.

WEEKLY MILEAGE

    Although the purpose of this study was to identify preferred coaching characteristics of elite marathoners and gauge satisfaction with their current coaches, the secondary purpose of this research was to determine what other variables can be used to explain the performance parameters such as level of elitism, qualifying time, and average weekly mileage.
    It is understood that marathon success can be attributed to high weekly mileage as it promotes long­term physiologic adaptation including, but not limited to: increased capillarization, mitochondrial density, and substrate utilization.
    Through this study, a significant relationship was found between qualifying time and aver­age weekly mileage. On average, A-standard males ran 111 miles a week, in contrast to their B-standard counterparts who ran 101 miles a week. In comparison, the female A­standard competitors ran 106 miles each week, which was substantially more than the B-standard females (82 miles per week).
    As seen in Table 6, a large stan­dard deviation was present for both sexes and qualifying groups. When comparing training volume, level of elitism and employment status, the overall difference in mileage suggests that athletes at the lower qualifying level may be limited due to the time constraints that are present as a result of working at least 20 hours a week and receiving limited support from private sponsorship. In other words, those athletes who receive financial assistance for their athletic endeavors are less likely to work full-time, therefore giving them ample time to take part in and recover from higher-volume training sessions as well as additional training regimens such as strength­training.

COACH-ATHLETE DYAD

    In order to understand the de­sired characteristics of a coach, it is necessary to first determine the history of the relationship, as it exists at the elite level of competition. When asked if the services of a coach were used, a little more than half (58, 53.7%) reported being under the current direction of a coach, while the remaining (50, 46.3%) supervised their own program. Of those athletes who had a coach, most met their current coach through a post-collegiate running club (54.5%), with 20% of the remaining coached athletes staying with their collegiate track & field/cross country coach.
    Interestingly, it was found that many of the female competitors are coached by significant others. Although this was not a specific variable being investigated, this information was frequently disclosed on the open-ended portion of the questionnaire.
    Coached athletes also communicate with their coaches at least two to three times each week, mostly through direct contact (81%) while 74% stated they discussed training and instruction via phone and email· (74% each). It was interesting that very few athletes relied on texting and/ or instant messaging to com­municate with their coach (8.6%).
    Since so many athletes at the regional and national level of competition are training without the assistance of a coach, it is useful to understand why this is occurring. Of those 50 athletes taking part in this study who did not have a coach, many important factors were listed. The most significant variables include the cost & affordability of attaining a coach (32%) followed by not having time to work with a coach (30%), and also the fact that some athletes' geographic location prevents them from finding a coach (30%).
    Additionally, 10 athletes stated that they simply did not want a coach, which suggests that they have taken it upon themselves to learn what system works best for them through trial and error. Taking in all the information up to this point, it seems that of those athletes who do not currently have a coach, they may be open to utilizing the services of a coach if one was made available at a reasonable cost and if reliance on working full-time could
be decreased.
    Finally, all athletes, regardless of whether a coach was employed or not, were asked to rank their preferred coaching characteristics. As seen in Table 7, athletes competing at the elite level of marathon racing prefer a coach who: is accessible, listens, provides direction, is affordable, and allows for input into the training program design. Interestingly, characteristics such as being knowledgeable in sport/ exercise science, previous success with another athlete, and experience as a competitor were not valued as highly as believed by the researchers when entering into this study.
    Again, this demonstrates that individuals participating at this level of competition are cost-sensitive due to the lack of funding they receive for their training and competition endeavors, and due to time constraints, are looking for someone who is geographically close in proximity. This also provides insight into the program design process, as most mature athletes at this stage of their career will want to assist in the development of the training plan due to their knowledge that has been accrued over time. Coinciding with this, they are less apt to employ a coach who solely focuses on nurturing and motivation tactics as most of these competitors are self-driven and have a family or social network that provides emotional support.
    In concert with these findings, athletes who are currently utilizing the services of a coach were asked to rank their satisfaction by looking at these same areas. Overall, athletes were satisfied with their coach's services, especially when looking at characteristics such as: affordability, openness to allowing input into the training program, ability to provide instruction and immediate feedback, listening, and accessibility.
    Areas that did not score as high were the athlete's level of satisfaction with their coach's knowledge in sport/exercise science, their previous success with another athlete, and the coach's experience as a competitor in road racing/track & field. It is noteworthy to recall that when asked to define their ideal coach, these same variables were listed lower than accessibility and afford ability.
    One question that arises from this finding is whether or not the athletes understand and value the importance of a coach's knowledge in the sport sciences, or are the coaches not staying abreast of the scientific literature by taking part in continuing education practices?

CONCLUSION

    Whatever the case may be, it should be highlighted that based on the findings of this study, current national-class athletes who compete in road racing are more privy to a coach who is accessible, affordable, and democratic, with lesser regard for a coach who has a proven track record with previous athletes and a high level of knowledge as it pertains to the sport sciences. Is this a case of "beggars can't be choosers," or are we failing our athletes at some level? Have they become so accustomed to relying on themselves for improvement that they have forgotten that an educated coach can assist in their long-term development? Regardless of the answer, many of our post-collegiate athletes are serving as their own coach while working full-time to support a passion that they hope some day will be recognized at the national and world stage. As we reflect back on the most recent performances at the 2008 Olympiad, it may be necessary to reconstruct our support system and coaching education programs so that they foster not only current champions, but also promote access and link­age between promising athletes and enthusiastic coaches.

FROM TRACK COACH 192