Coach Carter

I was watching coverage of the World Track Championships last week when Dave Brailsford, the Performance Director of British Cycling was interviewed. His interview came immediately after the British trio of Chris Hoy, Ross Edgar and Jason Kenny 'only' claimed bronze - it seems anything less than gold in cycling is just not good enough theses days: at least from the perception of the media and the general public. However, Brailsford summed it up very neatly - he explained that with Jamie Staff being out because of a back injury, Jason Kenny had to step up and play the crucial part of #1 man. The fact that Kenny, the next generation of athlete being primed for the 2012 Olympics, put in an amazing performance (17.2s for the first lap!) under pressure at this level was the highlight in Brailsford's eyes. As extreme as it might seem, to this organisation, nothing can match the importance of the Olympics - not even a world championship. All eyes are on 2012 - this year is insignificant - its about breeding success in 2012.

When one reads about British Cycling, often the first phrase we come across is 'aggregation of marginal gains': how the smallest of components (the 1% enhancements) all add up - each 1% can be added, accumulated - and will make the difference at the elite level of performance: diet, training, technology - no stone left unturned. However, what is often overlooked is their ability to also see the bigger picture. What struck me in the interview I mention above is how single minded Brailsford was: World Champs 2010 served purely as a stepping stone to THE goal, 2012. In his words "Kenny stepped up, job done". The staff at British Cycling see the bigger picture as well as they implement the finer detail - like a camera that can see the wide angle and narrow focus view.

Its pertinent to contemplate this concept in the early part of the race season. At the beginning of the annual cycle (November time) I will have a conversation with each of my athletes about their goals for the season ahead. The riders are very clear on what they want, as the recent season is still fresh in their minds. Come January, I start to push them on firming up race plans and objectives; by March I begin to notice how hard it is to get a plan 100% in place - they suddenly want to race every weekend yet STILL be peaking for 2 or 3 key events. Essentially, its a human trait - we want it all; to be good all year around, and to be even better for the goal events. I have written about this before - how cyclists differ to runners for example. Runners pinpoint a key event and train for that; race; then plan again for the next event. In cycling, there seems to be a pressure to a) be fit all year around and b) want to peak all year around...its just not possible.

Even if I am able to pin a rider down to their race season plans in February, I still sense the need to perform well from the off: early season races often come with disappointment - an expectation that because of all the winters training, they will be better than where they left off in September / October. For example, its easy for a rider to forget that the 'big one' in May is still 12 weeks away when the racing 'red mist' descends at the season opener in March. I had reason to contemplate this 'wide angle, narrow focus' thinking at the weekend, as  I drove up to Andover to watch 5 of my riders in a 10 mile time trial  - for most of them, it was their first race outing of 2010. Of course, you always want your riders to perform well - but you have to manage expectations without extinguishing the flames of motivation! As it turned out, all five performed exceptionally well on the day - but I added another layer of context when I made sure to take each rider back to where this fits in the bigger picture.

I spend a lot of my time encouraging riders to think about fine tuning - in training, in nutrition, in recovery. But as with the racing example I give above, "bigger picture thinking" also applies to the day by day routine of training, nutrition and recovery. I think this is in part due to the data we now have available - data overload sometimes. I wrote last week about balancing health and fitness: adding the subjectivity of how one feels to the numbers coming back at you from your bike computer display plays a role in keeping you healthy whilst pushing the boundaries of fitness. This is a great example of seeing the bigger picture - does it matter if you don't do all 8 of the 3 min reps that coach sets? In a word, "no" - I often use the expression "getting the essence of the session". What type of overload did I intend? Did that get met? If "yes", stop, don't push yourself over that. By all means, pay attention to the detail of the interaction between heart rate, power, cadence to get the session dialled - but if one doesn't quite marry up with the others, don't let it overwhelm you. The body is not a machine; and we sport scientists whilst knowing a lot (obviously!), we don't understand the body entirely - and every one is different.

Even knowing a lot, we sport scientists have to keep on learning! Last week, I was part of a team at the University that presented a workshop on the 'Critical Power' concept. These workshops are supported by the British Association of Sport and Exercise Science (BASES) to help their membership keep on top of the latest topics in the discipline. It was the first time I have contributed to one of these workshops since taking on my new mantle of coach / sport scientist (as opposed to being purely a researcher). I feel my new role allowed me to bring home the application of techniques alongside the traditional research, theoretical presentation. Although a day away from my coaching work, I enjoyed it - and hopefully we inspired a few budding coaches in the room!

One of the most enjoyable aspects of the day for me was working alongside my mentor, Jo Doust. As well as being my boss at the University (and the Chair of BASES) Jo was my PhD supervisor and I always learn something new from him. Last week at the workshop he opened up the afternoon session by introducing a definition of "intelligence" he had read that morning in the Guardian newspaper - apparently the article explained that intelligence is an ability to hold two, not necessarily agreeing concepts in the mind simultaneously, yet work with both. Jo was explaining this in the context of the Critical Power concept: a measure of fitness that is vague in its physiological meaning yet more sound in its application for monitoring performance. However,interestingly, it is just as applicable to a 'wide angle, narrow focus' approach to sports performance.

As all scientists are guilty of, I will now extrapolate - based on the above definition of intelligence; and how I must work on a 'wide angle, narrow focus' approach every day in my role...that must make me VERY intelligent, no? ;-)