By John Portch

When the Leaders Performance Institute trend survey asked practitioners for their team’s greatest barriers to tech-supported innovation, nearly 45 percent cited cost and human resources.

The figure surprised both the Leaders team and Professor Fabio Serpiello, the Director of Sport Strategy at Central Queensland University, because most of the survey’s respondents work for well-resourced professional teams. It was reasonable, we felt, to assume that they’ve progressed beyond such concerns.

“We thought this warranted further discussion,” said Serpiello, who led the first of a three-part virtual roundtable series aimed at exploring the dynamics of tech-supported innovation in sport.

We must point out that none of the Leaders Performance Institute members in attendance contradicted the survey’s findings (which you can read in our Trend Report). Some recounted the type of problems they encounter when it comes to innovation.

“Some problems can definitely be too big,” said one experienced high performance specialist working with military units in the US.

“You may not get support because of the priorities of the major decision makers that control the purse strings.”

What is ‘innovation’?

Serpiello believes the first step is simply to define ‘innovation’.

Even more importantly, he argues that teams should alight on a shared definition; one that does not conflate the concept with ‘creativity’. (Creativity, as Serpiello explained, is the outcome of an ideation phase, while innovation covers the execution and eventual impact of an idea.)

He makes the case that when teams have an agreed definition of what ‘innovation’ means to them then it offers a “clear way to approach and analyse whether the innovation processes in your organisations work or not.”

Serpiello himself likes the definition proffered by Scott Anthony in his 2011 Little Black Book of Innovation: ‘Innovation is something different that has impact’.

He then asked the practitioners and coaches at the table for their definitions. Answers ranged from the refinement and optimisation of processes to the value of novelty and pursuit of greater efficiency.

“These are all linked to a practical outcome,” said Serpiello.

Greg Satell’s Model of Innovation

Innovation, Serpiello argues, comes in several shapes and forms depending on the nature of the problem. To make his point, he introduced renowned change management specialist Greg Satell’s Model of Innovation, which provides a practical framework for introducing innovative practices, encourages strategic thinking about problems and helps to facilitate better collaboration.

He presented a diagram of Satell’s model to the table:

Serpiello then shared his thoughts on each quadrant:

Basic research – a low understanding of both domain and problem: “We don’t really know what the problem is and we don’t really know in which field or area it happens.”

Disruptive innovation – a well-understood domain but poorly understood problem: “In this area you may need something like innovation labs or launch pads.”

Breakthrough innovation – a poorly understood domain but well-defined problem: “This is the reverse of disruptive innovation… the classic example of open innovation.”

Sustaining innovation – a well-understood domain and problem: “The most common form in sport [and often the subject of] continuous research, design thinking or road mapping.”

There were three areas in particular where the table thought Satell’s model could prove useful:

1. For clarifying expectations. “I like the idea of using this model to frame leadership’s expectations for innovation,” said a director of performance working in the US. “They say they want innovation but they may not know what that means and they may not understand the differences between basic research that requires long timeframes versus continuous improvement.”
2. For working out who can contribute. “Often you get the best answers from within and you often get the best solutions when you use the power of the people working on it,” said a high performance specialist based in New Zealand. Others agreed, including a sports scientist from Australia. “I think it’s everyone’s role, particularly in high-performance sport, we’re solving problems every day.” While the wisdom often lies within, the opposite may also be true. The New Zealander added: “This model also helps you think about where you need to go outside.”
3. Long-term planning cycles. This facet is pertinent for teams, federations and confederations alike, as a representative from a world governing body explained. “We’re trying to build some more of that collaboration to actually understand,” they said. “Not just trialling things for the sake of it, but if there is a genuine area of the game we want to try and improve.”

As Serpiello wrapped up proceedings, he set the scene for session two, which will focus on decision-making frameworks in the context of technology-driven innovation.

What to read next

Wars, Pandemics and Brexit. How the European Space Agency Manages Uncertainty

By Jack Nayler

In part one, I set out the idea of complex environments using the analogy of a car in traffic. This time around I want to bring it into a more relatable context – the game, and what I believe operating in complex environments means for how we prepare athletes.

As our metaphorical car entered the complexity of a city, a player enters a match. All team sports are complex in nature. The degree of complexity in each sport varies depending on the number of players and the structures inherent through the laws of each game. Football is one of the most complex of team sports. Whilst it is continuous like basketball, it has more players. And although rugby and American football have as many or more players, there are fewer set plays in football, so it flows more. Couple this complexity with the low scoring and there is more uncertainty over results in football than in other sports; a factor that contributes to its global popularity.

The complex nature of team sports means that the generalities of complex systems also exist within the game. The player on the ball is closest to the action so has the greatest chance to influence the game at that moment. As the ball moves, so does the influence of each player, in proximity to the ball.

The future is also uncertain. Once the referee has blown the whistle to start the match, we have no idea what will happen next or even how long exactly the game will last.

Team sports: a microcosm of life

Team sports are all extremely popular as their complexity creates a microcosm of life. The tactical, technical, physical and cognitive demands are all wrapped up together and it is difficult to break them down into discrete buckets. The performance of each individual player will emerge from the interaction of all these components.

Remember that complexity is fractal, so whilst the performance of each player on the team will emerge from the interactions of these four components, the performance of the team will emerge from the interactions between each player, and the outcome of the match will emerge from the interactions between the teams, the fans, officials, weather etc.

This has implications for how we prepare our teams to perform. Once a player sets foot on the field of play, our ability to influence the outcome as coaching and support staff diminishes. We need to provide our players with the skillset to deal with whatever emerges in the game. Because the game is constantly evolving in real time, our players need to be able to make sense of what is happening in front of them and find solutions to the puzzles presented within the game.

Remember that the more we try to control a complex system and add safety, the more we can leave ourselves open to bigger problems. Coaches of all levels appreciate this. If all training consisted of each week was the starting line-up vs an opposition with the coach dictating 90 minutes of match play pass-by-pass, the team would very quickly come unstuck in the game at the weekend.

Nassim Taleb talks of Fragility, Robustness and Antifragility (1). Whilst the robust team is able to repel the challenge posed by another team, an anti-fragile team will have the toolkit to assess their opponent in real-time and exploit their weaknesses.

This is one of the reasons why we now recognise the power of games-based approaches in skill acquisition and developing fitness (2, 3, 4). I have seen through in-house research over the years the more beneficial hormonal response of games and competition for adaptation in players.

This does not mean that there isn’t space for isolated physical and skill-based training in sport. Developing running technique can positively alter factors associated with increased injury risk (5) and High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) has a beneficial effect on a variety of underpinning physical performance factors in football (6). These are key pieces of the performance puzzle. The art comes in how and when they are deployed as well as how they are blended together effectively with the technical and tactical training, to greatest effect.

Raising a player’s ceiling

What we need is a variety of complementary practice spaces to allow players (as individual complex entities) to develop capabilities themselves before then applying them in context.

In complex environments, we want to try and expand the ceiling of a player’s capabilities, so as the vast majority of the fluctuations in the system (the game) come within their physical limits. Hamstrings are the most injured area of the body in football, and most hamstring injuries occur during sprinting. It would be tempting therefore to try to reduce risk by minimising the exposure a player has to sprinting. However, as soon as the game demands that the player sprints, their risk is much greater as we haven’t prepared them properly to do that. We believe now that regular sprinting exposure (appropriately placed in the training week) will confer protection from hamstring injuries (7).

As discussed, an individual player is their own complex system. Their performance will emerge from the interaction of their technical, tactical, physical and cognitive capabilities, which are all intertwined. We need to treat each player within our squad as an individual and design their training programme accordingly.  This should develop their capabilities in line with the demands that will be placed upon them by the playing style/game model and the competition, whilst considering their own personal history (injuries, training age, maturation status etc).

The on-field training should then reflect the game model, and competition demands sufficiently to allow the player to apply, develop and exhibit these physical capabilities in context of, and interwoven with, the cognitive, technical and tactical demands. Again, through research conducted in-house, I have seen the importance of training at match intensity during the week for reducing risk of injury and increasing performance; come the weekend and the research shows that maintaining higher chronic loading will help to reduce injury risk (8).

The growing appreciation of these factors have led to moves away from more traditional periodisation models first developed in individual Olympic sports where physical qualities were trained in an isolated but sequential manner. The rise of Tactical Periodisation models (9) has attempted to address team preparation holistically during the on-field training itself. Different constraints are placed upon the design of the practice on a day-by-day and week-to-week basis that provide affordances for technical, tactical, psychological and physical attributes to be overloaded on any given day.

When sports science and performance blur together

The support staff around the players need to understand this process and the underlying motivation for it each day from the coaching staff. Physical preparation, therapeutic work, psychological skills training all need to be complementary to this process and not detrimental.

As each player is their own complex system, they are themselves closest to the action. No one should know the player’s body and how it feels better than them, though admittedly this takes time to learn as a professional athlete.

I believe that a player-involved as opposed to player-centred approach is vital in developing this knowledge. Although the difference is subtle, it is an important distinction to make. In a player-centred model, the team of practitioners, ologists and experts discuss the player and develop a plan, drawing on all their expertise. A player-involved model brings the player into that process, involving them in the decision making and design of their training. The player needs respecting as a key member of the interdisciplinary team. Not only will this help to develop the player’s understanding of their body and the training process, but also their investment and trust in the programme. This is key in a sport such as football where the link between doing physical work and performance isn’t always immediately obvious and the talent pool is global; from different cultures and backgrounds.

The whole programme therefore needs careful management in a trans-disciplinary manner. When sports science first entered football around 30 years ago it was perceived as a standalone service where players spent time separately to the coaching team. This then developed into larger multidisciplinary teams of practitioners working within their field of expertise, but they were still often siloed. The rise of the Head of Performance brought distinct disciplines together to form interdisciplinary teams operating in a more integrated manner.

These lines are now blurring further. Technology has allowed S&C coaches to do many of the things that were previously the domain of the sports scientist (e.g. analysing jump tests). The rehabilitation process starts with the doctor or physio but ends with technical coaches delivering elements. Analysts and sports scientists co-create drills that match the technical, tactical and physical demands for a player completing some additional conditioning work.

What needs placing around a complex system, as a way of helping to manage and steer it in the direction we need, is a framework that guides those within the system in their decision making.

Psychology is a case in point.  There is a clear need for performance psychology to help develop the toolkit of capabilities that players have at their disposal, and the wider training should help to develop and test these capabilities in a realistic manner. However, everyone in the organisation has a brain between their ears and is interacting with one another so is, to a greater or lesser extent, doing psychology in some way. A framework, or Psychologically Informed Environment (PIE) is essential to ensure that as far as possible all the interactions happening within an organisation are in service of the performance (and I would consider wellbeing intrinsic to performance) and not detrimental to it.

So, we return to the fractal nature of complexity and the different scales at which complexity exists. The sporting organisation itself is a complex entity and each person within it will exert different levels of control at different times.

This has implications for the way that we lead these environments, and this is what I want to delve into in the third and fourth parts of this series.

Summary

• Performance in sport emerges from the interaction of the tactical, technical, physical and cognitive demands placed upon the player, and then the team.
• When preparing teams, we need to give the players the combined skillset to recognise and solve problems on the field of play in the moment, as practitioners trying to place more control will only result in bigger errors and problems.
• Instead, constraints should be placed around the practice space to allow the desired response to emerge.
• As much as possible, practices should then be designed in a complementary manner, with one eye on the whole.
• Including the player in the process has a two-fold positive effect. It educates the player and increases buy-in to the programme.
• Can you create a clear framework for performance in your environment?

References

1. Taleb, N.N., 2012. Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York: Random House.
2. Gabbett, T., Jenkins, D., & Abernethy, B., 2009. Game-Based Training for Improving Skill and Physical Fitness in Team Sport Athletes. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4, pp. 273 – 283.
3. Kinnerk, P., Harvey, S., MacDonncha, C., & Lyons, M., 2018. A Review of the Game-Based Approaches to Coaching Literature in Competitive Team Sport Settings. Quest, 70, pp. 401 – 418.
4. Manninen, M., Magrum, E., Campbell, S., & Belton, S., 2024. The effect of game-based approaches on decision-making, knowledge, and motor skill: A systematic review and a multilevel meta-analysis. European Physical Education Review, 31, pp. 18 – 32.
5. Clemente, F., Ramirez-Campillo, R., Nakamura, F., & Sarmento, H., 2020. Effects of high-intensity interval training in men soccer player’s physical fitness: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized-controlled and non-controlled trials. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39, pp. 1202 – 1222.
6. Silva, M., Fonseca, P., Fernandes, R., & Conceição, F., 2024. Is Running Technique Important to Mitigate Hamstring Injuries in Football Players?. Applied Sciences.
7. Edouard, P., Mendiguchia, J., Guex, K., Lahti, J., Prince, C., Samozino, P. & Morin, J., 2022. Sprinting: a key piece of the hamstring injury risk management puzzle. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57(1), pp.4–6.
8. Morgans, R., Oliveira, R., Mandorino, M., Zmijewski, P., Ryan, B., Modric, T., Teixeira, J. & Moreira, A., 2026. The loading impact of training and match-play on non-contact muscle injuries in elite male soccer players: A seasonal analysis. Biology of Sport, 43, pp.107–114.
9. Delgado-Bordonau, J.L. & Méndez-Villanueva, A., 2012. Tactical periodization: Mourinho’s best-kept secret? Soccer Journal, May–June, pp.28–34.

By Jack Nayler

I first stumbled across the concept of complexity a little over ten years ago and it was a watershed moment in my career.

However, in a truly complex manner, it was the combination of my lived experience to that point, my educational background and the reading I was doing in my own time around the subject that led to my appreciation of complexity and its implications for those concerned with sporting performance.

Over the course of four articles, I want to explain how I see the world of elite sport, the complex system at its heart, and the most effective way I currently see of managing performance within that context.

I will delve into the implications for sports and the operations within teams before outlining what this all means for leaders in this space.

But first, I want define what a complex system actually is and set out its characteristics.

Learning from failure

My real understanding came, inevitably, in learning from failure.

The white paper by the late Dr Richard Cook of the university of Chicago entitled How Complex Systems Fail was instrumental in helping me to understand the ramifications of complexity on the undertaking of performance in a sports setting.

Dr Cook was an anaesthetist and simultaneously and internationally respected researcher. His short treatise is regarded as one of the most influential works in the field of patient medical safety. It was this understanding of how systems fail that brought together everything else I had seen and learnt and began to change the way I saw performance management in professional sports.

Around this time, I was challenged by a friend in the industry to put together my thoughts on building a performance department for a sports team. I found it challenging just to make an org chart and list positions without giving the background and rationale for why and how the department existed in that structure as well as its philosophical construct. This exercise of transferring ideas from my head on to paper forced me to critically confront my assumptions and crystallised my thoughts on how I believe we need to operate in the complex environment of elite professional team sports (specifically football as this has been my professional experience).

So, what do we mean by complex?

Dave Snowden is a researcher in the field of knowledge management and is the creator of the Cynefin Framework that helps us to make sense of the different types of environments in which we operate.

‘Cynefin’, which is pronounced ‘ku-nev-in’, is a Welsh word explaining there are multiple factors in our environment and our experience that influence us in ways we can never understand.

The model contains five domains, all of which can exist at any given moment, and we move between them:

Source: HBR

The clear domain has obvious cause and effect and well-established best practice. There are many examples of this in elite sports, for instance, data hygiene when downloading and analysing GPS data or packing medical equipment for an away match.

In the complicated domain, there are correct answers to problems, but they may take some expertise or understanding to deliver and there are governing constraints within which the answer will lie.

An example from sport would be developing a fuelling strategy for a player in a match. We need learned expertise in nutrition and we need to do some analysis on the demands that player faces in match play, as well as understand how their physiology responds to those demands. There are then governing constraints (carbohydrate is the main fuel source in performance) but within those constraints, the solution will be different depending on the sport and the athlete, but the solution can be determined.

I find the easiest way to consider the difference between a complicated and a complex environment is by using the analogy of a car.

A car is an extremely complicated piece of technology. The first practical automobile was invented by Karl Benz in 1885 and had several hundred components. The modern family car by comparison contains over 30,000 parts on average.

Despite this huge number of component parts, should one of them fail and the car stop working, the defective component can be replaced and the performance of the car restored. The performance of the car in this case is its ability to move with you on board and there is a linear process from depressing your foot on the accelerator to make that car move. A skilled technician should be able to completely take the car apart, rebuild it and restore its performance.

Take that same car and ask it to transport you across a city such as London and it enters a complex system where the performance of the car (the time it takes to transport you from point A to point B) is no longer determined by the car itself (it would make little difference if you drove a Ferrari or a Fiat), but in the interaction of the inter-connected parts that make up the complex system. These include the status of the driver (in how much of a hurry they are and their relative stress level), the other cars and their respective drivers, traffic signals, roadworks, cyclists, pedestrians, emergency services, major events going on that day, the time of day and the weather etc. There are many other potential components to the system, not all of which are obvious when sat in the car itself.

The performance of the car (how quickly it reaches its destination) will emerge from the interaction of all these components and each one is concurrently performing at the centre of their own complex system.

So, the first thing to know is that in a complex environment, performance emerges from between the components an in inter-dependent manner, and not from the summation of the performance of each component in isolation.

The next part to understand about complexity is that it is fractal. Fractals are geometric shapes that contain the same detailed structure at ever smaller scales. This means that complex systems exist at smaller and larger scales and nest within one another. They simultaneously are affected by the scale below and affect the scale above.

Below the scale of our car, the driver is their own complex system, and their performance is determined by (amongst other things) their genetics, upbringing, education, wellbeing, as well as how well they have slept last night, what they had for breakfast and whether they are running late or not.

At a larger scale, the performance of the traffic system designed by city planners is affected by the performance of all the cars on the roads.

The person closest to the action in the complex system has the greatest chance to affect it at any given moment, in this example it is the driver of the car. Each decision they make will create a new reality and alter the course of the complex system (for reference see the film Sliding Doors). The decision to put your foot down to get through an amber light rather than braking in anticipation of a red light will affect the course of the complex system and other components within it.

This person closest to the action may have the greatest chance to influence the performance of the system, but they also have the narrowest focus and least ability to see the big picture. This is where external information can help inform their decision (SatNav, Waze or radio traffic reports). Ultimately though, it remains their decision.

Because performance emerges in real time as we navigate through the city and react to what we encounter in front of us, we cannot with complete accuracy predict what will happen in the future as we set out on the journey, or how good our performance (the journey time) will be.

All decisions taken by the driver therefore contain an element of risk and are (hopefully educated) gambles. These decisions are being made on a moment-by-moment basis are determined in part by what has already happened and will influence what is to come.

As all the components in the system are simultaneously operating in their own individual complex system, agreement between them isn’t perfect. Thus, complex systems are never perfect, they operate in a sub-optimal mode. No route across London provides a perfect path where you will be able to drive without braking or even coming to a stop. The challenge is that we cannot know exactly where the imperfections will lie.

Once we have finished our journey and the performance is determined, the impact of all our decisions is laid bare. With hindsight our choices take on a sequential profile and we can fall victim to a narrative fallacy, where each decision makes sense in context of what came after it. What we need to remember is that at the time we made each decision, we were blind to the future and couldn’t know exactly the outcome. That left turn that led to roadworks suddenly becomes a disaster that caused all our problems, whilst the decision to cut through the backstreets, a moment of genius. However, we will never know the alternate realities of the other options we could have selected.

The last part of complex systems I wish to convey is that the more we try to control the system, the more we leave ourselves open to system errors adversely affecting our progress in the long-term.

By control I mean to attempt to force or determine an outcome. The decision to jump a red light or speed along a section of road can lead to being pulled over by the police, which will cause a delay that greatly outweighs the seconds saved through our actions. The right way to operate in the system will emerge by experimentation, trying different routes, times of day or even modes of transport to complete the journey.

To bring us out of an over-extended analogy and back into the real world I want to emphasise that we should not be fatalistic about complexity. I don’t want to come across like the system will determine the outcome, regardless of what we do to affect it. I believe we are an integral component in any system with the chance to affect its direction and outcomes (just remember they might not be perfect).

If we are also able to step back and appreciate the interaction between systems at larger and smaller scales than that in which we are currently operating, we can be very powerful.

Chaos and Confusion

The final two domains in the Cynefin framework are Chaos and Confusion. Chaos is where there are no clear rules or cause and effect at all, even with hindsight, and it is better to act now and think later, shooting more from the hip.

Confusion is the dark centre of the framework, when you aren’t sure which of the other four domains you are currently in.

Most of the time in elite sports I believe we deal with complexity and thus I think it is the most important to try and understand. In the next two parts I will go on to discuss the implications of operating in this domain for sporting organisations, and what that means for leaders in this space.

Summary

• In a complex environment, performance emerges from the spaces between the components in an inter-dependent manner.
• Complex systems are fractal – they exist at smaller and larger scales and nest within each other.
• The person closest to the action in a complex system has the greatest chance to affect the outcome.
• Our knowledge and expertise are constantly changing in complexity.
• We cannot predict the future with complete accuracy, so any decisions made are essentially gambles.
• Complex systems are not perfect.
• Adding in control can lead to greater problems in the future.
• We are an integral part of the complex system, so can affect it greatly.

References

Cook, R.I., 2000. How Complex Systems Fail. [online] Available at: https://how.complexsystems.fail/ [Accessed 29 September 2025]

The Cynefin Company (n.d.) The Cynefin Framework. The Cynefin Co. Available at: https://thecynefin.co/about-us/about-cynefin-framework/ (Accessed: 1 October 2025)

By John Portch

‘Peace-time plans are of no particular value,’ wrote former US President Dwight D Eisenhower in a letter to a US diplomat in 1950, ‘but peace-time planning is indispensable.’

Eisenhower liked the sentiment enough to repeat variations during his time in the White House and the appeal to people working in elite sport is obvious.

In fact, Patrick Mannix, the Sports Science Senior Manager at US Soccer, began his recent presentation to Leaders Performance Institute members with that very line.

“The idea behind this quote is that high-performance teams don’t necessarily have a static plan,” said Mannix.

“The plan is constantly evolving as new information comes to light, whether that’s in relation to the tournament that we’re playing in, the players that we’re working with, and a variety of other contexts that are relevant to the world of international soccer.”

With those words, Mannix set the scene for a discussion that centered on performance planning in the international game, specifically the development of camp training plans for players who join up from their respective clubs in the US and beyond.

First, he offered a summary:

Mannix then shared how he and his colleagues approach international training camps from a sports science and medicine perspective with the help of this cycle:

“Building rapport and trust with those clubs is massively important,” said Mannix, “because that helps us drive a lot of the exchange of information.”

He then outlined the common challenges he and his team face in the realms of communication, health & safety and load management:

In explaining how they meet those challenges, Mannix focused on three areas in particular:

1. Club and country alignment
2. The time of year
3. Camp objectives

1. Club and country alignment

The US national teams draw on players from across the globe and, even for matches in the US itself, such is the size of the country that most personnel will have made a long-haul journey.

This map, which depicts the travel schedule of the US men’s team during the 2025 Concacaf Gold Cup, provides some idea of the challenges present even in a domestic setting:

“We need to know when our equipment and staff are arriving and where our players are coming from,” said Mannix in reflection on this map. It calls for close collaboration between the technical/coaching staff, the high performance team and the operations team.

“When a coach is trying to build out the session plan, the right hand is a good sports scientist or a performance coach, and the left hand is the first assistant, and those three individuals are working very closely to ensure that there’s a good plan in place for every training session,” Mannix continued.

“There’s good understanding as to what the availability of the players is going to be, particularly in the first two days of training, because what we’ve found through communication with clubs is we sometimes have to be flexible when players are coming into our environment simply because although Europe observes FIFA windows, we have to work with our partners in MLS on when players are released to come and join our environment.”

Mannix and his colleagues understand the range of fixed and dynamic constraints they face. They use that understanding to find optimization indicators.

2. Time of year

The leagues of North America operate on a different seasonal calendar to their European counterparts, which requires tailored approaches to preparation and recovery for each player.

Staggered arrivals in camp is a prime example. Players may be excluded from certain match days depending on their status.

Additionally, the federation will try to use domestic camps “to address the identity of the team” and “hybrid camps where we look to go abroad, ideally to play opponents from Africa, Asia, and Europe so we get a variety of different opponents of the kind that we could potentially face in a World Cup.”

Travel logistics are a focus too. “We try to increase our sleep and recovery opportunities, decrease the number of flights to hopefully avoid a situation where the players have to get up at the crack of dawn to hop on a plane,” said Mannix.

Then there are cultural considerations. “The November window for the women’s national team will overlap with the Thanksgiving holiday,” he said, adding, “we’re working with chefs to ensure that we can put together a really creative Thanksgiving meal so the team feel like they have that communal or family experience.”

Ultimately, when it comes to periodizing camps, US teams have eight time scales to consider:

These come with several potential challenges:

Mannix shared the example of a convalescing player joining the men’s national team for the 2024 Olympic football tournament. “In close collaboration with the club, we mapped out the tissue healing process, what the rehab was going to look like and then also what his reintegration into his team training back in his club environment would be,” he said.

“Then we had to negotiate if he were to join us in the Olympics what his match exposure would look like once he joined us, because his first time competing in official competition following the injury would be under our care. So it was super important for US Soccer that this individual was included in the roster because of his long-term trajectory within the national team.”

3. Camp objectives

The coaches and support staff at US Soccer develop training plans three weeks prior to a camp, with session plans devised two weeks out once player arrival times are confirmed.

“We will design things from a team level, but then we also have to look at matters very closely at an individual level when we’re trying to safely integrate players into our national team environments.”

Mannix also spoke of periodization (the macro-level planning of when and why) and programming (the micro-level execution of what and how). He explained the distinction using the following table:

“Most of the time, we are dealing with tapering strategies and figuring out how can we optimize players’ readiness going into competition,” he said. “So it’s often an exercise in fatigue management when they’re coming into our environment and not necessarily trying to drive fitness adaptations, but, on the flip side, we’re also there to potentially facilitate a lot of those long-term physiological adaptations that are occurring.

“When it comes to planning, some of these training variables are super important. Things like training frequency, density, volume, and intensity, ensuring that those are squared away and, with our coaching staff, exercise order. So when it comes to building out session plans, making sure that the sessions are sequenced in the correct fashion.

“Again, I think that’s a lot of close communication and collaboration with primarily our head coach and our first assistant.”

What to read next

Transparency, Empathy and Empowerment: Five Ways Teams Are Serving their People in 2025

An article brought to you by

By John Portch

“It reminds me of a great quote,” said Jason Berry. “There’s no secrets in high performance, only insecurities.”

Berry, the Director of Sport Science, Research & Innovation at IMG Academy, was discussing the increasing tendency of some sports organisations keep sports science research in-house – a practice that does little to help the wider sports community.

“Over here in the United States, we’re in a spring training camp area around Tampa, so there’s a lot of baseball teams and facilities in the area. They are doing in-house research.”

This isn’t new. Berry explained that there were professional teams in Australia in the 1990s conducting research independently of the Australian Institute of Sport, which had been the leader in sports science research initiatives (and one of the chief disseminators) across the Australian sports system for more than a decade.

He is speaking at the second session of ‘The Future of Performance Sport’, a three-part Virtual Roundtable series brought to you by the Leaders Performance Institute and Exercise & Sports Science Australia. This session explored ‘what research is required to support the future practitioner and athletes’.

Berry was joined on the virtual stage by Kenneth Graham, a member of the AIS’s Research Review Committee and the Principal Scientist and Co-Founder of sports technology lab, eo.

Together they delivered a state of play on the industry and the obstacles it faces while also explaining how organisations can bridge the gap between research and its application in an increasingly complex performance landscape.

The strengths and weaknesses of current approaches to research in sports science

The strengths:

• Growing awareness and recognition. Berry said: “I’ve seen the increased awareness and people’s appreciation of what that data informed, evidence-based approach can actually do for them in their environment.”
• Greater integration and collaboration. As collaborations between sports organisations, institutes and universities grow so does the generation of knowledge and the applicability of research.
• Increased diversity of research areas. Motor learning, skill acquisition, and long-term athlete health (including their post-competition careers) are starting to get as much attention as physiology or biomechanics. It was a “sliding doors moment” for Berry who, during his undergraduate studies, spent time coaching in the Ballarat Football League in Victoria. There he witnessed the advent of this shift. He posed the audience a question: “How can we better equip training environments to get maximum transfer to the game?”
• Faster conversion of research information. Research findings are more accessible than ever thanks to the internet (online journals and pre-prints). This allows for quicker aggregation, decision-making and application of best practices.
• More real-time data collection. Evermore advanced technologies and wearables enable better in-competition data collection, along with the enhanced ability to measure and analyse athlete performance in real-time.

The weaknesses:

• A lack of regulation. There is a risk of relying on unvalidated technologies and data, the use of which can affect the credibility and effectiveness of sports science practices. Organisations such as ESSA play a vital role in maintaining standards and ensuring the quality of sports science education and practice.
• A lack of application. “There’s a lot of knowledge out there that’s available to be applied already,” said Graham. “It needs to be curated, reduced and translated for the end user.” Too often the abundance of information leads to a superficial understanding of research findings. Some practitioners may be attracted to the potential for quick wins rather than deep inquiry and thorough understanding.
• The potential for bias. Much of sports science research is funded by the tech companies themselves, which makes independent validation and peer review paramount.
• Ethical and practical constraints. In clinical areas of research, such as psychology, there are understandable ethical and practical limitations when conducting certain types of research.
• Research is often hoarded. As alluded to by Berry at the top, professional teams keep research findings to themselves as they look to maintain a performance advantage. It is counterproductive. “There has to be that agreement that one of the ideas of doing research is to make that information available to the wider community,” said Graham. “So everyone learns from it and everyone can build on that information to accelerate the progression, to improve athlete performance, in all its aspects.”

How to bridge the gap between research and real-world application

How can sports science practitioners do a better job of translating their research findings to athletes, coaches and other stakeholders?

Graham and Berry shared five tips:

1. Spend time with coaches and athletes

It helps to build relationships with coaches and athletes. Not only does this engender trust, but it ensures greater applicability to research findings. “By always giving information that is contextually useful for that time of the year or by understanding the training cycle, you get more engagement,” said Graham. “You do need that time to build up the credibility and the acceptance of the coach to take on information from you; and over time that becomes a faster process. It can be done over a cup of coffee, you may not need a formal presentation, but being part of the process, seeing the development of the training programmes, being at the training sessions, being at the competitions, looking for the gaps where the information you’re giving is seen as valuable.”

2. Make it an iterative process

When asked how a sports scientist might increase their networking and collaboration efforts, Graham suggested to “get a table, some whiteboards, a pizza, and time.” He said: “Spend time discussing, explaining, and exploring what the different people in the group know and what they’re interested in helping create. And it’s doing this iteratively. You have the discussion, you may then go away to do more reading, and then you come back. You do that two or three times, but what you’re doing is you’re getting closer and closer to a high quality question; or you’ve actually generated the answer that can then be used. But that time, that collaboration – it’s not play time, it’s about people getting excited and bouncing ideas and information off each other.”

3. Find multiple streams of dissemination

A sports scientist does not have infinite time to share their research findings throughout an organisation. It requires collaboration, as Berry explained. He said: “We’ve got our research publications, but who in that wider collaboration is going to then attack the social media side of it? And who’s going to do some posts there? And who’s going to do the community coach education?” The message need not be complicated. “You might say: ‘We’re just down the road at Victoria University, we’re doing all this research, but here’s some stuff that can actually help the grassroots’. It’s just the collaboration spreading the load, not expecting one researcher or one practitioner to cover everything.”

4. Vet tech modalities vigorously

A common fear is that a tech solution becomes redundant. IMG Academy, as Berry explained, tries to avoid this through rigorous vetting. “One of the first couple of questions we ask as part of the innovation process is: what type of relationship are you after? Is it strictly vendor, some sort of partnership, or is it a sponsorship? We have variations of all those three at the academy. The second thing we typically ask is ‘send us your research packet, we want to see the validation, we want to see what you’ve done, we don’t just want testimonials from a star athlete that this changed their game – we actually want the evidence’.”

5. Check AI for bias

Artificial intelligence will have its uses, but as Graham said: “Make sure that your AI model isn’t giving you the answer that you want because of the way you’ve trained it”. When that information has been curated carefully, Graham finds that it “dramatically shortens the development time and improves the quality information.”

Future areas of enquiry: the technical, tactical and psychological

Berry believes there are gains to be made in the technical and tactical realms. “That whole perceptual cognitive decision making component of performance, which typically separates those expert performers,” he said, while also alluding to the psychological elements, such as performance under pressure. “The physical part is not a separator anymore.” It is, however, tricky to find the measurables to support holistic athlete development. “I guess that’s the elusive one at the moment,” he added, “but there’s people working towards that”.

Further reading:

Soft Skills, AI, and Psychology: the Skills that Will Define the Practitioner of the Future

By John Portch

Are you a team of experts or an expert team?

As you reflect on your team or department, you may be moved to ask a question of your own: what’s the difference?

According to John Wagle, in a ‘team of experts’, “everyone has their job, they do it well, and the execution of their role doesn’t directly impact another person”. He cited a Formula 1 pit crew as an example.

An ‘expert team’, on the other hand, refers to groups where “the work of an individual may directly impact that of another person”. Wagle’s example was a US Navy SEALs team.

In illustrating this distinction onstage at November’s Leaders Sport Performance Summit in London, Wagle, the Senior Athletics Director for Sports Performance at the University of Notre Dame, highlighted the distinction between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary.

Wagle was hired by Notre Dame in 2022 to lead an athletic department that was unable to consistently deliver an interdisciplinary approach despite the best intentions of all staff members.

“We needed a catalyst,” he continued. “The challenge as a performance director is to set the stage to solve a problem at scale in your environment.”

‘Constraints push you into new places’

Student-athletes continuously juggle their sport, academic studies and lives on campus – a situation Wagle described as “suboptimal”.

However, as he said, “these operational constraints push us into new places. They push our boundaries of how we can create solutions and I believe the best way to do that is to bring together two largely opposed ideals: knowledge and belief.”

Knowledge v belief

Knowledge, as Wagle explained, stems from a practitioner’s formal training as well as any external and internal research. He said: “the more common terminology for people in this room is evidence-based practice”.

Belief is different. It is an aggregate of a practitioner’s experiences from working in the field, athlete values and preferences, and the matter of risk tolerance and uncertainty management. “There is an element in belief that you’ve got to harness and steer into uncertainty.”

“These don’t need to be opposing viewpoints,” Wagle added, despite admitting that people “gravitate towards their tendency”.

“This is the true power of interdisciplinarity and, if we don’t bring these pieces together, we run the risk of being blind to what a lot of our athletes are experiencing.”

He spoke of the student-athlete being in a “complex adaptive system” where the interaction of different elements leads to either a health or a performance outcome, with the ‘gold standard’ somewhere in the middle.

Sleep = the catalyst

Wagle admitted that Notre Dame’s athletic department oscillated between knowledge and belief despite concerted efforts to bring both together.

“There were members of our team that no matter what the problem was were always on the knowledge side and there were members of our team who were always on the belief side,” he said. “It did not necessarily manifest in conflict – it manifested in avoidance – because I think every problem we tried to solve was inherently biased towards a discipline and it was easier to run away from that problem.”

They needed a catalyst to underline the power of interdisciplinary work and alighted upon sleep.

“We chose sleep because it is inherently lacking a discipline,” Wagle continued. “It can be owned by psychology, by nutrition, by strength & conditioning, by medical. There’s no obvious lead person in that.”

Everyone was able to meet the challenge that Wagle set: to be the best sleep support ecosystem in the whole of college sports. The knowledge people combined their data-driven approaches and devised a sleep screening tool. “We were able to get more granularity on our sleep habits and behaviours.” The belief people “brought to the table the ebbs and flows of the academic year.”

Remember: you could be part of the problem

Notre Dame’s approach to sleep has proven a game-changer in their approach to interdisciplinary work. Staff members recognised their biases, let go when necessary, and committed to collaboration.

Wagle said: “If we don’t acknowledge that ‘we could be part of the problem’, that’s where culture and alignment suffer; and resources fail to be allocated properly.”

By Aaron Walsh

What mental performance work needs to be delivered, and how do we go about that?

To successfully integrate the work, teams need to understand what a mental performance coach can do to elevate performance and how to deliver that work most effectively. Traditionally, the delivery model has involved one person attempting to meet the needs of everyone in the environment. This often leads to frustration for both the team and the provider. The team feels like the demands are only sometimes met, while the provider feels more time is needed.

A more effective model is viewing the provider as a facilitator, where they engage the key leaders in the environment and help drive the work. Yes, contexts will be provided for the provider to deliver critical messages and practices directly. Still, as we know, the mental side of performance happens every day and all the time.

To clarify this, I will examine four specific areas related to team performance where the mental skills coach can support key individuals and deliver crucial work.

Coach support

The coaching group, particularly the head coach, will have the most significant influence on any team environment. Their messages shape the players’ mindsets, and if they have the tools, they can be effective real-time psychologists for the playing group.

They must also navigate the pressure of working in a results-based business as a group. Recent research has revealed that the coach’s well-being is a genuine concern. The hours they work, the consistently tough decisions they make, and the lack of ongoing job security create a recipe that challenges and, at times, compromises their mental health.

What this looks like day to day

• Help in shaping the key messages that will impact the environment
• Provide basic mental skills training that enables the coaching staff to shape mindset and empower athletes to navigate through pressure
• Work with the coaching staff on their well-being and energy levels to ensure they can navigate the pressure they face.

Player leadership group

An additional key group that drives the work is the senior playing group. We know that high-performing teams require high-performing leaders. These individuals wield significant influence and are often the “gatekeepers” who determine the rest of the team’s engagement. Their role is pivotal, and their impact is substantial. Without their “buy-in,” the work will fail to embed as it will depend on one individual driving everything.

What this looks like day to day

• Help core leaders learn more about leadership and enable them to become more comfortable with themselves as leaders.
• Meet regularly as a group to discuss the environment and what leadership demands they are collectively facing.
• One-on-one work with core leaders, supporting their growth as a leader and ensuring they are growing in their performance
• Provide the tools to help them regulate the group during pressure moments by using language and practices that are common to everyone.

Creating and maintaining an environment that empowers performance

Anyone involved in a team recognises the connection between environment and performance. Group dynamics and how people feel within a team have the most significant effect on mindset. We are hardwired to seek belonging and need to be connected to the team’s purpose, the people we work with, and what our role is that helps performance.

When these realities are met, people can pour their energy and focus into the team’s shared mission. They can lock into their role and the tasks they are asked to deliver. They can be themselves, feel respected and know that they matter. By feeling included, they become better teammates and performers.

We can provide all the tools, such as breathing, meditation, and visualisation, but we won’t get the most out of our people if we neglect these core needs.

What this looks like day to day

• Design and embed a cultural framework that captures the unique identity of the team and the standards and behaviours that ensure authenticity.
• Work with leaders to create numerous connections to the identity and expectations of the team.
• Monitor the environment and connect with individuals to ensure a sense of belonging, connection and alignment is happening.

Mental performance training

The final aspect to examine is mental skills training. I have written extensively about this in previous articles. However, we have a simple goal with this work: We want our athletes to be able to deliver their best when it matters most. Typically, this work has been viewed through the lens of one-on-one work. These are important, but there is also value in delivering group sessions.

I prefer to periodise these sessions, similar to preparing the body for a season. We can use The pre-season aims to build foundational mental principles and skills. Subjects like understanding pressure, where it comes from, and how it affects us are good starting points. The goal is to have everyone aligned and create clarity around what messages will be Important during the season. I like to keep these sessions to 10-15 minutes and create some. level of introspection and interaction. During the season, we can refer back to this foundation and make it relevant to what happens in any given week. This prevents us from flooding the players with new and unnecessary information.

I use the mental skills framework discussed in the second article for the one-on-one work. I go through this with each player each preseason and ask them to identify some areas they believe will be critical to their performance that year. This keeps the one-on-one focused and purposeful, avoiding another meaningless “catch-up” during the season’s business. We can adjust as needs arise, but the work is mainly strategic and avoids bouncing around subjects as a reaction to any given week.

What this looks like day to day

• Create a personal framework for each player that allows a strategic approach to their mental development throughout the year.
• Player group education sessions focus on specific elements of mental performance, addressing the team’s current needs based on a foundation built in pre-season.
• One-on-one sessions -Personal coaching sessions relevant to the athlete’s needs.

Reflection questions

1. Do you have clarity around the role of a mental performance coach and what is expected of them?
2. What are the key areas where you see a mental performance coach having an impact?
3. Are you providing enough time and space for this to occur?

Further reading:

Your Mental Skills Work Must Be Simple, Relevant and Applicable

A Data & Innovation podcast brought to you in collaboration with

When the US women’s national soccer team started tracking their menstrual cycles, it was seen as groundbreaking.

At least part of their success in claiming back to back World Cup titles in 2019 was attributed to the fact they could adjust individual training plans and nutrition based on the data.

Ellie Maybury was part of the USWNT backroom team that introduced this initiative and, more than half a decade on, tech support for female athletes doesn’t seem to have progressed as much as she’d have hoped. At least in soccer.

“A lot of the technology we have absorbed into the women’s game has come from the men’s game or men’s sports environments,” she tells the People Behind the Tech podcast.

“And maybe some of the processes and metrics that come with that get transferred as well.”

Maybury, who recently founded Soccer Herformance, a performance consultancy for female soccer players, is in the hotseat on episode two of this series.

She addressed the issues that hold back female high performance, from managing the lack of objective datapoints [4:50] and the importance of education for athletes who often misunderstand their own bodies through no fault of their own [26:20], to the need to take athletes on a journey while remaining honest about the limitations of research at the present time [17:00].

Check out episode one:

Paige Bueckers Proved Her ACL Injury Was Behind her at March Madness, but, as Andrea Hudy tells us, Questions Must Still Be Asked about the Injuries that Afflict Female Athletes

Joe Lemire LinkedIn | X

John Portch LinkedIn | X

Listen above and subscribe today on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher and Overcast, or your chosen podcast platform.

A podcast brought to you by our Main Partners

When Conor McGoldrick joined John Portch for this Keiser Podcast, he spoke of learning from other disciplines and how that happens in both an unstructured and structured way.

The Head of Strength & Conditioning at Red Bull’s Athlete Performance Center in Salzburg is describing the learning opportunity provided by the interdisciplinary work that goes on around the organisation’s 850-plus athletes across four football clubs, two hockey teams, and approximately 250 sporting disciplines.

“The unstructured way is almost like a child and you are learning just by being there from practitioners who are better [in their field] than you,” he says.

“Then there’s this more structured approach where you actively seek opportunities to observe and have questions asked of you; and I think with that understanding it makes that interdisciplinary work easier.”

Conor is the first guest on this three-part series looking at Strength & Conditioning through a leadership lens.

On the conversational agenda were:

• Athletes’ biggest S&C concerns [9:00];
• Knowing when to keep your counsel [12:15];
• The link between behaviours and success [21:50];
• The gamification of training [25:00].

John Portch LinkedIn | X

Listen above and subscribe today on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher and Overcast, or your chosen podcast platform.

By John Portch

What is the best way to define and resolve a performance problem?

It is a topic that comes up with regularity at the Leaders Performance Institute and, here, we present the approach of British bobsledder Montell Douglas; Swimming Australia’s Head Coach Rohan Taylor, Wales women’s rugby union team Head Coach Ioan Cunningham; Jayne Ellis, currently a performance advisor with UK Sport; and actor Dom Simpson, who delivers a view from the world of the performing arts.

We distil their responses into five essential considerations.

1. How do your athletes approach goal-setting?

“I address my performance gaps through real, basic goal-setting. In the sense that there’s always a process,” says Montell Douglas, who competed for Great Britain in the two-person bobsleigh at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. Previously, she competed for her nation in the 100m and 4x100m relay at the 2008 Summer Olympics, also in Beijing. In completing the switch she made British history. It was something she was aware of in the build-up to the Games and here she gives the Leaders Performance Institute an insight into the continuous conversation she had with herself.

“What does British history mean?” she continues. “I reverse-engineered the goal, looked back and said ‘this means I have to do X’. ‘But where am I now? Well, I’m right here and that means I have to do this’.

“One of the things was ‘what does my sport need? What do you require? Am I reflective of a history-making athlete?’ If not, then I’m making those little adjustments; ‘I need to gain four kilos by this date’, for example.”

Douglas interrogated herself constantly. “It enabled me to make clear targets and goals, with deadlines for all that was needed, because you have to be ready on 20 February 2022 [in the case of the Olympic bobsleigh]. You can’t be ready on 21 February 2022 – it’s too late.”

2. Engage your athletes in two-way conversations

The coaches have a role to play too. “It’s having a two-way conversation,” says Ioan Cunningham. “Footage is huge and we have individual development plans for players. So if our number nine [scrum half] needs to work on her pass off the base so that it’s quicker  and she needs to get the ball off the deck, that’ll be a performance plan for her.

“How does she get better? Link it to footage and then have constant catch-ups every week or two where you go ‘look, this is better – you can see it’s better. The ball is in the ten’s hands [fly half] much quicker’.

“The ten could then give her feedback as well and say ‘yes, the passing is much better, it’s faster and more accurate’; and then breaking that down to the drills she needs to do to make sure that it gets her passing better.”

Actor Dom Simpson, who stars as Elder Price in the West End production of The Book of Mormon in London, also prefers a two-way discussion in his work. “My agent always describes it as a ‘dance’,” he tells the Leaders Performance Institute. “I can do one thing for a dance but the partners have to be working together to make that work.

“An issue, for example, could be my director coming to me and saying ‘this scene is not quite reading right. Maybe we can try this?’ and a lot of the time that works best when it’s a collaborative discussion – I don’t think anyone works best when it’s ‘do this and it’ll be better’ because unless I have an understanding of why that is it won’t feel like the best way to do it.”

3. Enable guided discovery to mutually desired outcomes

Simpson also explains that the best directors facilitate the actor’s path to the best agreed outcome. He says: “The best creatives that I’ve ever worked with, they allow that conversation to happen and they facilitate you finding the answer. They ask questions that make you find the answer that they just want to tell you anyway so that there’s a feeling of ‘we both got to it’, whereas the director might be saying ‘I knew that’s where we wanted to get to but I had to allow you to find that for it to feel real’. When we talk about the ‘truth’ in a scene, a lot of the time that’s how we get to the bottom of an issue.”

4. Where does your multidisciplinary team fit in?

Cunningham tells the Leaders Performance Institute of a hypothetical scenario involving an athlete. “A player may need more power in her lower legs, so that becomes a three-way conversation with the S&C coach,” he says. “[The player will say] ‘OK, if I do this, it’ll make me a better rugby player, it’ll make me more powerful, and it’ll get me picked’.”

The multidisciplinary approach was taken by Jayne Ellis and British Wheelchair Basketball during her time serving as the organisation’s Performance Director. Much like at Wales Rugby, performance questions were generally raised in an athlete’s individual development plan between the athlete themselves and the coach. “They determine what the objectives are and the rest of the staff will work around and towards those objectives,” she told the Leaders Performance Institute in 2021.

Progress was tracked at fortnightly meetings for both the men’s and women’s teams. “That’s when we look at how everybody’s work programme is feeding into that athlete achieving that objective,” she continued. “Then there are different bits and pieces that we do with each practitioner in order to assess where they are with things and where they want to go. That all gets captured so that the player can see their development. Sometimes when you’re an athlete and you’re in the grind, you’re like ‘this is so difficult, I don’t feel like I’m progressing’ but then you’ve got this whole piece here, which helps you see that you are progressing and that’s why it’s important.”

5. Call upon your network and collective knowledge

At Swimming Australia, coaches and practitioners attend monthly meetings specific to their event or discipline in order to ensure everyone is on track. Head Coach Rohan Taylor will drop into those meetings and is always on hand to discuss performance issues with athletes and their coaches as he travels to the state hubs located across Australia.

“I’ll ask questions; [for example] ‘So you’re having trouble here? Have you spoken to somebody else?’ because I get to see everybody around the country. I might see a solution in Western Australia, in Perth, and I can say ‘have you connected with this person?’ I’m kind of guiding and advising them where to go.

“If I think they’re at a road block, I’d hope that they’ve already done that. That’s the system that’s set up. If not, I’d be saying ‘have you done that? Have you done this?’ I saw a good example this morning [concerning] an athlete who is struggling to absorb feedback around the communication on their skill development; the tasks. I just watched and I observed and I just said to the coach and the biomechanist ‘have you guys tried just letting him watch what it looks like when it’s done correctly by someone else and just letting him go and explore rather than giving him too much detail?’ ‘No, actually we haven’t’. ‘So maybe that’s their learning style?’

“It’s just me bringing what I see out there and asking them the questions.”