{"id":730,"date":"2020-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-07-28T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/reports\/the-power-of-coaching-cues\/"},"modified":"2025-12-15T05:12:15","modified_gmt":"2025-12-15T05:12:15","slug":"the-power-of-coaching-cues","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/articles\/the-power-of-coaching-cues\/","title":{"rendered":"The Power of Coaching Cues"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n\t
\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t
\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n Jul 28, 2020 <\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>Articles<\/a>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

The Power of Coaching Cues<\/h1>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n \n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
Category<\/div>\n Human Performance<\/a> <\/div>\n
\n
Share<\/div>\n Facebook<\/a>\n Twitter<\/a>\n Email<\/a>\n Copy Link<\/a>\n
https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/articles\/the-power-of-coaching-cues\/<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Nick Winkelman of the IRFU on the art of science of teaching movement to athletes.<\/p>\n \n \n \n

\n

By John Portch<\/h6>\n
Nick Winkelman was working at the 2009 NFL Combine in Indianapolis when he first acknowledged a problem when it came to teaching movement to athletes.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h6>\n

Prior to the Combine, he had been working with aspiring players at the NFL\u2019s eight-week Combine Development Program at EXOS in Phoenix, Arizona, where he served as Director of Training Systems and Education at the time.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI had the players\u2019 data, so I knew how fast they could run and I had the video,\u201d he tells the Leaders <\/span>Performance Institute. \u201cI knew the quality of movement we had achieved, so I knew how fast they were and what they looked like when they came in.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cOf course, they\u2019re all running faster across their 40-yard dash and jumping higher for vertical jump and broad jump but, in many instances, they weren\u2019t performing as well as in Phoenix. This bothered me to no end.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Winkelman\u2019s dissatisfaction ultimately planted the seed for his new book\u00a0<\/span>The Language of Coaching: The Art and Science of Teaching Movement<\/span><\/i>, which examines how instruction, feedback, and cueing can significantly affect training outcomes while challenging the reader with attentional and thought experiments that he hopes will cause coaches to modify their coaching practices.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Back in 2009, Winkelman was the one who needed to change. \u201cThe biggest thing I noticed,\u201d he continues, \u201cis a lot of the movement quality, a lot of the improvements in coordination that I thought had been achieved seemed to dissolve. They\u2019d almost reverted to type.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

These athletes\u2019 focus and ability to absorb detailed information, and therefore the quality of their movement, was dependent upon Winkelman\u2019s presence. \u201cI was the one who was constantly reminding them, feeding them over and over again the cues \u2013 the wrong cues \u2013 and when I cut that connection to me I cut their memory of the movement changes we made and they just reverted back to what they knew.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Winkelman, who currently serves as Head of Athletic Performance & Science at the Irish Rugby Football Union, addresses this performance gaps\/through the analogy of the car versus the driver. \u201cI\u2019d upgraded the\u00a0car\u00a0but I had not optimised the tools for the driver,\u201d he observes.\u00a0<\/span>The Language of Coaching<\/span><\/i>\u00a0is laced with similar visuals \u2013 he even dedicates a chapter to the topic of analogies – which soften the science and enable Winkelman to state his case clearly and convincingly.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cOnce I\u2019d started to say less but improve the quality of what I did say, not only were we seeing physical changes – the car, the engine, in this analogy – we were seeing the coordination changes stick, which is difficult to do with someone who has been running a certain way for a long period of time.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Difficult but not impossible. The Leaders <\/span>Performance Institute sat down with Winkelman to discuss why teaching athletes to optimise their movement means focusing on how you coach just as much as it does what we coach.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI want to be understood and I need you to understand\u201d<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Ahead of the 2009 NFL Combine Winkelman had fallen into a trap that all too often awaits movement coaches in sport. \u201cIt tends to be inadvertent, even if there are some who want to show everyone what they know,\u201d he observes. \u201cThe main consideration should be the amount of information the athlete can process and apply, not the amount of information you can give.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/span>I don\u2019t need to understand how the body works in order to work my body. We have to be comfortable with language that the layperson can understand and let the power come in how you as a coach select that language.<\/span>\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Winkelman argues that this sport-wide situation came about by an inadvertent failure of omission. \u201cThe language we use in textbooks is not synonymous with the language one should use to teach the body to achieve those ends. That\u2019s a failure of our industry. There\u2019s been no malicious intent \u2013 we just forgot to include pedagogy and the science of teaching to sit alongside the science of physiology, anatomy, and biomechanics.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It is something that Winkelman is seeking to change in The Language of Coaching\u2019s exploration of the science of attentional focus and the science of cueing. \u201cI minimise the use of those terms because they\u2019re meaningless to most individuals,\u201d he emphasises.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In parts, the book resembles an ongoing conversation between the athlete and the coach. \u201cThat\u2019s how you demonstrate the loop in action, through the use of questions and athlete involvement.\u201d The Language of Coaching takes a forensic look at the communication loop between the coach and the athlete. \u201cIt\u2019s born out of the communication habits that coaches use when they teach,\u201d says Winkelman. In the book he describes the \u2018long loop\u2019, which he would employ to teach new athletes or perhaps a new movement. It includes five phases: describe, demonstrate, cue, do and debrief.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Next is the \u2018short loop\u2019, which broadly omits the \u2018describe\u2019 and \u2018demonstrate\u2019 phases for athletes familiar with the cue. \u201cThere\u2019s an asterisk on that,\u201d says Winkelman of the short loop. \u201cIt depends, as it will not be every set or every rep that a coach will say something – and rightly so. We want to give the athlete time to absorb the information and apply it and consider it for themselves.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

External cues help to set better goals<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

External cues – those referencing an athlete\u2019s environment – are at the heart of the art and science behind teaching movement. As he argues in\u00a0<\/span>The Language of Coaching<\/span><\/i>, Winkelman says that every cue must generate a thought, then an intention to move.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cUltimately a cue, in its raw form, is words; and those words turn into the athlete\u2019s thoughts. Those thoughts ultimately manifest into one\u2019s intention. The goal could be \u2018push off the ground\u2019, \u2018run fast\u2019, or \u2018defend the goal\u2019. Once that goal is established then the body can set out what we call the motor\u00a0plan\u00a0or the movement required to achieve it.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe way we think about a goal we\u2019re trying to achieve, in very nuanced ways, influences the way the body goes about doing it.\u201d Our brains, says Winkelman, use past experiences to understand new experiences and the same goes for sensory-motor experiences. \u201cConsider how me asking you to \u2018push\u2019 versus \u2018punch\u2019,\u201d he continues. \u201cDo those verbs make you feel differently?\u201d The Leaders Performance Institute<\/span>\u00a0indicates that it does.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Winkelman continues, satisfied that we have given him the foundation on which to build his point: \u201cThere is a real sense and action associated with those words and the movements they represent. And here\u2019s what we now know: verbs, actions words that our movements are dependent upon, are processed in the same part of the brain associated with acting those words out.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIf you were to watch someone push, say the word \u2018push\u2019, read the word \u2018push\u2019, hear the word \u2018push\u2019 or if you push someone yourself – all of those experiences leverage the same part of the motor cortex, the part of the brain that sends the response to the body to move. That part of the brain is also directly related to the intentional brain centres; the part of the brain that establishes a movement goal.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWords are nothing more than labels for movement and language is simply our way to access it. That\u2019s why this is so exciting, because if we get the precision of language right, we are tapping right into the motor system responsible for bringing those actions to life.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI suggest giving one goal, clearly embedded in the outcome – an external cue – and use language that captures the essence of the biomechanics i.e. push versus punch.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

External cueing is favoured because of what Winkelman terms the \u201ccognitive pollution\u201d caused by internal cueing in the athlete\u2019s brain. \u201cIf I ask you to extend a joint or squeeze a muscle,\u201d he says, \u201cI\u2019m asking you to move away from the holistic, whole movement you are performing to consider one part of it. The logic behind that suggests that you build movements from one joint or one muscle at a time. While physically that is the case, cognitively, it could not be further from it.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cOn the other hand, if I give you an external cue, and I tell you to \u2018push the ground away\u2019, or \u2018explode towards the finish\u2019, or \u2018drive off the line like you are sprinting up a hill\u2019, I\u2019m simply painting a picture, which takes up less cognitive load. It\u2019s impossible to get someone to stop thinking but there is language, which by its very nature causes less cognitive pollution.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cExternal cues are clean-burning mental fuel. They paint pictures that relate to the physical environment that I can see and experience and simplify the thought by constraining it.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIt doesn\u2019t require the level of thinking that one would need to process step by step, which is what we\u2019re promoting when we\u2019re using overly internal language or when we give people more than one cue.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The right cues, adds Winkelman, also leave an \u201cemotional resonance\u201d. \u201cPreviously, I didn\u2019t ask you for the difference in meaning between \u2018push\u2019 and \u2018punch\u2019, I asked if these words make you feel different and you said \u2018most certainly yes\u2019,\u201d he reminds the Leaders Performance Institute<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/span>The best cues leave a residue in the feeling they give\u00a0you;\u00a0a feeling of tension, a feeling of relaxation, a feeling of length, a feeling of shortening, a feeling of speed, a feeling of deceleration.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAn echo is left in that emotional resonance that words give us. If I tell you to squeeze your glute and I compare that to explode off the ground, I\u2019m going to argue that the emotional resonance of squeezing the glute is quite minimal and, in fact, you have to think about that; versus \u2018explode off the ground\u2019, which can be interpreted by anyone.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis emotional resonance, by its very nature, allows us to shift from that cognitive pre-frontal cortex and leverage more of our emotional brain centres, the feeling we get or the drive that the language gives our body in achieving a given goal; it\u2019s an urge that we can put words in, but most importantly, it is felt. You can think about it, but you can shed those words almost immediately in favour of the feeling; and it\u2019s the feeling that is the intention that we\u2019re looking for.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe don\u2019t need to give them the detail – the detail is part and parcel of achieving the goal. Set the goal and the detail follows.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Involve the athlete in cue creation – and reshape minds<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Winkelman is keen to emphasise from the outset that cueing cannot be a didactic process. \u201cIf I were writing a second\u00a0edition\u00a0I\u2019d make this point even louder,\u201d he explains. \u201cThe involvement of the athlete in cue creation and in debriefing what has happened in a movement is crucial.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI was acutely aware that I didn\u2019t want\u00a0<\/span>The Language of Coaching<\/span><\/i>\u00a0to come across as this advocate for one-way didactic, instructional coaching. The athlete\u00a0has to\u00a0be involved in creating cues because they\u2019re the ones who\u00a0have to\u00a0brings the cue\u2019s benefit to bear in their own movement. That means asking questions during the debrief such as how did that feel? Did that focus work for you? What did you focus on during that repetition?<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSo many\u00a0times\u00a0I\u2019ve had athletes\u00a0say\u00a0\u2018oh yeah, I didn\u2019t even think about that\u2019. Well, how can we reshape your movement if we\u2019re not reshaping your mind? I\u2019d tell them, \u2018I\u2019m not going to give you many cues, but when I do, I need you to focus on them because if they aren\u2019t good then we\u2019re going to get rid of them; but we might find that a couple of these are really going to help you unlock the movement pattern.\u2019<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In describing this trial and error process, Winkelman explains that he might ask an athlete to \u2018drive\u2019 a barbell to the ceiling and, in repeating it back, they happen to use a different verb, such as \u2018push\u2019 then he is going to use their word instead.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAs long as they didn\u2019t fundamentally change the meaning of what I said, because the meaning is critical and it relates to the biomechanics I\u2019m trying to promote; but if they just change one word in there, and it\u2019s one of the interchangeable features, then I\u2019m simply going to repeat that word back to them and I\u2019m going to use their language now. They\u2019ve given me a word to slick the road; that lowers the barriers to learning because it\u2019s their word and obviously has stronger magnetism and meaning than the one that I used.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The collaboration can even be more direct. \u201cI could tell them, \u2018we need to get this bar off you fast, we\u2019re working on speed today. What do you think you can think about on your next repetition to get that done?\u2019 I\u2019ve explained what I need to happen, I\u2019ve explained the goal fundamentally, now I\u2019m going to have them come up with the intention; the thought that\u2019s going to help them achieve that.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe biggest thing for me is starting to have the conversation on both the front end and the back end. It\u2019s not a philosophical discussion either – this is fast\u00a0and\u00a0furious. Sometimes it\u2019s closed questions, like the A and B cue option, sometimes it\u2019s open-ended, especially if we\u2019re doing a task that has a little bit more rest involved.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cRemember,\u00a0<\/span>if they\u2019re not actively involved in the cue creation process, you\u2019re losing an opportunity to gain buy-in, you\u2019re losing the opportunity to understand their language locker, and the words they use to think<\/span>, and you\u2019re losing an opportunity to scaffold motivation, because if you have success on the back of something you created, ultimately you\u2019re more inclined to do that again.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Leaders Performance Institute asks Winkelman how he recommends a coach track the progress of an athlete. \u201cWhat you\u2019re doing is mapping their subjective experience to their objective experience. You observe the objective; did the cue make a change? Yes or no? Subjective; do you feel like the cue made a change? Yes or no? The best cues give us both. They make an objective change that is subjectively realised and that for me is the secret sauce of making it sticky because that person is going to want that experience again and again; and they know the feeling the cue promotes is the way to get there.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cEven if they\u2019re fighting themselves, reverting back to type; if they\u2019re feeling like they\u2019re choking or whatever the sports phrase might be, they now can find safety in these mental cues that bring them back to where they\u2019re meant to be.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThese cues are low cognitive pollution so they\u2019re not going to risk over-thinking, which can end up being the architect of your demise. That\u2019s unfortunately what a lot of cues do: they force you to over-think. External cues are a hack for that.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Winkelman\u2019s goal is clear. \u201cI want to give coaches the tools to upgrade their behaviours as a coach,\u201d he says as we wrap up the conversation.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The message is clear: coaches watch your language.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Looking for more performance insight?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This article first appeared in our Performance<\/em> journal, which\u00a0is available for download now and leads with a selection of insights lifted from our At Home With Leaders podcast series, which has featured the likes of England Rugby\u2019s Eddie Jones<\/strong>, the Toronto Blue Jays\u2019 Mark Shapiro<\/strong>, and Chelsea\u2019s Emma Hayes<\/strong> speaking directly from their home offices.<\/p>\n