The strategic delivery of video-based coaching: A season-long investigation in one English youth soccer academy

Dramaturgical approach

This study was conducted from a dramaturgical perspective. Our decision to adopt dramaturgical analysis as a guiding framework is founded on our belief that coaching (including VBC) can be a performative, social and relational activity. ¹⁴ Hence, it has been argued by coaching scholars that dramaturgy offers a particularly useful means of getting a greater purchase on the realities of this inherently social endeavour. ¹⁵ Here, emphasis was placed on investigating what Shulman ¹⁶ refers to as the constituent parts of the sociological analysis of nonfiction from a dramaturgical perspective, namely, the consideration of (a) places of performances (i.e. where VBC interactions are performed), (b) players in the performances (i.e. which stakeholders are involved in the provision of VBC), (c) presentation in the performances (i.e. actions and expressions of those involved in VBC sessions), (d) purpose of the performance (i.e. reasons for delivering VBC in desired ways) and (e) product of performances (i.e. intended and unintended consequences of VBC). This framework provided a coherent analytical approach to guide the investigation.

Context and participants

Using purposive sampling, three full-time head coaches and two full-time performance analysts in one English Category 2 Football Academy agreed to participate (Table 1). These five participants were male, and the only members of staff directly involved in delivering VBC to players in the professional development phase (PDP, i.e. U18 and U21 age groups) within the academy. A case study approach allowed rich insights into how the participants organised, delivered and interacted with each other and their players on VBC to be established. To ensure anonymity, all participants were given pseudonyms (Ben, Phil, Adam, Tom and Billy), and ethical approval was granted by a University Social Sciences Ethics Committee [ETH2122-0302].

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant demographics.

Participant pseudonym	Age	Title	Experience	Qualifications
Ben	59	Lead PDP U18 and U21 Coach	44 years (9 Professional Football Clubs)	UEFA Pro License
Billy	41	Lead U21 Coach	23 years (6 Professional Football Clubs)	UEFA A License
Tom	43	Lead U18 Coach	25 years (4 Professional Football Clubs)	UEFA A License
Adam	27	Lead Academy Performance Analyst	5 years (1 Professional Football Club)	UEFA B License and MRes in Performance Analysis
Phil	23	U21 Performance Analyst	4 years (4 Professional Football Clubs)	FA Level 1 Certificate, BSc Sport Coaching, and MSc Applied Sport Performance Analysis

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews

Throughout the completed fieldwork, the lead author engaged in regular day-to-day discussions with the PDP staff. In addition to these informal discussions, 18 formal (semi-structured) interviews were conducted, totalling 8 h, lasting between 22 and 37 min. Interviews were informed by the collected fieldnotes and the broader aims of the study. Interviews permitted the development of richer insights into staff VBC decisions and actions. ‘How’ and ‘why’ questions were used as probes, with prompts for specific examples. ¹⁹ All formal interviews were conducted face-to-face in a classroom at the football Academy and recorded on a ‘voice memos’ device before being transcribed. As the research and data collection progressed, previous interview findings and fieldnotes iteratively informed subsequent data collection.

Phronetic iterative data analysis

A phronetic iterative approach was undertaken, which is defined as an abductive, problem-based approach that continuously switches between the emergent data findings, existing research questions, theories and the literature. ²⁰ This process started with engaging in primary cycle coding (e.g. who, what, when, where), which included using first-level descriptive codes to capture the essence of the data. ²¹ During this stage, discussions between the authors offered initial codes that were descriptive and basic. Following this, secondary cycle coding (e.g. how, why, because) was undertaken, which involved the consideration of past theory and literature that best illuminated an understanding of the video-based decisions and actions of the observed coaching staff. ²¹ This principally involved the use of Goffman's ²² dramaturgical theorisation as outlined in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life text and Groom et al.'s ¹¹ grounded theory of VBC. The research team met on several occasions to cross-check and to give consideration as to which data was important, and how the codes were to be developed in ‘secondary cycling’ where our understanding of performative, social and relational activity proved useful for interpreting and building theoretical explanations. As such, additional questions emerged and new connections between theory, VBC and empirical data were developed progressively leading to refined focus and understanding. ²³ It is important to acknowledge that this iterative process was far from simplistic and linear. Rather, cycles of etic and emic readings of the data occurred throughout as well as after the completed fieldwork. Data collection and data analysis informed each other, with the analysis of findings continuing into the writing-up of this manuscript. That is, the writing of this article included all the authors and was an analytical process in and of itself, whereby the meanings of our findings took form through an iterative process of thinking, writing, ongoing discussion and re-writing. ¹

Strategic focus on ‘high priority’ players

Before observing VBC sessions, at the commencement of fieldwork, it was apparent that the academy was particularly proud of the successful outcomes it had achieved. Adorned on the walls of the main corridor of the Academy facility were framed pictures of those players who had graduated to the senior squad and made professional debuts for the first team, which was reinforced by Ben the Lead PDP coach: ‘The ultimate for every Academy coach or manager is obviously to get a player into the first team. So yeah, I would say the main goal and target is to get players into the first team’. The importance the Academy placed on achieving these ends was reinforced by the observation that certain U18 and U21 players were listed in black and others red, on a whiteboard located in the coaches’ private office. When questioned about this distinction, the coaching staff shared that those listed in black marker were ‘high priority’ players (sometimes also referred to as ‘grade A players’) who were recognised as club assets, whereas those listed in red were ‘the others’ (sometimes also referred to as ‘grade B players’). The significance of this distinction was articulated by Billy (Under 21's Lead Coach) who explained that the PDP coaching staff ‘prioritise the higher achievers’ and provides them with ‘special attention’ as ‘they could either play in our first team or be a potential sellable asset for the club’. When asked why these players receive special attention, Tom (Under 18's Lead Coach) went on to explain it was ‘to keep us all in jobs because it's the grade A players that are either going to be playing in your first team or the club will sell them on, which continues to fund the club and the academy as well’. In short, coaching staff focussed on developing the ‘high priority’ players as ‘the success of the PDP is how successful we are at readying the young footballers for first team football. The priority is to get players into the first team’ (Adam – Head of Performance Analysis).

This contextual information provided a useful lens for understanding the observed VBC sessions. During VBC sessions the ‘high priority’ players were more often involved in the video clips that were shown and reviewed, they also received regular individualised feedback as well as greater recognition and praise for their contributions, as shown in the below fieldnote:

Today, I observed a post-match meeting that included all the U21 players, the U21's head coach, the PDP coach, the goalkeeper coach and the U21's analyst. The head coach continually highlighted the ‘high priority’ players for good practice in the post-match video. The head coach is standing at the front of the classroom next to a screen where video clips of the last game are played one by one. The other staff are sat at the side and back of the classroom. The players are all sitting around the screen carefully observing. ‘That's brilliant Anthony (pseudonym) keep doing that. Look how much space you’ve created for everyone by doing that’. Another video of a successful performance is played on the screen. ‘I love that Chris (pseudonym). That's really good play by you two. Once we lost the ball, the reactions top notch boys. Well done (Chris and Anthony)’. (Fieldnote)

Coaching staff were acutely aware that a full squad of players was needed to aid the development of the ‘high priority’ players and that instructing ‘the others’ was a necessary step in this process. Therefore, staff strategically utilised VBC to focus on the development of the ‘high priority’ players while progressing ‘the others’ in ways that would benefit the staff's ability to achieve organisational outcomes. When preparing VBC sessions the coaching staff considered how their design and delivery could facilitate these desired ends. However, it is important to note that neither the ‘high priority’ players or ‘the others’ were made aware of the categorisation system, nor how this impacted the VBC sessions they attended. Rather, the coaching staff purposely concealed this information from the players to maintain the engagement of all players. Coaching staff believed identifying ‘the others’ could negatively impact on the development of the ‘high priority’ players. Conversely, coaching staff believed identifying ‘high priority’ players could cause a level of complacency among these assets, again leading to a drop in engagement that could negatively impact their development:

Mainly to keep the grade B players emotionally engaged […] If the grade B players thought they were less valuable, then their efforts and engagement levels would decrease. If this happened, it would have an effect on the grade A players. Not to mention the grade B players might perform really well and give themselves a chance of progressing and being valued as a grade A player so we can’t disregard them. (Adam – Head of Performance Analysis)

Strategically positive approach

During the completed fieldwork, an important observation was that staff regularly held pre-video meetings away from the players. These meetings tended to occur in the coaching office at the academy facility. During these meetings staff candidly discussed the individual and collective performances of their players and made decisions about the content and delivery of VBC meetings. Observations of these meetings, as well as informal office conversations between coaching staff, revealed the frustrations that staff regularly experienced about the poor performances of their players and a lack of perceived development, as shown in the below fieldnote:

Today I observed the coaches and analysts in the coach's office. The U18's coach and U18's analyst were openly sharing their frustrations about poor individual performances. I also noticed that the coaches and analysts were annoyed that basic mistakes were occurring regularly within games. The U18's coach expressed ‘We’ve worked on this training, how on earth can we still get it wrong?’ ‘Every week it's the same mistake, we are not learning from our mistakes’. (Fieldnote)

When asked to comment on why the observed VBC sessions tended to present players with a more positive analysis of squad and individual performances, including overall progress, staff variously shared how they purposefully adopted this approach for a variety of pedagogical reasons. That is, they chose to strategically deliver positive VBC sessions to develop a constructive learning environment that aimed to enhance player and squad efficacy, motivation, learning and development. The coaching staff were mindful of the consequences that could result from the delivery of negative, critical and pointed VBC sessions. Namely, how negative feedback aimed at individual players within a group session could hinder their development and promote a toxic learning environment where players are fearful of the feedback they may receive from teammates as well as coaching staff. For example, Tom and Phil shared the following:

I think we try and aim to work off positives, that's personally where I feel we can have the best impact. Another thing to consider is that we are working with U18 players so I believe that working off positives makes a bigger impact on them and then they can perform better […] You must be very careful what you present to the group of players in the meeting itself. The relationship between you and the players is really important. Each player learns in different ways and as a coach working with them daily, you should know how to deal with each individual. So, for the video-based meetings you need to be really careful what clips you show to some of the individuals because it could affect many different things like confidence, team morale and the team's image of an individual […] We always look for positives to try and produce confidence. Everyone performs better with confidence, so we try to keep the meetings positive to try and build everybody up so they have the confidence to go out and perform. (Tom – Under 18's Lead Coach)