AFL ECOLOGICAL DYNAMICS + SKILL ACQUISITION (STUDY)

                                          

These notes come from an AFL-based study titled Sport Practitioners as Sport Ecology Designers: How Ecological Dynamics Has Progressively Changed Perceptions of Skill “Acquisition” in the Sporting Habitat.

This, and all studies really, is a long read but full of the most recent coaching specific information which above all, is also evidence-based.

• The gardener cannot actually grow produce, they can only foster an environment in which it can occur
• The coaches role is to identify the critical information sources/affordances of a training setting that are most likely to impact on an athlete's or team’s behaviour/s, such as task, individual and environmental constraints through the use of representative design
• The coach needs to be hands on and be able to create conditions for an athlete to be able exploit/flourish during the development/learning process and then apply a hands off approach and guide the athlete through
• Practice design should consist of a clear task goal predicated on informational constraints sampled from the competitive performance environment
• Coaches can then build these informational sources into the ecosystem (hands on) and then observe (hands off) the emergent interactions that unfolded between the athlete and their environment
• This interaction progressively attunes the athlete to the informational sources within their workspace, developing fine-grained relationships with their performance environment building knowledge of their environment rather than knowledge about their environment
• Match score is a critical performance indicator constraint/environmental constraint that guides players’ perceptions, intentions and actions as they attempt to manage the game
• The study looked at different task, environmental and individual constraints
• Task constraints = possession time for ground ball and handball receive x 0-1/1-2/2-3secs + possession time for mark/free kick x 0-1/1-2/2-3secs
• Environmental constraints = target density x opposition players within 3m of intended target) + uncontested/even/inferior/superior player numbers + ball carrier density x opposition players within 3m of ball carrier x 0/1/2/3/3+ players
• Individual constraint = disposal movement/locomotive state x stationary to walking/jogging to sprinting
• 2 teams played a small sided game but then 1 team was scored 6pts up with 3mins to go and both teams played from there
• The team placed in front had fewer disposals performed within 0-1secs across both general play and stoppage possessions, a greater % of total disposals performed from closed play in the 3secs+ time frame, a greater % of total disposals to uncontested and superior numbered targets and fewer total disposals performed to inferior numbered targets relative to conditions prior to score manipulation
• The team that was behind exhibited fewer disposals to uncontested targets, fewer disposals performed with no opposition within 3m of them, greater disposals performed with 3+ opposition within 3m of them, greater disposals performed within 1sec and a greater % of total disposals performed while running
• The score manipulation led to the emergent of 2 distinct passing strategies by both teams x players searching their work spaces for opportunities to slow their ball speed down and take low risk options when passing + players searching their work space to speed up their ball movement at the expense of higher risk passing options
• Slow play reflected resting with the ball to protect the lead and fast play reflected throwing caution to the wind
• Providing opportunities for players to explore behaviors that could successfully deceive the opposition in the search for time and space should be included within the preparation for performance models
• In the 2nd small sided game they used the same score manipulation as before but you can get an extra point for deceiving the opposition via a faked disposal, creative disposal, calling for the ball in defense, blocking for a teammate etc
• The most common deception tactic in game 1 was a faked disposal followed by a creative disposal and in game 2 it was the same but also calling for the ball on defense