Why call it iatrogenics if we can call it "technique training"?
An unpopular opinion about "technique" in sport
In the field of coaching, we have not started talking about iatrogenics because it is what we have been calling “technique training” for a long time. This concept is referred to the harm caused to a patient as a result of medical treatment. According to Nassim Taleb, iatrogenics extends to any complex system, such as financial, political or social. To sum up, it is the damage and side effects we can cause intervening a complex system when it would be better not to touch it. For example, in United States there is more people dying from prescription of opioids than from car accidents. Trying to eliminate a small pain, there is an intervention —the over-prescription of painkillers— that ends up creating a huge damage.
I know what I am talking about, I have experienced it personally and seen it with my own eyes. Although science reminds us that the less instructions and technical feedback provided, the more success… as a padel and basketball coach I have been trying to increase the effectiveness doing the opposite. I have spent a lot of time judging “technique” of my players as “good” or “bad” based on an image of “perfect technique” that only existed in my head, not in reality. I have corrected game movements that were successful, simply because they deviated from the belief of “perfect technique” I had in my mind. A textbook case of iatrogenics.
As haters of uncertainty that humans are, I guess I could not accept that someone could succeed with a “technique” that was not what I thought it was “good”. During many training sessions, instead of being a good professional and putting the player first by helping her find her best version, I did the opposite: I made the player imitate that “perfect technique” I thought it was correct, forcing her to be as I thought was ideal. Instead of helping the player, I was trying to feel a little better with myself by making the reality fit the beliefs I had and, then, thinking, “what a good coach I am!” Another selfish textbook case of iatrogenics: put the player at the service of the coach, and not the other way around. I have provided specific corrections to players about how to place the arm, leg or wrist, how to hit the ball... which have not meant any improvement, but quite the opposite: it caused “paralysis by analysis” making the player feel unable to make a decision due to overthinking. Instead of owning up to my iatrogenics, I blamed the poor frustrated player to do not do thinks “in the right way”.
Looking back, I am not proud at all of that selfishness present in me and I think all this was caused by the fucking belief that there is one single “perfect technique”, “tactic” or “physical skills” that every the players must achieve. Nowadays, I am tired of creating unnecessary harm and it is clear to me that people and players come first. Then we go, the coaches, as companions. The following phrase always comes to mind...
“Welcome to all those coaches who understand that this consists of rolling up our sleeves and leaving everything for the children and not by making the children roll up their sleeves and make them leave everything for us.”
I have broken with the reductionist tendency that for years has affected our training methods: we have been fragmenting components of complex systems —such as a sport—, we have addressed them separately with simplistic methods harming more than healing, not contemplating at all the adverse effects of our interventions. Isolating the “technique” from the other competitive components —variability, uncertainty, decision-making...— we have developed beliefs that there is a “perfect technique” whatever the moment and competitive context in which it is applied. I resign myself to think that performance is made up of different components such as “technique”, “tactics”, “physics”, “psychology”... I resign myself to practice them separately because in the game we find them all together, interacting.
Pirelli already warned us that Carl Lewis' perfect skills can be useless if he runs in heels. Stephen Curry's shooting form will not be functional if the physical condition, the perception of the game, the control of emotions... do not accompany. It is useless having a sharp ax if I do not even know where to start cutting the tree.
It is a story of a farmer and his horse: One day his horse runs away and his neighbor comes over and says, to commiserate, “I am so sorry about your horse.” And the farmer says “who knows what is good or bad?” The neighbor is confused because this is clearly terrible. The horse is the most valuable thing the farmer owns. But the horse comes back the next day and he brings with him 12 feral horses. The neighbor comes back over to celebrate, “congratulations on your great fortune!” And the farmer replies again “who knows what is good or bad?” The next day the farmer’s son is taming one of the wild horses and he is thrown and breaks his leg. The neighbor comes back over, “I am so sorry about your son.” The farmer repeats: “who knows what is good or bad?” Sure enough, the next day the army comes through their village and is conscripting able-bodied young men to go and fight in war, but the son is spared because of his broken leg and… “Who knows what is good or bad?”
—Chinese parable
“Technique” or “tactic” does not exist outside of the context it is applied in. Who dictates whether a technique is “good” or “bad” is not the coach and his beliefs, but the game moment and its functionality. “Who knows what is good or bad?” Look at the situation and usefulness to answer it.
At the moment, I have decided to start with the “whole” and adopt a vision more coherent with the complexity of the sport. The main goal in any sport is to win. Does the rules of your sport condition the “technique” you must use to do this? If it does, as is the case in gymnastics, it makes sense to train the “technique” and maybe even talk about “perfect technique” since it will provide us with more points and probabilities of winning. But... in the case of football, the rules tell us which “technique” we must use to win? Will a “beautiful” goal be worth more than one? Will an “ugly” and “lucky” one be penalized? No more questions, sir. If “technique execution” is not mentioned in the rules of the game... does the concept really exist or is it a myth that coaches have created? Focus on the result and help the player or team figure out their best way to achieve it.
“Whatever is superfluous becomes ugly over time.”
—Alvar Aalto
For example, what rewards more in a tennis match? Execute the “technique” perfectly as detailed in the manuals and tutorials or have more winners and fewer unforced errors than the opponent? The scoring system does not provide any incentive to perform the “socially accepted technique” but to know how to put the ball in the specific place, at the specific time and at a specific speed in order to win. Once the player understands this, the “how” will emerge much more easily. When coaching we give instructions on how to place the elbow, how to finish the shot... most likely the player focuses more on what to do without paying attention to the relevant competitive information that will help her succeed: perceive where the opponent is, where can attack her... All these competitive factors condition the “technique”. It is not necessary to order the “how” based on shouts and orders, the best instructions we can give are, silently, to introduce competitive elements such as the rival movements and shots, uncertainty, variability... which will cause the player, at every moment, to learn to use the most functional “technique” in order to succeed.
“Beauty if it is not functional is not beauty.”
—Jorge Wagensberg
But... if we break with “technique training”, what are we going to talk about? I propose to talk about functionality: the quality of being suited to serve a purpose well; practicality. It focuses on what it matters: to win or achieve a goal and it takes into account all the factors that are involved in competition. If a pattern or movement used by a tennis player in a specific situation of the match allows her to achieve her purpose on a specific situation (such as winning the point, move the opponent towards one direction or just putting the ball in), it is be functional. If the movement pattern —no matter how beautiful— does not serve to achieve the goal, it is not functional. The attention will not be focused on the imitation of fictitious standard models (internal focus), but rather on understanding the singularity of the player and if she achieves the goal of the specific moment of the game (external focus).
The “technique” emerges from the person-environment relationship. To sum it up: the “technique” appears from the characteristics of the player and the situation in which she finds herself. A soccer player, at a specific moment, has a specific purpose, such as scoring a goal, and relates to the environment surrounding her in order to achieve it. For example, a short, left-footed player with little confidence, in the right part of the area... in a 1v1 in front of the goalkeeper will use a different movement than a tall, right-footed striker with a lot of confidence in her abilities that fins herself in the same spot. The characteristics of the player and the specific competitive moment make the “technique” appear. The fact that in this world no two players and moments are the same means that there is no single “technique” for everyone. What will decide whether the “technique” of the left-handed player and the right-handed player will be “good” or “bad”? It is the functionality, if it serves to achieve its purpose: to score a goal. Do not care if it is “cute” or “ugly”.
In the club of “technique training” destroyers, our Bible was drafted by Nikolai Bernstein. In his study analyzing blacksmiths hitting a hammer, he showed that the best ones were the ones whose had variability in their “techniques”. The performance key was variable “technique” to to adapt functionally to the changing conditions of the environment. If in the school of blacksmiths, the teacher tried to make each blacksmith hit in the same way... would we be facing a clear case of iatrogenics? Well, this happened in tennis. The service was worked on by separating it into phases (toss, hit, follow-through...) and until the former was not performed perfectly, it was not worked the next one. When the player went to the real game, she found it impossible to perform the same movement every time, to throw the ball in the same way... the key lay in the ability to adapt his movements to the differences in each serve —influenced by the score, fatigue, emotions...— to be successful. The belief in repeating a “perfect technique” to succeed is iatrogenics, it does not help. Give your players tools to deal with uncertain situations, to adapt and encourage them to change, they will thank you. Having functionality means having different tools to win in different ways, not always using the same tool in the same way.
Here—in case that was not enough—I would like to shout to the four winds my unpopular opinion: “technique” is not the cause, but the consequence. What causes a player to perform functionally is that she effectively interacts with her environment and, as a consequence of this, “technique” appears. For a basketball player who is going for a basket with a defender on the side, the cause is to read the game situation and adapt to it to make a basket, the consequence is the “technique” used to score it. Once she perceives the game situation and is aware of her personal possibilities —a basketball player and her defender can be tall, short, right-handed, left-handed... and can dominate some skills more than others—, she acts by making the lay-up more suitable for that situation: it may be a normal one, a floater, a one step, a change of direction, etc.
Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini shows us this in this free kick. Look at the next photo and his right foot.
Can you imagine a U12 football coach telling the players: “you have to throw the free kick and right after hitting the ball you have to twist your ankle.” Iatrogenics. Probably, Messi’s movement pattern has emerged from the focus on kicking the ball into the box and scoring when the free kick is close to the area. In any sport we seek to be successful, to score goals, to jump higher, to score baskets, to win... not specific movement patterns. On the way to achieving functionality, “technique” appears and not the other way around. If I focus on training the “technique” and then applying it to be functional, I believe that my players will perform “in spite of me” instead of “thanks to me”.
Now I understand why Natàlia Balagué told me “we have to stop treating people like they are stupid”. The excess of instructions, control, orders... in order to help, probably causes the opposite: harm, iatrogenics. My players —and I am convinced that yours too— are smart enough to find their solutions, they do not need constant instructions from a prescriber. The problem arises when I make them dependent on me and spend the whole training telling them what to do. It is normal that later, when they are alone in the competition, they do not feel able to find their answers. It is not player’s fault that I am not able to live with uncertainty; to not accept that not everything is “white” or “black”, but that there are many “greys”; of my need to intervene to justify the salary and keep my mind calm; of giving orders to calm my conscience even if they are not necessary and generate avoidable harm instead of remaining silent respecting the time that change processes need.
“A training session is just the expression of the coach and what he thinks his role is.”
I think that every coach practices with abstract glasses that condition the way in which she perceives her players, the team, the competition and the sport. Personally, I think there is still some trace left... but I am trying not to put on the “technique” glasses again and use the functionality ones. As a coach, changing my glasses, pursuing functional behaviours without worrying about the “how” or the “technique”, has changed my perception of everything. I see myself more as a designer of game situations and problems than as a prescriber of game solutions, because players are capable of finding their own. The “technique” ones made me look excessively at my mental models, what I had planned in my notebook, what I think is “good” and “bad”... while I missed what happens in the game. With the functionality glasses I feel that I know less, that I lose knowledge... but that make me pay more attention to the moment, to help the player and the team find their best way to win. I do not feel like the boss, I feel like another component of the team. The drills are not anymore isolated, without opposition or uncertainty and based on instructions… but the opposite. The basis is to design situations representative of the game, let the player and team explore solutions and be an active part in case help is needed. Situations in which we find most of the factors experienced in the game such as decision-making, perception, variability… that include “technique”, “tactics”, “physics”… training at the same time without need of fragmenting these mentioned concepts.
The players and their intelligence, first. Then, in case they need me, I will be ready to help them in the way that I think is most convenient for the team.
Martí Cañellas | Fosbury Flop