If a coach is not able to answer this question, it is because he is newbie to the job or simply because there is no intellectual involvement in his work. In fact, he only spits out what he already has done as an athlete or what he has seen other coaches do ...
... and unfortunately the result will probably be very limited in terms of progression.
One of the secondary questions that can be used to construct an answer would be: what do you want to do with the athletes you train for? Dependent robots or athletes aware of their efforts?
When you know the reality of a coach life, I think having autonomous athletes allows more performance at the career level.
For example, this past week-end , for different reasons, I'm not traveling in the French Cup; Beyond the disappointment of my absence (or not), my cyclists are able to take control and install themselves all the “
The coach is:
A protectionagainst the incoherence of athletes when they are in euphoria or stress,
- A questioner to force the athlete to find the answers, maybe not immediately but at least it generates the expression of probable hypotheses,
- A transmitter of experience thanks to the previous trial-errors as a coach but also as an athlete. If for my part, I have never been a professional cyclist or triathlete, I had a beautiful athlete career with more than 20 World Cups, 4 Worlds
and4 Europes. This builds an experience of High Performance and it’s a gain of time.
So how to involve the athlete in his own performance? Simply by letting him to be the boss of his project.
What do you want to do? How would you like to do it? All in the context of what, me as
If we can determine together what we want to do in this context, the athlete is more receptive to the training load, accepts difficulties and appreciates more all the good moments.