I want to start with stating that I studied for 3 years to achieve my BSc in sport science and physiology, 3 years part-time to achieve my MSc in strength and conditioning and committed plenty of time to gaining my UKSCA accreditation; this may mean I have a slightly biased opinion but I will offer it anyway.   I recently stumbled upon the 1st4sport levels 1-3 certificates for strength and conditioning which will ‘qualify you to coach the skills and techniques of strength and conditioning, as identified in the Practical Syllabus.  This includes the use of free weights to develop sports performance’ that is delivered in association with the RFU.

I welcome the education of coaches to the benefits of strength and conditioning and the growth of the profession within the UK and I think that this qualification will achieve both of these.   I also acknowledge that by putting forward an individual to such a course may represent a more viable option than paying for a specific S+C coach for a club or team.  The main difficulty I have is that the UKSCA accreditation is still young, as is the industry itself and that teams, clubs and individuals may have difficulty in distinguishing between an accredited coach and a 1st4sport coach, which may mean that coaches then need both qualifications to ensure recognition.   This qualification has been introduced by the RFU and that there is another delivered by the FA….will all sports need you to have a qualification from their governing body and will sports then prioritise their certificate as a requirement for employment?  Finally I massively advocate the scientific approach to the field and believe that such a background better equips a practitioner for program design.   I am not underestimating the need to be an excellent coach and to communicate effectively with athletes and other coaches, what I don’t want to see is the industry becoming watered down by qualifications you almost have to attend just to gain.

My personal view is that, and I reiterate that it may be because it’s the educational route I chose, coaches should be confident that the accreditation and eventually the master practitioner awards are the ones necessary for recognition within the UK.   I think work needs to be done to ensure that this is and remains true.

With Wimbledon well under way the nation has now pinned it’s hopes on the single remaining challenger for the title, Andy Murray.  All other British contenders, bar one, were out in the first round.   This was followed by the predictable barrage from the media aimed at all and sundry who they perceived to be at fault for this poor showing. The BBC interviewed a raft of former players asking for their thoughts on the problem with British tennis.   They duly gave their expert opinion that there weren’t enough tennis courts, players weren’t hungry enough or that they came from too wealthy backgrounds (not done Britain’s rowers too much harm).   My opinion is that these players should give their expert opinion on their expertise…hitting tennis balls.   Very few people, it would seem, have any knowledge on long term athlete development (LTAD), how it works and the time it takes to implement.

The difficulty with tennis is that once you get to a certain age, there is very little time to do anything besides play tennis.  Competitions must be played to achieve rankings points, if you don’t win many games you have to play more to gain the points which often means a relentless stream of competitions.   There are very few periods where a player can focus on specific conditioning gains, between tennis, traveling and recovery.   The majority of players out in the early stages this time round are already caught in that cycle, Andy Murray being the exception as he has a S&C coach that travels with him.   What is now being achieved is the identification of talent based on key physical performance indicators, not just how well they can hit a ball.   The kids then are coached by quality S&C coaches who know the value of the development of fundamental movement skills that are essential to success in the sport.

The time factor is an issue, the best time to develop these movement patterns are at a young age, and not 16-17 years olds which is what the press identifies as the future talent. 8, 10, 12 years old is the time at which movements are developed quickest and for the long term.   Assuming that the 3 year figure of increased funding for the LTA being banded around by the press is true, give a minimum 1 year to allow for design of the LTAD program which means that the program has been running for 2 years now.   The players who were 12 at the time of starting are now 14, they’re the ones who will determine the success of the LTA’s new structure not the crop of 29 year olds who haven’t gotten past the first round in 8 attempts.  Unfortunately the short termist attitude of the press will not accept this and calls are being made for funding cuts and reviews.   Reviews are conducted retrospectively, not at the beginning of a project.   I wonder if a long term journalist development plan could be introduced to allow for less lazy and more insightful and accurate writing by the sporting press…..

Strength and Conditioning is a young industry in the UK and as such has the opportunity to shape its’ future in the coming years.   The UKSCA has, is and I’m sure will continue to do an excellent job in building the industry.   The introduction of the accreditation process and the continuous work with governing bodies in numerous sports are two of the highlights of their portfolio.   However, there is an opportunity which is currently being overlooked that I believe could lead to massive gains in athletic performance nationwide, growth in knowledge of the industry by athletes and general population and a bridging of the void often seen between sports science research and its’ application.

There are a large number of universities in the UK that offer sport science undergraduate and postgraduate courses.   Many of these institutions have superb laboratory facilities and researchers, funding for health/fitness facilities and a large and consistently turned over student population.  While I was at university I found myself frustrated by a few things (and I’ll only mention the ones related to strength and conditioning!); the lack of opportunity to use the practical laboratory skills introduced by my sport science course and the number of students training for their respective sports that appeared clueless as to what training would have the most benefit on their performance, unless there was a bicep curls and dips team that I never heard about!

If Universities offered strength and conditioning services that included physiological testing it would allow sport science students a chance to better their skills with actual athletes, improve the performance of their sports teams, offer health benefits to the student population and massively increase knowledge of what strength and conditioning is and does.   To me, this is relatively simple to do.   Many universities already have the laboratory and training facilities in place, all they need to do is employ a strength and conditioning coach.   This can be subsidised by offering services to external populations, particularly during university holidays where pre-seasons for popular winter sports offer a market or potentially offering the role as an internship mentored by an external practitioner.   This will also aid the growth of industry by increasing the number of formal strength and conditioning jobs.   I know universities have tight budgets and that sport often isn’t at the top of the agenda but collaboration with local councils, colleges and perhaps other universities could help overcome these issues.

If a new source of jobs arises, and I’m not saying that this is the only way of doing it, then industry can avoid a potential bottle neck where newly accredited coaches are playing a dead man’s shoes game waiting for positions to open up it makes that first step on the ladder a lot easier to make.