This article was downloaded by: [Manchester Metropolitan University]On: 04 November 2012, At: 13:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Sport, Education and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cses20

The analysis of athletic performance:some practical and philosophicalconsiderationsLee J. Nelson a & Ryan Groom ba University of Hull, UKb Manchester Metropolitan University, UKVersion of record first published: 06 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Lee J. Nelson & Ryan Groom (2012): The analysis of athletic performance:some practical and philosophical considerations, Sport, Education and Society, 17:5, 687-701

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.552574

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The analysis of athletic performance:

some practical and philosophical

considerations

Lee J. Nelsona* and Ryan Groomb

aUniversity of Hull, UK; bManchester Metropolitan University, UK

This article presents a hypothetical dialogue between a notational analyst (NA) recently schooled

in the positivistic assessment of athletic performance, an ‘old-school’ traditional coach (TC) who

favours subjective analysis, and a pragmatic educator (PE). The conversation opens with NA and

TC debating the respective value of quantitative and qualitative methods of performance analysis.

Having considered their arguments from a-distance, PE offers a philosophically underpinned point

of view that helps to practically reconcile NA’s and TC’s opposing positions. While primarily

focusing on practical issues relating to the analysis of athletic performance, PE contends that

‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ approaches can be legitimately used in combination. Such a stance

would appear in-line with a pragmatic philosophical perspective, which by focusing on practical

issues embraces pluralistic methods. It is hoped that this dialogue will facilitate further

philosophical and practical debate to generate knowledge that could enrich coaches’ understanding

by presenting an approach to performance analysis that is more realistic for practitioners.

Keywords: Performance analysis; Coaching practice; Pragmatism; Mixed methods;

Metaphysics

Performance analysis has recently been located firmly within the coaching process

(Hodges & Franks, 2002; Lyle, 2002; Stratton, Reilly, Williams, & Richards, 2004;

Groom, Cushion, & Nelson, 2011). The ongoing analysis of athletic performance is

vitally important as it assists in the collection of performance information that can be

fed-back to athletes in an attempt to enhance their understanding and competitive

performance (Maslovat & Franks, 2008). Indeed, the ongoing analysis of perfor-

mance provides vital information for the prescription of training and rehabilitation

programmes (Carling et al., 2008). Furthermore, analysis of the opposition can help

the coach to identify key strengths and weaknesses of forthcoming opponents,

information that can be used to inform team selection and tactical strategising

(O’Donoghue, 2010; Groom et al., 2011). In team sport settings, analysis of

performance during actual competition allows the coach to make vital substitutions

and tactical decisions that aim to change the course of a game (Carling et al., 2005).

Post-match analysis, on the other hand, provides the coach and athletes with an

opportunity to reflect on how well they performed and whether they were able to

*Corresponding author. Department of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Hull,

Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, East Yorkshire, UK. Email: l.nelson@hull.ac.uk

ISSN 1357-3322 (print)/ISSN 1470-1243 online/12/050687-15 # 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.552574

Sport, Education and Society

Vol. 17, No. 5, October 2012, pp. 687�701

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

effectively implement their pre-performance strategy (Carling et al., 2009). In

addition to this, team sport coaches also analyse athletes for the purpose of talent

identification and recruitment (Carling et al., 2005). So performance analysis is an

applied topic with a high degree of salience for coaching practitioners. Indeed, it has

been suggested that performance analysis, ‘is now widely accepted among coaches,

athletes and sport scientists as a valuable input into the feedback process’ (Drust,

2010, p. 921).

Over recent years, it has been argued that there is a much greater need for

objective and unbiased performance assessment in coaching (e.g. Hughes & Bartlett,

2008; Maslovat & Franks, 2008; Carling et al., 2009). This is based on research

evidence that suggests that coaches’ information processing and recall abilities are

limited (Franks & Miller, 1986, 1991). In an attempt to remedy this situation, a

number of quantitative methods have been identified and developed with the specific

intent of assisting the objective analysis of athletic performance. The three most

widely acknowledged methods are arguably: notational analysis, time-motion

analysis and quantitative biomechanical analysis. These comprise what Hughes

and Bartlett (2008) term performance analysis.

Hughes (2005) defines notational analysis as an ‘objective way of recording

performance so that key elements of that performance can be quantified in a valid

and consistent manner’ (p. 1). The construction of a notational analysis system

requires consideration of the four key elements (i.e. player, position, action and time)

that are fundamental to all such systems, the intended level of analysis (i.e. team,

subsidiary unit and individual level), and how the required information is going to be

gathered (Hughes, 2008a; Carling et al., 2009). In relation to the final point, Hughes

(2008b) proposes that data can be collected through three system types, namely:

scatter diagrams, frequency tables and sequential systems. Through applying these

principles, a notational system can be constructed that allows for the collation of

statistical information relating to the execution of actions and the evaluation of

tactical aspects of performance (Carling et al., 2005).

Time-motion analysis focuses on ‘raw features of an individual’s activity and

movement during a match without attempting any qualitative evaluation’ (Carling

et al., 2005, p. 4). This type of analysis fundamentally seeks to understand the

physical component of sporting performance (O’Donoghue, 2008). While it is

possible to manually record data of this nature, there are a growing number of

companies offering video-based systems and global positioning technologies that

record players’ movement patterns (Carling et al., 2009). The objective statistical

information generated by these systems can help with the identification of work-rate

profiles, fitness levels and on-set of fatigue, amongst other factors (Carling et al.,

2005). Whereas motion analysis focuses on gross movement patterns, quantitative

biomechanical analysis is concerned with the finer features of sports technique

(Hughes & Bartlett, 2008). A detailed technical analysis of sports performance, from

a biomechanical perspective, can involve the measurement of numerous variables

(e.g. linear and angular displacement, velocities, accelerations, forces, torques,

688 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

energies and power) and consideration towards the study of movement coordination

(Bartlett, 2008).

While there is increasing support for the use of objective data, gathered from

quantitative methods, others have continued to highlight the importance of

subjectively based qualitative analysis of athletic performance. Indeed, this remains

a key component of what coaches do (Carling et al., 2005; Bartlett, 2008; Kerwin &

Irwin, 2008). While certain authors have come to question the accuracy of this form

of analysis, Lees (2008) argues that when appropriately applied ‘qualitative bio-

mechanical analysis can provide the learner with detailed feedback to improve

performance’ (p. 162). Knudson and Morrison (2002) suggest that the strength of

good qualitative analysis resides in its being interdisciplinary in nature. Indeed,

whereas quantitative biomechanical analysis is unable to address the many factors

affecting performance, qualitative movement analysis completed by an informed

practitioner is said to integrate understanding about biomechanics, motor develop-

ment, motor learning and pedagogy (Knudson & Morrison, 2002). Qualitative

analysis, however, is not solely restricted to the assessment of movement. Team sport

coaches can engage in the qualitative analysis of technical, tactical, physical and

behavioural aspects of sporting performance (Carling et al., 2005; Groom et al.,

2011). Qualitative analysis, according to these arguments, then, would also appear

able to capture the complex nature of sporting performance.

The aim of this paper is to question the value of pitching the subjective and

objective analysis of athletic performance against one-another. This stance would

appear symptomatic of the sporting research more generally, where there has been, at

times, a tendency to believe that quantitative and qualitative approaches are

philosophically incommensurable. Indeed, those scholars who operate within one

set of metaphysical assumptions have rejected the principles guiding research

conducted within the other paradigm. In this regard, metaphysical debates have

tended to divide the sporting community into two camps, namely positivism and

constructivism (Gratton & Jones, 2004). Such debates have been accompanied by

the belief that quantitative methods belong to positivistic research and qualitative

methods are the tools of those conforming to a constructivist approach to scientific

inquiry. Here, we argue that the concepts and ideas of pragmatic philosophy might

usefully bring the thinking of these two camps slightly closer together, as within a

pragmatic framework both quantitative and qualitative methods can methodologi-

cally coexist. In this respect, this paper presents an attempt to tackle a dilemma that

has philosophically bedevilled the sporting literature.

The presented argument acknowledges that the mixing of quantitative and

qualitative methods often leads to a greater understanding than either approach

can achieve alone (Creswell & Garrett, 2008). Furthermore, it recognises that

coaching practitioners and scholars will inevitably utilise the full range of tools

available to them when engaging in performance analysis related inquiry. The

significance of this paper, then, lies in its ability to generate further academic

discussion into the combining of quantitative and qualitative methods of perfor-

mance analysis and how this can legitimately occur when operating within the

Re-conceptualising performance analysis 689

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

pragmatic paradigm. We believe that dialogue of this nature might serve to generate

knowledge that could usefully enrich coaches’ understanding by presenting an

approach to performance analysis that is more realistic for practitioners. This is not

to suggest that we are the only scholars in support of such a proposition. Rather, we

believe it is important to raise and consider this issue, so that one approach is not

privileged at the expense of the other. In this regard, we believe that the central

tenants of this debate could usefully contribute to methodological discussions within

the study of coaching more broadly.

In order to explore the notion of combining quantitative and qualitative

performance analysis methods in further detail, we open by providing a brief

discussion regarding the philosophy of science. This would seem important, as the

cultivation of philosophical concerns is critical to becoming a reflective practitioner,

as opposed to a mere technician (McNamee, 2005). Here, we contend that the field

might usefully draw upon Morgan’s (2007) recent interpretation of the paradigm

debate, which has been widely acknowledged within the mixed methods literature

(e.g. Plano Clarke & Creswell, 2008; Creswell, 2009; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010).

Indeed, it provides an alternative account that could usefully extend existing

thinking. The following section provides a brief summary of Morgan’s argument.

We would advise those desiring a more detailed understanding to read Morgan’s

original article.

Using mixed methods: an alternative paradigm debate and philosophical approach

According to Morgan (2007), any discussions about the combining of quantitative

and qualitative methods must first start by examining the dominant paradigm. In this

respect, Morgan (2007) uses the term paradigm to convey, ‘systems of beliefs and

practices that influence how researchers select both the questions they study and

methods that they use to study them’ (p. 49). He goes on to argue that this is

consistent with Kuhn’s preferred use of the term, but points out that systems of

beliefs and practices have recieved little attention in methodological discussions,

which have instead largely focused on epistemological stances. In light of this

alternative conceptualisation, Morgan (2007) demonstrates how those advocating

qualitative research evoked a paradigmatic shift to legitimise the value of their

preferred methods.

Morgan (2007) suggests that by shifting the debate to a metaphysical level,

qualitative researchers became able to challenge the dominance of quantitative

research that characterised much of the 1960s and 1970s. During this period there

was no commonly accepted label for the paradigm that dominated scientific inquiry.

To position themselves within a legitimate methodological position, challengers

labelled the existing approach as the positivist paradigm. Morgan (2007) argues that

Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) early comparison between positivism and a competing

paradigm (later known as constructivism) is perhaps the best example of this.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) contrasted positivism and naturalistic inquiry as having

690 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

fundamentally different ontological, epistemological and methodological assump-

tions. While Morgan recognises that Lincoln and Guba (2005) have extended their

system to consider the paradigms of critical theory, post-positivism and participatory

research, he contends that each of these are routed in ontological issues. As such, he

chooses to term this collective line of thinking the metaphysical paradigm.

In light of the above, Morgan (2007) contests that the metaphysical paradigm’s

hierarchical top-down approach imposes limits on every aspect of this conceptualisa-

tion. In this sense, he suggests that ontological assumptions about the nature of

reality impose constraints on epistemological beliefs about the nature of knowledge,

which limit methodological choices about knowledge generation. Moreover, Morgan

argues that while it is claimed that methodological problems can be addressed

through an ontology driven understanding about the philosophy of knowledge, this

belief system ultimately ‘remains disconnected from practical decisions about the

actual conduct of research’ (p. 64). Indeed, he points to Guba and Lincoln’s (2005)

claim that methods cannot be associated with a given paradigm, which causes him to

question what practical guidelines the metaphysical paradigm provides to those

conducting research. Given the aforementioned limitations of the metaphysical

paradigm, Morgan offers pragmatism as an alternative position to resolve these issues

and therefore replace the, at present, dominant metaphysical paradigm. Indeed,

while discussions about pragmatic philosophy and mixed methods research are not

new, the pragmatic approach has resultantly, over more recent years, become

increasingly regarded as the philosophical partner for using mixed method (Creswell,

2009; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010).

Whilst Morgan’s critical argument highlights the limitations associated with the

metaphysical paradigm, he nonetheless recognises that these discussions have at least

served to move the debate beyond the mechanical consideration that had previously

dominated research discussions. However, he contends that contemporary meta-

physical discourse needs to be reconsidered if understanding is to develop. Indeed,

he suggests that the omission of pragmatism from discussion within the metaphysical

paradigm maybe explained by the fact that pragmatists take a broader view of the

metaphysical issues. For example, Morgan (2007) explains that Dewey proposed a

revised conceptualisation, ‘that focused on the experience of action in the world,

rather than the existence of either a world outside these experiences or experiences

outside such a world’ (p. 68). In this respect, Morgan argues that those responsible

for legitimatising (e.g. via the publication of research methods texts) research

paradigms have historically excluded pragmatism, which evidences the social and

political nature of research methods discourse.

In opposition to the top down approach that underpins the metaphysical

paradigm, Morgan (2007) states that:

. . .we need to devote equal attention to studying both the connection betweenmethodology and epistemology and the connection between methodology andmethods. Furthermore, we need to use our study of methodology to connect issuesin epistemology with issues in research design, rather than separating our thoughtsabout the nature of knowledge from our efforts to produce it. (p. 68)

Re-conceptualising performance analysis 691

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

Whereas many research methods text demarcate quantitative and qualitative

research with deductive and inductive reasoning respectively, Morgan contents that:

. . . any experienced researcher knows that the actual process of moving betweentheory and data never operates in only one direction. Outside of introductorytextbooks, the only time that we pretend that research can be either purelyinductive or deductive is when we write up our work for publication. During theactual design, collection, and analysis of data, however, it is impossible to operate ineither an exclusively theory- or data-driven fashion. . .The pragmatic approach is torely on a version of abductive reasoning that moves back and forth betweeninduction and deduction*first converting observations into theories and thenassessing those theories through action. (pp. 70�71)

Similarly, while qualitative research emphasises subjectivity and quantitative research

objectivity, the pragmatic approach recognises both stances:

. . . the usual forced dichotomy between subjective and objective is an equallyartificial summary of the relationship between the researcher and the researchprocess. Thus, although one often hears arguments about the impossibility of‘complete objectivity’, it is just as hard to imagine what ‘complete subjectivity’would be . . . In a pragmatic approach, there is no problem with asserting both thatthere is a single ‘real world’ and that all individuals have their own uniqueinterpretations of that world. Rather than treating incommensurability as an all-or-nothing barrier between mutual understanding, pragmatists treat issues ofintersubjectivity as a key element of social life. (Morgan, 2007, pp. 71�72)

Drawing on Dewey’s notion of inquiries, Morgan contends that understanding about

research methodology is no different to any form of human endeavour. In reversing

this argument, we contend that the above discussions can be equally applied to

coaching practice, as the analysis of performance is like another other form of inquiry.

However, we also appreciate that Morgan’s propositions could have significant

implications for the scientific investigation of coaching practice. Indeed, we have

seen the advocacy and combing of mixed methods within the coaching literature,

which has started to generate useful understanding about not only what coaches do,

but why they engage in certain behaviours (e.g. Potrac et al., 2000; Potrac et al., 2002;

Smith & Cushion, 2006). Therefore, the pragmatic stance might offer a philosophical

framework in which such investigations can operate.

At this point, however, we would like to stress that it is not our intention to square

the philosophical circle by advocating that everyone conform to a pragmatic stance.

Rather we are mindful that discussions about inquiry should consider philosophical

debates, especially when attempting to mix qualitative and quantitative methods.

Morgan’s propositions are undoubtedly critical of the current discourse and challenge

it to its core. Indeed, it raises fundamental questions and offers an alternative lens

through which to reconsider the paradigm debate and methodological choices.

Engaging with this alternative view can be somewhat unsettling as it questions

traditional orthodoxy. Writing this paper has certainly challenged our thinking and

caused us to reflect on our own philosophical and methodological beliefs. While we

are not advocating this alternative paradigm be wholeheartedly accepted, it provides a

692 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

novel view that we believe requires further exploration by those within the discipline

of sports science. Having considered philosophical arguments relating to mixed

methods research, we will now present how coaching practitioners could practically

use both quantitative and qualitative methods, within a pragmatic framework, to

analyse athletic performance.

Coaches pragmatic use of qualitative and quantitative methods

In summary, there appears to be a growing shift towards the use of quantitative

methods and technology, which is serving to further polarise conceptual under-

standing about the subjective and objective analysis of athletic performance. In

acknowledgement of this development, the remainder of this paper focuses on

providing a practically related dialogue that questions the usefulness of any such

divide. This is achieved through a hypothetical conversation between three schools of

thought. These roles are played by the notational analyst (NA), traditional coach

(TC) and pragmatic educator (PE).

The decision to construct these thoughts in the form of a dialogue was largely

inspired by reading the work of Jones (2007) who effectively employed this format to

explore two alternative conceptualisations of coaching. In outlining his purposes,

Jones states that:

Although imaginary, the aim of the conversational format is to assist reflection andunderstanding, not only of the arguments made but of our personal stance inrelation to them. It is in this invitation to reflect on the evidence encased in thediffering viewpoints presented that the strength of the arrangement lies. (p. 161)

Drawing on the work of Ely et al. (1997), Jones (2007) then argues that the

presentation of alternative perspectives, through dialogue, can create a ‘third space’

whereby a hybrid theory can be formed.

In the presented dialogue, NA represents the increasing number of sport science

graduates educated in the positivistic science of notational analysis. TC, on the other

hand, is a caricature of a (TC) who is set in his ways. Having not been schooled in

the science of sport, these practitioners can be sceptical of its relevancy. For these

coaches, the subjective analysis of performance is the only source of useful

information. At this point, it should be noted that these positions have been

purposely exaggerated to help emphasise the arguments presented. Having said that,

these individuals are not completely divorced from reality, in-as-much-as they

represent an amalgam of views we have actually encountered in the field. The

presented dialogue opens with a conversation between NA and TC, following their

attendance of a conference session on the quantitative analysis of athletic

performance. Intrigued by the unfolding conversation, PE listens intently from

a-distance. Recognising the inherent strengths and limitations of both arguments, PE

‘plucks-up’ the courage to express his own perceptions and experiences, in hope that

they might bring both NA’s and TC’s thinking slightly closer together. While we do

not expect or even desire all readers to be in agreement with the presented alternative

Re-conceptualising performance analysis 693

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

perspective, PE represents a philosophically informed ‘middle ground’ that attempts

to reconcile these two opposing positions:

NA: (As he walks out of the conference hall towards the refreshments, NA excitedly turnsto TC) So what did you think about that session? Some of the presentations werereally good weren’t they?

TC: (TC laughs) What a load of old rubbish. Every year you get these abstractpresentations that are so far removed for the world of sport. As a coach, what am Isupposed to do with what was delivered? How am I supposed to integrate all ofthose stats into my coaching practices? Honestly, some of those sport scientistsdon’t have a clue what it’s really like to coach.

NA: That’s a bit harsh. In this day-and-age it’s essential that elite level coachesutilise quantitative methods of performance analysis.

TC: Why’s that then?

NA: Well for a start, research demonstrates that coaches aren’t able to accuratelyrecall athletic performances (Franks & Miller, 1986, 1991). In addition to this, it’sall about gaining that extra percentage in terms of performance isn’t it? Advances intraining methods require coaches to monitor their athletes’ performances moreclosely, which means utilising precise and objective measurements.

TC: Yer alright (He says in a sarcastic tone). I don’t know about you, but I actuallywork in professional football (Said in a way to suggest that NA is obviously a little naiveand lacking real-world experience). You can’t be telling me that these statisticaladvances are what the game needs. Some of the great coaches of the 60s, 70s and80s managed to get on OK without them. Brian Clough could read the game justfine without a computer. I’ve had one of those match analysis companies come inand give me a demonstration. It’s like playing a bloody computer game. It all looksnice and fancy, but there are just too many stats and it’s just, well it’s not football isit! Incorporating video into your coaching practices, I’ll give you that. That’s a stepin the right direction. Video can be a really useful coaching tool. With video theplayers get an opportunity to watch their performance back and to consider whatthey did right and wrong. Video really is a powerful tool in my experience (Groomet al., 2011). But I’m not sold by all these statistics. It’s not for me at all.

NA: Well that sounds a bit short-sighted to me (He says defensively). I’ve studied thisat university and my sport science background has taught me that quantitativemethods offer the most appropriate and accurate means of analysing athleticperformance. It’s the future and all coaches will have to embrace this technology,otherwise they will be left behind. Coaches can’t be relying on their subjectiveopinions. They just aren’t accurate. There is evidence!

PE: (Intrigued by what he has just heard, PE comments) I hope you don’t mind, but Icouldn’t help overhearing your conversation. Like both of you, I’ve given this topic afair bit of thought and consider it to be a vital part of what coaches do. Interestingly, Iactually teach this topic to undergraduate sport science and coaching students at alocal university (NA’s eye light-up. PE’s credentials capture his attention. TC, on the otherhand, looks unimpressed and gives PE an uninviting look). I’ve also assisted with thedelivery of performance analysis at the elite level, in a number of sports (TC’s ears‘prick-up’. He appears to be more interested now). Would you mind if I join in thediscussion?

694 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

NA: I’d be interested to hear your views.

TC: Fine by me, can’t see why not.

NA: (In an attempt to win PE’s support, NA quickly jumps in) As a coaching scientist,surely you can’t deny that qualitative analysis is fundamentally flawed? For a start,the findings of this approach aren’t even objective!

PE: As a coaching scientist and educator, I too believe that we should take intoaccount the findings of academic research. You are correct NA in stating that thereare a small number of papers demonstrating that elite level coaches are unable toaccurately assess competitive performance (Franks & Miller, 1986, 1991). Indeed,Maslovat and Franks (2008) have helped us to make sense of these findings. Forexample, they have pointed-out that personal bias, the experiencing of emotions,and a limited focus of attention, can each impact an observers perception ofperformance. In addition to this, they have also argued that committing andreceiving data to-and-from memory are complex processes, so interference caninevitably occur. I think that it’s important that practitioners be aware of thisevidence and give it some serious consideration. It definitely presents a legitimateargument for collecting objective information through the use of quantitativemethods such as notational, time-motion, and quantitative biomechanical analysis.

NA: Exactly (NA looks pleased with himself)!

TC: How did I know that you were going to support him? You scientists are all thesame. You just don’t understand what it’s like in the real world of coaching (TCappears frustrated at this point and looks like he’s losing interest in the conversation)!

PE: Hold on a second TC. While I feel that practitioners need to be aware of thesefindings, I also think that we need to be cautious about ‘writing-off ’ coaches’subjective opinions. Like you, I too have worked with elite level coaches that areable to provide an extremely accurate and comprehensive analysis of performance. Imust admit that I’ve been really impressed by the level of detail that some coachescan provide and the integrated nature of their thinking. While I suspect that youhaven’t read their work, you might find yourself in agreement with Knudson andMorrison (2002). These authors have argued that while qualitative analysis ofperformance is a subjective process, this doesn’t mean it has to be vague, arbitraryor unorganised in nature. In fact, they go on to suggest that to be effective,qualitative analysis requires ‘extensive planning, information from many disci-plines, and systematic steps’ (p. 5). My experience is that coaches invest a lot oftime into thinking about and conducting qualitative analysis of their performers.

TC: Too right (TC is relieved to hear that PE is, in his mind, starting to make practicalsense)! I’ve spent years trying to understand my sport and what factors contributetowards effective performance. As I watch my athletes perform, I break theirperformance down and consider how their execution of each componentcontributes to the overall outcome. Sometimes it’s not easy for me to verbalise,but I know good and bad performances when I see it. This hasn’t happened overnight you know. It’s taken me a long time to get to this level! Years of watchingathletes perform, working under mentor coaches, speaking to other practitionersand through simple trial-and-error (Jones et al., 2003, 2004; Irwin et al., 2004;Abraham et al., 2006; Schempp et al., 2007). However, I think that I’ve nowdeveloped a fairly good ‘blue-print’ that informs my analysis of performance, butI’m always ‘tweaking’ it.

Re-conceptualising performance analysis 695

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

PE: Returning to your original point NA, I take issue with the notion of scientificinquiry needing to be purely objective in nature. I can’t help but wonder, is it reallypossible to completely detach yourself from the process of inquiry? Sure, you canutilise methods such as notational analysis, motion analysis and quantitative bio-mechanical analysis to make the collection of data more ‘objective’, and I agree thatthere are times when this is needed, but isn’t it ultimately you who decides whichfactors to analyse, what definitions to apply, and what aspects to concentrate onwhen collecting and analysing your data? As such, isn’t the quantitative analystheavily involved in the process?

NA: Well I guess (He says looking quite taken-a-back), but ultimately we areconcerned with not wanting to contaminate our findings. We don’t want toinfluence them in any way. Human limitations mean that subjective analysis isultimately inconsistent and inaccurate.

PE: Well that’s one view. Knudson and Morrison’s (2002), though, have contendthat qualitative analysis is arguably the most important means through whichkinesiology professionals can improve their clients’ performance. They go on tosuggest that qualitative analysis enables a practitioner to provide an integrated andinterdisciplinary assessment that takes a multitude of factors into consideration. Soit would appear that a counter argument exists. Given your comments, I supposethe positivistic concepts of validity and reliability are both important to you thenNA?

NA: Yes of course! They are the corner stones of my analytical approach. And this iswhere I take issue with the qualitative analysis of performance. I’ve always thoughtthat qualitative analysis is limited because its findings are neither valid nor reliable!

PE: Well in one sense I suppose you are correct. Those who employ qualitativeresearch methods don’t typically subscribe to the notions of validity and reliability.But this is not to suggest that their analysis is vague or arbitrary. Rather qualitativeresearchers frequently employ the terms ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘authenticity’ (Guba& Lincoln, 2005). Without going into the details of each, I can inform you thatthose using qualitative methods, like you, in essence, ultimately want to present anaccurate representation of the phenomenon under investigation. The point I’mtrying to make is that qualitative inquiry, including that of athletic performance,isn’t unsystematic by nature.

TC: I’m not sure if I completely follow all of this technical jargon, but I think I’ve gotthe general gist of what’s being said. NA you can’t honestly think that the accuracy ofmy analysis isn’t important? I can tell you that it does matter! Otherwise what’s thepurpose of what I do (He asks in a fairly aggressive tone)?

NA: Well that’s not what I meant. In-fact I’m not totally sure what my point is now.All I know is that, I was taught to consider subjective analysis as being less accuratethan an objective analysis of athletic performance.

TC: (Quite frustrated, TC continues with what he was saying) I have to provideevidence in support of the claims that I make, while always striving to ensure thatthe technical information I feedback to my players is as accurate as possible. I takeon-board your comment from earlier mind. There are times when the emotionalnature of the game can shape how a coach views performance. Match days can betense affairs. But that’s why I re-watch the game on DVD the next day, once most ofthe emotions have faded away (Groom et al., 2011). I also show the players video-clips that evidence my analysis. As a coach you are always being judged. My players

696 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

are very aware. The delivery of an inaccurate analysis or the provision of technicallyincorrect information could lead to my loosing the players’ respect (Greenleaf et al.,2001). That’s the last thing I want or need (Potrac et al., 2002)!

PE: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you both want to produce anaccurate analysis of athletic performance, albeit with different approaches?

NA: Yer I suppose it does (He says looking slightly confused).

PE: So what are your thoughts about qualitative analysis in light of what has beensaid NA?

NA: Well, I suppose I wasn’t really aware that subjective analysis could be so detailed.Having said that, I’m still not convinced that qualitative analysis can provide you withany information that can’t be obtained through quantitative analysis.

PE: I remember thinking like that when I first entered the field. It’s often quite easyto get caught-up in a world of statistics. However, while quantitative analysis can bevery useful for looking at specific performance components in considerable depth,sporting performance is often far more complex than that. Analysis of athleticperformance, at any given moment, can include consideration of numerousinterrelated factors. Consider team sports for example. Performance within theserequires consideration of the athlete’s psychological status, physiological make-upand preparation, technical execution, tactical understanding, decision-makingabilities and contextual factors relating the game itself, amongst other things. Whilequantitative methods can help us to measure some of these factors, an integratedinterpretation of this data, at the present at least, still requires subjective input fromthe analyst. But we have to be realistic. It’s not practically possible to recordabsolutely everything, even when working in an elite level environment. Hughes(2008b) recognises this when acknowledging that the data collection and processingphases of even a relatively simple notational analysis system requires a considerableinvestment of time. While it would be nice to quantitatively analyse every detail,sometimes subjective analysis is much quicker and can unearth a more integratedunderstanding; although, technological advances are making the collection andanalysis of statistical information much easier and more rapid (Carling et al., 2009).

TC: Exactly, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell him all-along. It’s not qualitativeanalysis that is limited, but quantitative analysis (TC feels like he is getting somewhere)!

PE: I understand what you are saying TC, but I’m not sure that’s quite right either.While I agree that subjective analysis can provide a rich inter-disciplinary analysis ofperformance, we also have to recognise that qualitative analysis can sometimes lackthe finer detail that quantitative analysts often crave and is at times necessary. Forexample, having observed the first half of a match you might have formed theimpression that the opposition has dominated your team. Here, a number ofcomparative statics (e.g. possession, entries into the attacking third, free-kicks won,corners won and shots at goal) could conceivably provide you with some additionalinformation of a more specific nature. And let’s consider another example. I bet youdon’t question practitioners for using a stopwatch to time their player’s pre-seasonfitness scores. Well that’s a form of quantitative assessment of performance!

We also have to recognise that the depth of any subjective analysis is, to somedegree, limited by the level of understanding that the analyst possesses. Having saidthat, we also have to appreciate that quantitative, like qualitative, methods are alsofallible. They too have limitations. There are limits to how much information can

Re-conceptualising performance analysis 697

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

be captured and processed when using these systems (Hughes, 2008b); many of thecommercially available time-motion analysis systems fail to consider differences inindividual capacities (Abt & Lovell, 2009); the costs associated with the purchasingof many match analysis and quantitative bio-mechanical systems means that theiruse is often restricted to elite-level coaching environments only (Carling et al., 2005,2009). We also have to recognise that quantitative analysis of performance is alsoreductive, in that it separates events from context.

TC: (Latching onto a point that supports his argument states) So you are sayingthat quantitative data can provide further evidence in support of my qualitativeanalysis?

PE: Yes, but it can also provide an additional level of detail to your subjectiveanalysis and the feedback that you ultimately give to your athletes. In short, itprovides further evidence in support of the claim that you are making.

TC: OK, well in that case I can see its value (TC is starting to find himself in agreementwith what PE is saying).

PE: But it’s more than just that. It could also cause you to question your originalanalysis, as there might not be evidence in support of your original claim. Thestatistical data might, however, highlight additional factors that you didn’t pick-up-on when watching the game. Hughes (2008a) also rightfully points out that thedatabasing of statistics, across multiple matches, allows you to plot trends that youmight not otherwise have been aware of. In light of all this, I find myself inagreement with Carling et al. (2005) who have argued that coaches should use bothquantitative and qualitative methods. I would take this a step further though. Iwould question whether the clear distinction made between these two approachesis, at a practical level, seen to be helpful. In doing so, I concur with Knudson andMorrison’s (2002) observation that even quantification of a highly controllednature cannot be purely objective. From a pragmatic perspective, though, I alsocontend that it’s highly unlikely that qualitative analysis can be totally subjective(Morgan, 2007). As such, I’m of the opinion that the analysis of athleticperformance is perhaps best conceptualised as a quantitative-qualitative con-tinuum, with methods being more or less objective or subjective. Additionally, itshould be acknowledged that the findings of methods running along this continuummay in some instances compliment one-another by elucidating additional informa-tion that collectively contribute towards a greater depth of understanding. Forexample, imagine a situation where a coach has read a statistically-based scoutingreport prior to watching a video recording of a match. Do you think that thestatistical report will in any way influence how the coach interprets the game that heis about to watch?

NA: Without a doubt. If the coach has seen the team or a player performparticularly well (or poorly) statistically, then they might keep an eye out for theseaspects of the performance.

PE: What do you think TC?

TC: I would agree with that.

PE: And what about if we reverse the example? Imagine that the coach watches thevideo first and then reads the statistical report. Do you think that the coach’ssubjective watching of the game will influence his reading of the report?

698 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

TC: I think so yes. He would be able to give some context to the stats, some actualexamples, and he would most probably be able to explain some of the key findingsfrom the stats in greater detail.

PE: NA?

NA: Yer I think that TC is probably right in what he says.

PE: In which case, you seem to be agreeing that deductive analysis of objective datacan influence inductive analysis of subjective interpretations, and vice versa, toconfirm or reject provisional understandings; what pragmatists call abductiveanalysis (Atkinson & Delamont, 2005). Perhaps, then, it’s not about whether weshould use quantitative or qualitative methods to analyse athletic performance, butchoosing methods that best match the current purposes, and where possibleappropriately using them in combination to provide further evidence in support ofthe claims that we make; what the pragmatic philosopher John Dewey (1938) termswarranted assertions. At the very least, I suspect that the issue of combining methodsof analysing athletic performance requires further consideration both practicallyand philosophically.

References

Abraham, A., Collins, D. & Martindale, R. (2006) The coaching schematic: validation through

expert coach consensus, Journal of Sport Sciences, 24(6), 549�564.

Abt, G. & Lovell, R. (2009) The use of individualized speed and intensity thresholds for

determining the distance run at high-intensity in professional soccer, Journal of Sports

Sciences, 27(9), 893�898.

Atkinson, P. & Delamont, S. (2005) Analytical perspective, in: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds)

The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd edn) (London, Sage), 821�840.

Bartlett, R. (2008) Introduction, in: C. J. Payton & R. M. Bartlett (Eds) Biomechanical evaluation of

movement in sport and exercise (London, Routledge).

Carling, C., Bloomfield, J., Nelson, L. & Reilly, T. (2008) The role of motion analysis in elite

soccer, Sports Medicine, 38(10), 839�862.

Carling, C., Reilly, T. & Williams, M. A. (2009) Performance assessment for field sports (London,

Routledge).

Carling, C., Williams, M. A. & Reilly, T. (2005) Handbook of soccer match analysis (London,

Routledge).

Creswell, J. W. & Garrett, A. L. (2008) The ‘‘movement’’ of mixed methods research and the role

of educators, South African Journal of Education, 28, 321�333.

Creswell, J. W. (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd

edn) (London, Sage).

Dewey, J. (1938) Logic: the theory of inquiry (New York, Henry Holt).

Drust, B. (2010) Performance analysis research: meeting the challenge, Journal of Sports Sciences,

28(9), 921�922.

Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M. & Anzul, M. (1997) On writing qualitative research: living by words

(London, Falmer).

Franks, I. M. & Miller, G. (1986) Eyewitness testimony in sport, Journal of Sport Behavior, 9, 39�45.

Franks, I. M. & Miller, G. (1991) Training coaches to observe and remember, Journal of Sports

Sciences, 9, 285�297.

Gratton, G. & Jones, I. (2004) Research methods for sports studies (London, Routledge).

Greenleaf, C., Gould, D. & Dieffenbach, K. (2001) Factors influencing Olympic performance:

interviews with Atlanta and Nagano US Olympians, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13,

154�184.

Re-conceptualising performance analysis 699

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

Groom, R., Cushion, C. J. & Nelson, L. J. (2011) The delivery of video-based performance

analysis by England youth soccer coaches: towards a grounded theory, Journal of Applied

Sport Psychology, 23, 16�32.

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging

confluences, in: N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of qualitative research (3rd edn)

(Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 191�215.

Hodges, N. J. & Franks, I. M. (2002) Modelling coaching practice: the role of instruction and

coaching, Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 793�811.

Hughes, M. (2008a) Sport analysis, in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds) The essentials of performance

analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 85�97.

Hughes, M. (2008b) How do we design simple systems? How to develop a notation system, in:

M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds) The essentials of performance analysis: an introduction (London,

Routledge), 98�110.

Hughes, M. & Bartlett, B. (2008) What is performance analysis? in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds)

The essentials of performance analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 8�20.

Hughes, M. D. (2005) Notational analysis, in: R. Bartlett, C. Gratton, & C. G. Rolf (Eds)

Encyclopaedia of international sports studies (London, Routledge), 1�7.

Irwin, G., Hanton, S. & Kerwin, D. (2004) Reflective practice and the origins of elite coaching

knowledge, Reflective Practice, 5, 425�442.

Jones, R. (2007) Coaching redefined: an everyday pedagogical endeavour, Sport, Education and

Society, 12(2), 159�173.

Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M. & Potrac, P. (2003) Constructing expert knowledge: a case study of a

top-level professional soccer coach, Sport Education and Society, 8(2), 213�229.

Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M. & Potrac, P. (2004) Sport coaching cultures: from practice to theory

(London, Routledge).

Kerwin, D. & Irwin, G. (2008) Biomechanics for coaches, in: R. L. Jones, M. Hughes &

K. Kingston (Eds) An introduction to sports coaching (London, Routledge), 87�100.

Knudson, D. V. & Morrison, C. S. (2002) Qualitative analysis of human movement (Champaign, IL,

Human Kinetics).

Lees, A. (2008) Qualitative biomechanical analysis of technique, in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds)

The essentials of performance analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 162�179.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry (Newbury Park, CA, Sage).

Lyle, J. (2002) Sports coaching concepts: a framework for coaches behaviour (London, Routledge).

Maslovat, D. & Franks, I. (2008) The need for feedback, in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds) The

essentials of performance analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 1�7.

McNamee, M. (2005) Positivism, popper and paradigms: an introductory essay in the philosophy

of science, in: M. McNamee (Ed.) Philosophy and the science of exercise, health and sport: critical

perspectives on research methods (London, Routledge), 1�20.

Morgan, D. L. (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of

combining qualitative and quantitative methods, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1),

48�76.

O’Donoghue, P. (2008) Time-motion analysis, in: M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds) The essentials of

performance analysis: an introduction (London, Routledge), 180�205.

O’Donoghue, P. (2010) Research methods for sport performance analysis (London, Routledge).

Plano Clark, V. L. & Creswell, J. W. (2008) The mixed method reader (London, Sage).

Potrac, P., Brewer, C., Jones, R., Armour, K. & Hoff, J. (2000) Towards an holistic understanding

of the coaching process, Quest, 52, 186�199.

Potrac, P., Jones, R. L. & Armour, K. (2002) It’s all about getting respect: the coaching behaviours

of an expert English soccer coach, Sport, Education and Society, 7(2), 183�202.

Schempp, P. G., Webster, C., McCullick, B. A., Busch, C. & Manson, S. (2007) How the best get

better: an analysis of the self-monitoring strategies used by expert golf instructors, Sport,

Education and Society, 12(2), 175�192.

700 L. J. Nelson and R. Groom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12

Smith, M. & Cushion, C. J. (2006) An investigation of the in-game behaviours of professional, top-

level youth soccer coaches, Journal of Sports Science, 24(4), 355�366.

Stratton, G., Reilly, T., Williams, A. M. & Richardson, D. (2004) Youth soccer: from science to

performance (London, Routledge).

Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2010) Review of contemporary issues in mixed methods Research,

in: A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural

research (2nd edn) (London, Sage), 1�41.

Re-conceptualising performance analysis 701

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Man

ches

ter

Met

ropo

litan

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

04

Nov

embe

r 20

12