Rafel Pol is assistant coach at Champions League winners PSG. In 2020, he and colleagues published a Sports Medicine article exploring a question that I was also investigating in my own research – one I still explore today through my coaching, teaching, and coach education work at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences.
How should we think about the sports training process?
Adapting the question to youth football – how should we think about learning infootball?
It all comes back to a simple but important core argument that, as Pol reminds us, demands a shift in perspective- a shift that can have profound implications for how we coach, how players learn, and how we design training environments.
In a nutshell…
We need to stop treating young players and teams as machine-like systems and start seeing them for what they are: complex, adaptive systems (I will get to explaining these terms).
The first step is recognising how our worldview shapes the way we see, play, coach and analyze football. A worldview isn’t just what we think, it’s how we’ve learned to perceive, interpret, and act in the world. It is often passed unnoticed as simply the way things are
Our hidden assumptions
Many coaching practices are built on a worldview that often goes unquestioned. It is the assumption that players and teams function like machines – predictable, controllable, and best understood by breaking performance down into separate parts.
This mechanistic view has shaped much of child-youth football coaching.
My research has highlighted how coaches in youth football tended to control their context by limiting unpredictability through highly structured and repetitive training methods. Further, coaches and football organisations across cultures were seemingly implementing copy-paste templates from successful clubs or countries – focusing on the content, not the context.
In a self-penned article in the online magazine The Athletic, Juanma Lillo warned against the normalised homogenisation of what he termed “machine-like” behaviours in football that has been over constraining player behaviour, limiting opportunities for direct and primary experience in the game. For example, he argued that irrespective of context, a training session in Norway and one in South Africa (for example) would likely be the same, perhaps characterised by “two touchism”.
This is seductive because it creates the illusion that player development can be managed through careful planning, repetition, and instruction – or the very marketable option – copy- paste of so called “best practice” from successful clubs and countries. For coaches and parents, it’s appealing because it provides a sense of certainty, order, and control. I’ve called this the illusion of professionalism.
*Note: The concept of “best practice” originated at Xerox in the late 1970s, when Robert C. Camp shifted from reverse-engineering products to benchmarking company processes. While best practices work retrospectively in stable, rule-bound contexts, rigidly applying them to complex domains creates a false sense of certainty – we end up measuring what’s easy, not what’s important. In sport, copy-pasting best-practice templates treats players as instruments of content. Scripted experiences demand scripted responses, dulling both player and coach sensitivity to context. Creativity gets stripped from the relational fabric of the game.
Examples include:
Repeatedly drilling a single mythical “ideal” technique.
Rehearsing predetermined passing patterns or implementing a top- down prescribed game model on young players – the risk: players will learn a model of the game, rather than the game itself
Expecting players to reproduce identical movements regardless of context.
Implementing copy-paste templates from successful clubs or countries
The problem, however, is that football itself is not predictable. While reducing uncertainty may make coaching feel easier, it can – and this is crucial – also remove many of the challenges that drive learning.
Players become accustomed to rehearsed solutions rather than learning how to adapt to the constantly changing demands of the game. Indeed, in seeking control, coaches may unintentionally limit the very unpredictability that players need to experience in order to learn and develop.
A complex systems perspective
Players and teams should instead be understood as complex systems.
A complex system is made up of many interacting parts whose behaviour cannot be predicted simply by analysing each component in isolation. New behaviours and solutions emerge from the interactions themselves.
Youth players learn in exactly this way. Their development emerges through ongoing interactions with teammates, opponents, coaches, and the environment. They learn, adapt, and develop in ways we can’t fully predict.
As a result, learning cannot be fully prescribed or controlled. It is a relational and adaptive process between and individual and environment that unfolds over time.
I like to use a simple mantra that captures these ideas: Learning is not the process of repeating a solution; it is repeating the process of finding a solution.
An important point is that the process of finding a solution is not fixed as individuals develop and change; and so does their relationship with the environment.
What is skill, then?
If learning is repeating the process of finding a solution, skill is the emergent capacity to keep exploring and exploiting adaptable solutions as conditions (constraints) keep changing.
It’s not a stored answer. It’s not a something you memorised. Skill is an ongoing functional fit between an individual and an environment over time – shaped by the continuous interplay of constraints.
In coaching, those constraints are:
Task constraints: rules of the game, session intention/goals, time, space, equipment
Environmental constraints: weather, surface, culture of the club, socio cultural expectations (e.g., parents), facilities
As constraints are always shifting over micro (e.g., fatigue, motivation) and macro (growth and maturity, move from 5v5 to 7v7 to 9v9 to 11v11), timescales, skill as a phenomenon is not static or fixed. A fixed skill would mean a fixed set of constraints.
Because the constraints never hold still, the “fit” can’t either.
This sets the role of the coach as an environment designer, where learning can emerge, implying observation is a core perceptual skill for coaches to develop – something that needs to be highlighted in coach education courses.
But a coach can only guide that process if they’re skilled at observing. This requires practice and exploration.
If skill is a non-fixed phenomenon, an ongoing functional fit, then:
Observation comes first: noticing fatigue, space, body language, decision patterns, how constraints are interacting right now
Shaping: Once you can see what’s actually happening, you can tweak a rule, adjust the space, ask a question, give an instruction, deliberately coach one team and see if the other team are paying attention. Coaches need to also explore how they can nudge the system towards new potential solutions.
Make your practice meaningful for the young players
RIP the legendary Steve Barrow
References
Lillo. (2022, December 8). An alternative analysis of the world cup – by the man who helped shape Guardiola’s city. The Athletic. https://theathletic. com/3981374/2022/12/08/juanma-lillo-world-cup/
O’Sullivan, M. (2026). The learning in development framework for working with youth football (pp. 190–209). In J. Y. Chow, K. Davids, & D. Araújo (Eds.), Ecological dynamics approach to football (1st ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
O’Sullivan, M., Vaughan, J., &Woods, C. T. (2023). There is no copy and paste, but there is resonation and inhabitation: Integrating a contemporary player development framework in football from a complexity sciences perspective. Journal of Sport Sciences
Pol, R., Balagué, N., Ric, A., Torrents, C., Kiely, J., & Hristovski, R. (2020). Training or Synergizing? Complex Systems Principles Change the Understanding of Sport Processes. Sports Medicine – Open, 6(1), 28.
The intention with this post is to provide some practical insights into the key points raised in a previous blog.
Head movements are not measures of scanning or information extraction – they are only movement.
Gaze behaviour (e.g., eye tracking) does not directly measure attention or perception.
Scanning is a functional, goal-directed process that supports action and should be understood as an emergent property of the interaction between the player and the environment (including the socio-cultural context).
Coaches should not train scanning itself, but the conditions under which effective information pickup emerges. The aim is not to increase the quantity of scanning behaviours, but to improve the quality of perception–action coupling. When players are attuned to the ‘in’ game information, scanning becomes functional rather than forced.
The question shifts from “How do we get players to scan more?” to “What does the environment demand that makes searching for information necessary?”
Case Study European Academy – Guest Coach
Rather than instructing players to scan or make better decisions, design training in such a way that these behaviours become necessary and meaningful.
By designing tasks that require players to explore for opportunities for action (affordances) in the environment and adapt their actions accordingly, the coach creates the conditions in which effective perception (through scanning) can be developed.
1. I have never seen them play: Why would I have planned a session with a predetermined topic and coaching points, etc.? This would be prioritising the operational procedures of coaching (knowledge about) without careful consideration of the complex ecosystem I am in (developing my knowledge of).
2. Prepared rather than just planned: Guided by the Foundations for Task Design Model (Fig. 1), I had prepared some designs that I could use. These were more neutral (more open) tasks that simulated the constraints of the competitive performance environment with the intention of encouraging players to search, discover and exploit (more) possibilities for action affordances.
3. Observation is key: I started the session with an open 15-minute 8v8 game – developing my knowledge of the environment to inform how the session could develop and what we could amplify or dampen (co-design)
4. Key observation (a sociocultural constraint): When building up play (especially from the goalkeeper), it didn’t matter how the defending team pressed (numerically, high, mid). The team in possession used the same type of passing patterns with very little variation. The predetermined passing patterns (the type of knowledge about promoted in their training culture?) that dictated the players’ behaviour arguably limited how the players could develop their knowledge of (in) the game.
This limited their ability to scan their surroundings and perceive opportunities to exploit.
I wanted to help them break these patterns by using a simple task design to shape the players’ intentions (individually and collectively), and educate their attention to information in the game. In this case, juggling and balancing the intentions of playing “through”, “around” and “over” the defending/pressing team.
5. Set up two small-sided games (used a pedagogical tool). Introduce the concept of ‘skilled’ intentions (Fig. 2) (through, around and over) to help shape players individual and collective intentions to educate their attention to information in the game.
I gave specific instructions to one team (e.g., press high or low press) to see if the opponents are attuning to what is happening.
6. Growing the coaches’ knowledge of the environment (Another sociocultural constraint): Further observation showed that players rarely identified the opportunity to play “over” when it emerged. However, discussions with the players revealed the negative connotation (“long ball”) attached to the idea of playing the ball “over” the opponent.
To put a value on playing “over”, I took one team aside and asked them to focus on pressing high, especially when the goalkeeper was in possession. The task was – prioritise stopping opportunities for the opponent to play “through” them and limiting opportunities for them to play around. The other team was implicitly challenged to identify and disrupt this. As the session progressed, short team discussions were used to see how this could be achieved (e.g. asking the goalkeeper to vary his positioning (not just standing in front of the goal) to identify opportunities to play “over” the first pressure, also using target players behind the pressure).
The goalkeeper had problems playing the ball over the opponents with distance and precision. This was not surprising, as the training environment did not provide him with opportunities or invitations to perceive/scan in order to act on this information. He never trained this.
The intention of the training session was underpinned by the idea of juggling intentions to play through, around and over the opponent when in possession and prevent the opponent from doing the same when they are in possession. Task design and manipulation of constraints were developed by blending knowledge about and knowledge of the environment.
E.J. Gibson’shallmarks of human behaviour as a functional framework
The session design operationalised E.J. Gibson’s hallmarks of human behaviour that provided a broad, functional framework to support coach analyses of how perceptual learning supports adaptive, meaningful behaviour. Rather than instructing players to “scan” or “make better decisions,” the session design focused on creating conditions in which these behaviours became functionally necessary. This approach allowed the four hallmarks of perceptual-motor development to be analysed in observable ways during training.
Reflections
Given time, there are areas that could be explored further. For example, individual differences in how players respond to constraints may influence the extent to which learning occurs. Some players may adapt quickly, while others may continue to rely on familiar patterns. How these adaptive behaviors translate to competitive situations is an ongoing challenge.
By prioritising observation, manipulating constraints, and guiding players’ intentions, the coach can foster an environment in which perception and action are continually intertwined. Rather than instructing players to scan or make better decisions, the session is designed in such a way that these behaviors become necessary and meaningful.
Players, teams and clubs are complex systems, there are no fixed recipes. Functional tasks in one context may be dysfunctional in another, which is why, as I had never seen them play, I didn’t arrive with a predetermined plan and coaching points. As highlighted by PSG assistant coach Rafel Pol – our role is to understand the system’s properties and modulate constraints to synergize the team – developing unpredictable, adaptive behaviour rather than drilling prototypic patterns
References
Gibson, E. J., & Pick, A. D. (2000). Hallmarks of Human Behavior. In An Ecological Approach to Perceptual Learning and Development (pp. 159–176). Oxford University Press.
O’Sullivan, M. (2026). Where are we now? Creativity, agency, and essence in football. In L. J. T. Rasmussen & V. Richard (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of creativity in sport. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-13392-2 (Springer)
Pol, R., Balagué, N., Ric, A., Torrents, C., Kiely, J., & Hristovski, R. (2020). Training or Synergizing? Complex Systems Principles Change the Understanding of Sport Processes. Sports Medicine – Open, 6(1), 28.
Vaughan J, Mallett CJ, Potrac P, López-Felip MA and Davids K (2021) Football, Culture, Skill Development and Sport Coaching: Extending Ecological Approaches in Athlete Development Using the Skilled Intentionality Framework. Front. Psychol. 12:635420. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635420
Football in motion: Why performance arises in relationships, not in statistics
By Adam Průša: Head of video-analysis and individual player development Slavia Prague / first team analyst at Czech national team
In a recent article published in the Czech professional football magazine, Adam Průša provided his professional insights and reflections on implementing the ideas and concepts that Matias Manna, Keith Davids and I shared in a book chapter (summarised in this blog).
Book chapter: Re-framing performance analysis in sport science and psychology from an ecological dynamics perspective: Toward a corresponsive, relational, and culturally situated practice (O’Sullivan, Manna & Davids, 2025).
Below is a translation of Adams article.
Introduction
Traditional football analysis often looks at the game from above. It divides it into passes, sprints, distances, and success rates. Such a perspective undoubtedly has value – it enables comparison, categorisation, and control. At the same time, however, there is a risk that the most important thing remains hidden: How do players actually perceive, experience, and collectively create the game?
A broader perspective on football performance analysis is proposed. Instead of the question “what happened?” they emphasize “how and why did it happen exactly this way – in this situation, with these players, in this context?” Performance analysis thus gets closer to the game itself, not to its abstract representations.
Football as a living, adaptive system
From an ecological-dynamic perspective, football is not a set of isolated actions, but a constantly changing system of relationships. Performance emerges during the game as a result of:
mutual interactions between players,
opponent pressure,
spatial and temporal constraints,
cultural and historical habits,
emotions, intentions, and expectations.
The player here is not an “executor of instructions,” but an active perceiver who constantly tunes into information from their surroundings.
Affordance: Opportunities offered by the game
A key concept of ecological psychology is “affordances”- opportunities for action that emerge in the specific relationship between a player and the environment. The same gap or space can “offer/invite” to:
one player a dribble,
another a pass,
and to another a slowdown of the game.
Affordances are not simply objective properties of the pitch, but relational possibilities dependent on:
the player’s abilities,
their role,
current intention,
game and cultural context.
Players thus do not perceive the game as a map of positions, but as a landscape of possibilities that is constantly changing.
Ways of knowing: “About the game” and “In the game”
The authors distinguish two ways of knowing that are fundamental to performance analysis:
Knowledge about the environment (knowledge about), second hand, arising externally, for example:
statistics,
models,
tactical diagrams.
Knowledge of the environment (knowledge of), grown directly in action, is:
embodied,
situational,
time-sensitive,
guides the player in real time.
While traditional analysis primarily produces the first type of knowledge (about), player performance itself is based mainly on the second. Overloading players with instructions and information “about the game” can paradoxically weaken their ability to read the game from within.
Perception, intention, and decision-making
Decision-making in football cannot be separated from perception and intention. A player does not act because they “see an objective situation,” but because:
they intend something (to score, delay the game, get past an opponent).
they perceive certain affordances as relevant,
acts in accordance with their own action capabilities and experience.
Analysis that ignores a player’s intention remains superficial. The ecological approach therefore asks:
What “opened up” for the player at that moment?
What possibilities did they perceive?
How did their intention shape what they saw and what they overlooked?
Shared affordances and team cohesion
Football is not an individual activity. Affordances are also shared – they arise between players and enable coordinated action. Pressing is not the sum of individual runs, but a collectively perceived opportunity to “close down” the opponent.
Combination play arises because:
players read-perceive each other,
they may react to subtle signals (body orientation, tempo, timing).
The analyst’s task then becomes tracking:
how well players are attuned to each other,
how team synergies emerge,
how collective action self-organises.
The new role of the analyst: From observer to participant in the game itself
The fundamental change concerns the role of the analyst itself. The authors propose a shift from:
external evaluator to “linking coach”.
That is, an analyst who:
is part of the system,
connects coaches and players,
helps create shared understanding of the game,
uses video and data as a prompt for dialogue, not as a final verdict.
Feedback changes:
from prescription (“next time do X”),
to shared reflection (“what did you perceive? what was offered?”).
Analysis as shared learning
Ecologically oriented analysis:
does not look only for errors,
does not strive only for data optimisation,
but supports players’ sensitivity to information in the game.
The result is not “more knowledge,” but deeper understanding – of oneself, teammates, and the game itself.
Conclusion
The article calls for a fundamental reassessment of what we consider knowledge in football and what role performance analysis should play. Football here is not understood as a machine that can be taken apart and reassembled, but as a living, culturally embedded process in which performance arises in the constant relationship between players and the environment.
In this conception, the analyst does not stand outside the game, but enters into it – as a co-participant in the process of learning, dialogue, and shared tuning into what the game offers at a given moment.
Source: O’Sullivan, M., Manna, M., & Davids, K. (2025). Re-framing performance analysis in sport science and psychology from an ecological dynamics perspective: Toward a corresponsive, relational, and culturally situated practice. In Handbook of Sport Psychology and Performance Analysis (pp. 1–11). Springer Nature. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-70581-6_553-1.
In recognition of Joy Division/ New Order’s long overdue induction into the rock and roll hall of fame:
You’ll see your problems multiplied, if you continually decide, to faithfully pursue, the policy of truth(Depeche Mode, 1990)
Sport can contribute to reducing youth crime, but only as part of a broader, well-designed, and evidence-based strategy. Preventive value is not in “participation rates” alone, but in the lived nuanced realities of coaching environments. This is where investment must focus – out in the real conditions shaping learning, participation and performance – where prevention can be enacted in practice.
It is election year in Sweden and some interest groups are driving a debate regarding how youth sport can contribute significantly to crime prevention. Current discussions (like in other countries) tend to promote a system-level expansion of sport through funding and influence, assuming that it will automatically translate into better youth outcomes. Structural investment in sport is assumed to be the mechanism of prevention.
This reflects a normative (based on beliefs about what is right or should happen)and advocacy-driven perspective rather than a fully evidence-based one. As such, we see tendencies of promoting a causal link between sport participation and crime reduction without critically engaging with limitations in what is presented as evidence. Indeed, advocacy can oversimplify reality and lead to the promotion of policies that look good at a system level but don’t work as intended in practice. This highlights a gap between policy enthusiasm and empirical evidence.
Are we overstating sport as a solution and in turn oversimplify complex causes of crime while overestimating sport’s independent impact?
Not a standalone solution
Sport is not a standalone solution. While it is recognised that sport is a useful developmental tool for engaging young people, positive outcomes depend less on sport itself and more on how programmes are delivered, particularly the quality of relationships, leadership, and life skills integration.
Research highlighted by the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform & Criminal Justice Policy (ICCLR) stresses that sport works best as part of broader interventions (e.g. education, mentoring, social services) and should not be expected to address the complex root causes of crime on its own. Further, many programmes lack rigorous evaluation, have unclear objectives, and show limited direct evidence of reducing crime, despite their popularity.
Findings from Loughborough University emphasise that measuring the impact of sport-based programmes is challenging. Sport can help to reduce youth crime but the evidence around what works is problematic. Traditional evaluation methods used by funders and organisers – such as attendance at sessions, qualifications achieved – often fail to match the goals and expectations of young people. Elements such as quality of sessions, enjoyment, relationships, and personal growth are often sidelined.
Also, it was argued that policymakers should let go of their desire for the production of particular types of evidence, particularly narrowly defined, measurable “outcomes” based on the idea that ”the numbers speak for themselves”. This emphasis on what is clear, quantifiable, and easily marketable creates a blind spot, reducing complex experiences to simplified cause-effect relationships.
As a result, these adult-centric approaches overlook the complex lived realities of young people, while surveys focused on predefined metrics often fail to capture what matters most to them, ultimately excluding their voices from the evidence base.
Competing ideas and a policy of truth
This tension can be understood as a clash between two competing ideas of “truth” in policy. On one hand a policy of truth – the way policy produces and governs what counts as truth. In this framing, certain forms of knowledge, evidence, and measurement are privileged and stabilised as legitimate, while others are marginalised, allowing particular narratives to become dominant and self-reinforcing. For example, a macro-level, programmatic logic that assumes a linear chain: increased investment leads to greater participation, which in turn reduces exclusion and ultimately lowers crime rates. This reflects a dominant policy of truth grounded in administrative legibility.
On the other hand, a micro-pedagogical perspective shifts attention to the environments where prevention is enacted in practice. It emphasises the coach–athlete relationship, day-to-day interactions, and the processes through which trust, belonging, and identity are developed. From this viewpoint, outcomes are non-linear, context-dependent, and embedded in lived experience. Crucially, the mechanisms that matter most, such as trust and social connection, are difficult to quantify, meaning that they sit uneasily within dominant regimes of administrative evidence.
This divide also highlights the risk of administrative capture, where funding flows into systems, reporting structures, classification models, and programme expansion rather than strengthening the coaching environments where meaningful impact occurs. Structural investment is not inherently ineffective, but its success depends on whether it supports, rather than burdens, the micro-level contexts in which young people engage
Therefore, the central question is not simply whether sport reduces crime, but what kinds of coaching environments foster trust, belonging, and behavioural change, and under what conditions. Effective sport-based programmes depend on intentional design, strong relationships, and local relevance. They must be tailored to the needs of different groups, supported by community engagement, and evaluated using approaches that capture both measurable outcomes and lived experiences.
Summary
If sport is to play a meaningful role in preventing youth crime, the focus must shift from participation and programme expansion to improving the quality of what is delivered. Current policy approaches tend to operate at a macro level, assuming that scaling participation will automatically produce preventative outcomes. However, effectiveness is far more contingent, shaped by micro-level conditions that are difficult to standardise or measure.
Preventive value lies not in participation rates alone, but in the quality of coaching environments, where trust, belonging, and behavioural change are actually developed. Investment should therefore prioritise these environments, supporting coaches as mentors, designing interventions that reflect the diverse realities of young people, and embedding sport within wider systems such as education, youth services, and social support.
This also requires more meaningful approaches to evaluation, ones that capture lived experiences rather than relying solely on simplified, outcome-driven metrics. Without such a shift, there is a real risk that funding will continue to flow into administrative structures and short-term targets, obscuring the very mechanisms through which sport can contribute to crime prevention and diverting resources away from the relationships and environments where genuine impact occurs.
Thinking ahead
A productive way forward is to treat youth sport not as a scalable solution in itself, but as a context-dependent tool whose impact depends on high-quality relationships and broader social support systems. This requires rethinking what sport sessions are, who delivers them, and how they connect to wider systems. Rather than ends in themselves, training sessions and clubs/organisations should be understood as relational contexts where life skills, values, and behavioural competencies are intentionally cultivated.
In practice, this involves equipping coaches with competencies beyond technical instruction, including communication, conflict resolution, and contextual awareness. As mentors, coaches can build trust, identify disengagement, and provide support. The priority therefore shifts from increasing coach numbers to improving the quality of coaching environments, with greater investment in coach educators.
A key step is to reconceptualise the coach educator as a facilitator of context-sensitive pedagogy rather than a transmitter of knowledge. This shifts the focus from delivering content to supporting coaches in interpreting, adapting, and applying knowledge in diverse and complex settings. This perspective reinforces coaching as an inherently relational, pedagogic and educational endeavour where learning emerges through interaction, trust, and environment as much as programme design. Accordingly, coach educators enable coaches to create meaningful learning environments in which life skills, values, and positive identities are deliberately fostered.
Investing in this relational dimension is where the true preventive potential of youth sport lies, recognising that sustainable impact depends on engaging with the complexities shaping young people’s lives. Without such a shift, there is a risk that policy will continue to prioritise scale and visibility over substance, directing resources toward administrative targets rather than the relationships and environments where meaningful and lasting impact is actually grown.
Santos, F., Lascu, A., O’Sullivan, M., & Woods, C. T. (2026). Beyond the Box: Toward an Ethic of Response-Ability in Coaching Science. Quest, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2026.2616260
Skanning – perception: och varför du kanske inte coachar den
“We must perceive in order to move, but we must also move in order to perceive” (Gibson, 1979).
”Skanna mer” har blivit en vanlig instruktion inom coachning. Spelare uppmanas att titta över axeln, röra på huvudet och öka skanningsfrekvensen. Implicit i detta ligger antagandet att skanning är ett synligt, träningsbart beteende som kan förbättras genom direkta instruktioner. Detta antagande är dock problematiskt.
Många kommersiella verktyg (t.ex. blinkande ljus, eye-tracking-glasögon) samt privata företag och utbildare påstår sig mäta eller till och med ”träna” skanning genom huvudrörelser, blickriktning (gaze behaviour) eller liknande. Även om dessa metoder är tilltalande förenklar de ofta komplexa perceptuella processer. De uppmuntrar till fokus på observerbart beteende snarare än funktionell perception, vilket kan vilseleda coacher att behandla skanning som en färdighet i att vända huvudet eller fixera blicken, snarare än som ett framväxande fenomen i interaktionen med en rik, informationsladdad miljö. Resultatet blir ofta att man tränar skanningens utseende, inte förmågan att upptäcka information som kan användas för handling.
Huvudrörelser, blickbeteende och skanning
Skanning antas vanligtvis återspegla hur spelare omfördelar uppmärksamhet för att informera handlingar. I praktiken operationaliseras det dock ofta som frekvensen av huvudrörelser. Detta skapar en obalans: uppmärksamhetsorientering mot relevant information reduceras till ett antal observerbara rörelser.
Denna distinktion är viktig. Huvudrörelser, blickbeteende och skanning är inte synonymer. Blickbeteende hänvisar till riktningen av det centrala synfältet och kan mätas med eye tracking, vilket indikerar var och när en individ fixerar blicken. Ändå avslöjar fixering inte vad som faktiskt uppfattas eller används. Det perifera synfältet, som är mycket känsligt för rörelse (t.ex. överlappande lagkamrater eller press från en motståndare), spelar en avgörande roll i dynamiska miljöer men fångas inte upp av sådana mått. Att titta bör därför inte blandas ihop med att se.
Huvudrörelser är lätta att fånga via video men ger bara indirekt insikt i perceptionen. Ögonen kan röra sig oberoende av huvudet, och uppmärksamheten kan skifta utan synlig rörelse. Dessutom är perception multimodal och involverar visuell, auditiv och haptisk information. Uppmärksamhetsfokus kan därför inte tillförlitligt härledas enbart från huvudrörelser. I många fall återspeglar förlitandet på dessa mått metodologisk bekvämlighet snarare än validitet.
En utforskande process
Dessa begränsningar tyder på att skanning inte bör behandlas som ett diskret, observerbart beteende. Snarare än att vara knutet till huvud- eller ögonrörelser förstås det bättre som en förkroppsligad och inbäddad utforskande process, genom vilken spelare söker information som specificerar möjligheter till handling (affordanser) i en dynamisk miljö.
Denna omformulering har viktiga implikationer. Mätvärden som huvudvridningsfrekvens bör inte tolkas som direkta indikatorer på skanningsförmåga. Mer rörelse betyder inte nödvändigtvis bättre uppfattning, och fixering garanterar inte heller meningsfull informationsupptagning.
Huvudrörelser är inte mått på skanning eller informationsutvinning – bara rörelser
Blickbeteende mäter inte direkt uppmärksamhet eller perception
Skanning är en funktionell, målinriktad process som stödjer handling
Snarare än att fråga hur man kan öka skanningsfrekvensen är den mer meningsfulla frågan: hur kan miljöer utformas så att spelare måste söka efter, upptäcka och använda relevant information? Ur detta perspektiv tränas inte skanning isolerat utan uppstår genom att engagera sig i representativa, informationsrika sammanhang.
Praktiskt exempel från professionell fotboll
En användbar illustration kommer från FC Barcelona år 1992. När Ronald Koeman har bollen kan Hristo Stoichkov initiera en löpning bakom (eller bort från) försvaret. Denna rörelse är inte slumpmässig; den är grundad i relationen mellan spelarna, särskilt Koemans passningsförmåga. Eftersom Koeman kan leverera långa passningar med precision kan Stoichkov förvänta sig att hans löpning uppfattas och utnyttjas. Passningsmöjligheten är en affordans som formas av Koemans aktionsförmåga.
Om bollinnehavet flyttas till en försvarare utan denna förmåga är det mycket mindre sannolikt att Stoichkov gör samma löpning. Affordansen existerar inte längre på samma sätt. Det handlar inte bara om att spelaren ”inte ser” löpningen, utan om att relationen mellan uppfattning och handling har förändrats. Stoichkovs beteende är anpassat till hans lagkamraters handlingsförmåga.
Detta belyser en kritisk punkt: perception formas av relationen mellan information och aktionsförmåga. Vad en spelare ”ser” begränsas av vad de själva och andra kan göra. Lagkamrater kalibrerar i sin tur sitt beteende därefter.
Viktigt är att dessa aktionsmöjligheter också formas av bredare sociokulturella sammanhang. Normer, värderingar och övertygelser påverkar hur spelare och tränare uppfattar, agerar och tolkar spelet – ofta omedvetet som något ”naturligt”.
”Lärande är oskiljaktigt från att göra, och att göra är oskiljaktigt från kontext” (Ingold, 2000).
Skanning är därför inte passiv observation utan ett aktivt sökande efter information som specificerar handlingsmöjligheter. Denna process styrs av uppgiftskrav, individuella förmågor och kulturellt formade förväntningar på vilken information som är viktig eller värdefull.
Sammanfattning: mot ett mer integrerat representativt tillvägagångssätt
Skanning kan inte reduceras till huvudvridningar eller gaze behaviour. Det återspeglar hur spelare fördelar uppmärksamhet för att fånga upp information som är relevant för handling. Medan huvudrörelser och blick är observerbara, är uppmärksamhet och informationsupptagning inte det, vilket innebär att skanning inte kan tränas direkt som en teknisk färdighet.
Det som ofta tränas i stället är utseendet på skanning – fler huvudvridningar, fler blickar bort från bollen. Dessa beteenden garanterar inte användbar perception. En spelare kan titta utan att se, precis som hen kan uppfatta viktig information utan att titta direkt på den. Att öka rörelsefrekvensen förbättrar inte nödvändigtvis kvaliteten på perceptionen.
Skanning bör förstås som en framväxande egenskap i interaktionen mellan spelaren och omgivningen (inklusive den sociokulturella kontexten). Den uppstår när en spelare behöver söka efter information för att vägleda handling. I denna mening är skanning inte något som läggs till prestationen, utan något som uppstår genom att engagera sig i en uppgift där informationen är osäker, distribuerad och meningsfull.
För coachning flyttar detta fokus helt. Om skanning inte kan instrueras direkt, vad är då coachens roll? Svaret ligger i uppgiftsdesign. Snarare än att säga till spelare att skanna mer bör coacher skapa miljöer där spelarna behöver söka efter information för att lyckas. Detta innebär att utforma uppgifter där relevant information inte alltid är direkt tillgänglig, vilket uppmuntrar till utforskning (Mer information här)
I denna mening bör coacher inte träna skanning i sig, utan de förhållanden under vilka effektiv informationsinhämtning uppstår. Målet är inte att öka mängden skanningsbeteenden, utan att förbättra kvaliteten i kopplingen mellan perception och handling. När spelare är inställda på informationen i spelet blir skanning funktionell snarare än påtvingad.
I slutändan flyttas frågan från: ”Hur får vi spelare att skanna mer?” till: ”Vad i omgivningen gör det nödvändigt att söka efter information?”
Skanning är inte en färdighet som ska läggas till, utan ett fenomen som uppstår när spelare är inbäddade i rika, representativa prestationskontexter.
References
Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2009). Ecological approaches to cognition and action in sport and exercise: Ask not only what you do, but where you do it. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40(1), 5–37.
Araújo, D., Lopes, H., Farrokh, D., & Davids, K. (2025). The ecological dynamics of cognizant action in sport. Psychology of sport and exercise, 80, 102935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102935
Bespomoshchnov, V.A., O’Sullivan, M., Woods, C.T., Jordet, G. (in review, 2026). What scanning is not: moving toward conceptual clarity, methodological approaches and practical implications ffrom an ecological approach
Fajen, B.R., Riley, M.A., & Turvey, M.T. (2009). Information, affordances, and the control of action in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40, 79-107.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge.
Lowe, S. (2011). The brain in Spain. The Blizzard – The Football Quarterly, (1), 63–66.
O’Sullivan, M. (2023). Learning in development research framework for athlete development and sports science support. Doctoral, Sheffield Hallam University. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/32917/
O’Sullivan, M., Manna, M., Davids, K. (2026). Re-Framing Performance Analysis in Sport Science and Psychology from an Ecological Dynamics Perspective: Toward a Corresponsive, Relational, and Culturally Situated Practice. In: Teo, T. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70581-6_553-1
Roca, A., Ford, P. R., McRobert, A. P., & Williams, A. M. (2013). Perceptual-cognitive skills and their interaction as a function of task constraints in soccer. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 35(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.2.144
Roca, A., Ford, P. R., McRobert, A. P., & Williams, A. M. (2011). Identifying the processes underpinning anticipation and decision-making in a dynamic time-constrained task. Cognitive Processing, 12(3), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-011-0392-1
“Scan more” has become a common instruction in coaching. Players are told to check their shoulders, move their heads, and increase scan frequency. Implicit in this is the assumption that scanning is a visible, trainable behaviour that can be improved through direct instruction. This assumption, however, is problematic.
Many commercial tools (e.g., flashing lights, eye-tracking glasses) and private enterprises claim to measure or even “train” scanning through head movements, gaze direction, or similar proxies. While appealing, these approaches often oversimplify complex perceptual processes. They encourage a focus on observable behaviour rather than functional perception, misleading coaches into treating scanning as a skill of head turns or gaze fixations rather than an emergent property of interacting with a rich, information-laden environment. The result is often the training of the appearance of scanning, not the ability to detect actionable information.
Head movements, gaze behaviour, and scanning
Scanning is typically assumed to reflect how players redistribute attention to inform action. In practice, however, it is often operationalised as the frequency of head movements. This creates a mismatch: attentional orientation toward relevant information is reduced to a count of observable movement.
This distinction matters. Head movements, gaze behaviour, and scanning are not synonymous. Gaze behaviour refers to the direction of central vision and can be measured with eye tracking, indicating where and when an individual fixates. Yet fixation does not reveal what is actually perceived or used. Peripheral vision, which is highly sensitive to motion (overlapping teammate, pressure from an opponent), plays a critical role in dynamic environments but is not captured by such measures. Looking, therefore, should not be conflated with seeing.
Head movements are easy to capture via video but offer only indirect insight into perception. The eyes can move independently of the head, and attention can shift without visible movement. Moreover, perception is multimodal, involving visual, auditory, and haptic information. As such, attentional focus cannot be reliably inferred from head movement alone. In many cases, reliance on these measures reflects methodological convenience rather than validity.
An exploratory process
These limitations suggest that scanning should not be treated as a discrete, observable behaviour. Rather than being tied to head or eye movements, it is better understood as an embodied, embedded exploratory process through which performers seek information that specifies opportunities for action (affordances) in a dynamic environment.
This reframing has important implications. Metrics such as head-turn frequency should not be interpreted as direct indicators of scanning ability. More movement does not necessarily mean better perception, nor does fixation guarantee meaningful information pickup. While research and commercial tools describe where and when gaze is directed, they provide limited insight into what information is actually used and how it informs behaviour.
Head movements are not measures of scanning or information extraction – only movement.
Gaze behaviour does not directly measure attention or perception.
Scanning is a functional, goal-directed process that supports action.
For practitioners, this shifts the focus. Rather than asking how to increase scanning frequency, the more meaningful question is: how can environments be designed so players must search for, detect, and use relevant information? From this perspective, scanning is not trained in isolation but emerges from engaging with representative, information-rich contexts.
Practical example from professional football
A useful illustration comes from FC Barcelona in 1992. When Ronald Koeman is in possession, Hristo Stoichkov may initiate a run in behind the defence. This movement is not random; it is grounded in the relationship between players, specifically Koeman’s passing capability. Because Koeman can accurately deliver long passes, Stoichkov can expect his run to be perceived and acted upon. The passing opportunity is an affordance shaped by Koeman’s capabilities.
If possession shifts to a defender without this range, Stoichkov is far less likely to make the same run. The affordance no longer exists in the same way. It is not simply that the player “doesn’t see” the run, but that the perception-action relationship has changed. Stoichkov’s behaviour is attuned to his teammate’s action capabilities.
This highlights a critical point: perception is shaped by the relationship between information and action capabilities. What a player “sees” is constrained by what they and others can do. Teammates, in turn, calibrate their behaviour accordingly.
Importantly, these action possibilities are also shaped by broader socio-cultural contexts. Norms, values, and beliefs influence how players and coaches perceive, act, and interpret the game – often unnoticed as simply “the way things are.”
“Learning is inseparable from doing, and doing is inseparable from place” (Ingold, 2000).
Scanning, therefore, is not passive observation but an active search for information specifying actionable possibilities. This process is guided by task demands, individual capabilities, and culturally shaped expectations about what information matters.
Summary: towards a more integrated representative approach
Scanning is not reducible to head turns or gaze shifts. It reflects how performers distribute attention to pick up information relevant for action. While head movements and gaze are observable, attention and information pickup are not, meaning scanning cannot be coached directly like a technical skill.
What is often trained instead is the appearance of scanning – more head turns, more frequent looks away from the ball. These behaviours do not guarantee useful perception. A player can look without seeing, just as they can perceive important information without directly looking at it. Increasing the frequency of movement does not necessarily improve the quality of perception.
Scanning should be understood as an emergent property of the interaction between the player and the environment (including the socio-cultural context). It arises when a player needs to search for information to guide action. In this sense, scanning is not something that is added to performance, but something that emerges from engaging in a task where information is uncertain, distributed, and meaningful.
For coaching, this shifts the focus entirely. If scanning cannot be directly instructed, then what is the role of the coach? The answer lies in task design. Rather than telling players to scan more, coaches should create environments where players need to search for information in order to succeed. This involves involves designing tasks where relevant information is not always directly available, encouraging exploration (see here for some insights on designing tasks).
In this sense, coaches should not train scanning itself, but the conditions under which effective information pickup emerges. The aim is not to increase the quantity of scanning behaviours, but to improve the quality of perception–action coupling. When players are attuned to the ‘in’ game information, scanning becomes functional rather than forced.
Ultimately, the question shifts from “How do we get players to scan more?” to “What does the environment demand that makes searching for information necessary?” Scanning is not a skill to be added, but a phenomenon that emerges when players are embedded in rich, representative performance contexts.
References
Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2009). Ecological approaches to cognition and action in sport and exercise: Ask not only what you do, but where you do it. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40(1), 5–37.
Araújo, D., Lopes, H., Farrokh, D., & Davids, K. (2025). The ecological dynamics of cognizant action in sport. Psychology of sport and exercise, 80, 102935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102935
Bespomoshchnov, V.A., O’Sullivan, M., Woods, C.T., Jordet, G. (in review, 2026). What scanning is not: moving toward conceptual clarity, methodological approaches and practical implications ffrom an ecological approach
Fajen, B.R., Riley, M.A., & Turvey, M.T. (2009). Information, affordances, and the control of action in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40, 79-107.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge.
Lowe, S. (2011). The brain in Spain. The Blizzard – The Football Quarterly, (1), 63–66.
O’Sullivan, M. (2023). Learning in development research framework for athlete development and sports science support. Doctoral, Sheffield Hallam University. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/32917/
O’Sullivan, M., Manna, M., Davids, K. (2026). Re-Framing Performance Analysis in Sport Science and Psychology from an Ecological Dynamics Perspective: Toward a Corresponsive, Relational, and Culturally Situated Practice. In: Teo, T. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70581-6_553-1
Roca, A., Ford, P. R., McRobert, A. P., & Williams, A. M. (2013). Perceptual-cognitive skills and their interaction as a function of task constraints in soccer. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 35(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.2.144
Roca, A., Ford, P. R., McRobert, A. P., & Williams, A. M. (2011). Identifying the processes underpinning anticipation and decision-making in a dynamic time-constrained task. Cognitive Processing, 12(3), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-011-0392-1
Youth football development increasingly appears professional, evidence-based, and optimised, yet this image conceals a deeper epistemic crisis – a growing crisis in how knowledge is understood, valued, and used. Drawing on “Where Are We Now?- The Illusion of Professionalism,” (1) this short article conceptualises the neoliberal “price of double ignorance” as a structural effect of market-driven sport governance (2).
The first dimension of this ignorance arises from the privileging of standardisation, scalability, and measurable outputs (e.g., early selection strategies, isolated performance metrics, skill apps, copy-paste ‘best practice’ templates and branded pathways), because these are legible within a market framework. Such measures create the illusion of professionalism and progress, while obscuring the deeper ever-changing realities of player development such as cultural context, informal learning, non-linearity of learning, late/early maturation, pedagogical practices, and individual (and collective) agency .
In brief, knowledge that cannot be easily measured or commodified is marginalised. not because it lacks value, but because it lacks market value. As a result, systems become blind to the very factors that most strongly shape long-term player development. We can ask what is being optimised, for whom, and at what cost?
The second layer of ignorance is more subtle, and more damaging. The system fails to recognise its own role in creating these blind spots. When players drop out, pathways collapse, or diversity of development narrows, responsibility is individualised -framed as issues of talent deficits, resilience or attitude, rather than recognised as structural effects of a market-driven model. The system does not merely fail to see alternatives; it fails to recognise that its way of seeing is itself partial and constructed.
This is the essence of double ignorance:
ignorance of complexity (ignorance of what matters most – the contextual contingencies and layered complexities of the learning environment)
ignorance of the mechanisms that remove that complexity from view (ignorance of how the system produces that ignorance).
Together, these dynamics sustain an illusion of professionalism. Institutions appear modern, reflective, and progressive, while quietly reproducing the same limitations. Professionalism becomes something that is performed, aligning with the language of mythical “best practice”, rather than a genuinely critical engagement with learning, uncertainty, and context. In this sense, ignorance is managed, stabilised, optimized, and converted into operational efficiency.
Systems don’t rise to the level of their goals; they fall to the level of their design.
The price of this double ignorance is not abstract. It is paid by players whose developmental trajectories are prematurely closed, by coaches constrained to deliver compliance rather than curiosity. These systems mistake survivorship for success, and those who make it through are held as proof that the system works. More fundamentally, the price is paid through the erosion of epistemic humility – the loss of the capacity to recognise development as uncertain, relational, and irreducible to systems of control or commodification.
To challenge the illusion of professionalism, then, is to confront a system that grows increasingly confident while understanding less and less about what truly matters. Recentring agency, pedagogy, and context is not a philosophical luxury. It is a necessary intervention if youth football development is to move beyond appearances, away from the continuous ‘creep’ of the premature professional performance model with its underlying ideologies (3), and towards genuine learning and long-term growth.
Santos, F., Lascu, A., O’Sullivan, M., & Woods, C. T. (in press, 2026). Beyond the box: Toward an ethic of response-ability in coaching science. Quest.
Matthews, C. R., Barker-Ruchti, N., Coates, E., Lang, M., & Hardwicke, J. (2024). Children’s rights, human development and play – rejecting performance-orientated youth sport. Sport, Education and Society, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2024.2385556
Ecological Football- not just to know more but to know better
Young players should be active agents in their learning, not just passive executors of pre-defined responses or mere receivers of knowledge. Agency is the fundamental qualities or characteristics that make human beings capable of acting intentionally and meaningfully in the world. In football, this does not imply that young players are free to do what they want, that there should be no limits to their endeavours, rather they can become the protagonist of their own learning process (1).
Traditional football coaching has typically followed a coach-led, reproductive model focused on highly structured teaching, demonstrating techniques, providing extensive verbal corrective feedback, and conditioning players to replicate ideal movement patterns (2). This is generally based on behaviorist theories (neglecting the athletes agency in the learning process) and Information Processing theory (a bias towards the “internal mechanics” of the athlete – playing down the role of the environment), which has shaped traditional “drill/skill” approaches (3). These practices reflect dualistic assumptions that separate perception from action, the individual from the environment, and mind from body, and have been highlighted within coach education and mainstream sport psychology. For example, how decision and action are seen as separate, distinct entities that follow linear, sequential processes (4).
These prescriptive approaches risk the promotion of conformity and compliance at the expense of the development of player agency, limiting the opportunity for young players to explore and develop their perceptual, cognitive and motor abilities (5, 6).
As an example, Argentinian World Cup-winning coach Lionel Scaloni recently lamented that we are “losing the essence of football at both the professional and children’s level” (7). Referring to his own children who play football in Spain, he explains how they are “are overwhelmed with information. They receive the ball and are already being told what to do.”
The ‘essence’ that Scaloni is referring to is agency. Even though his children are “overwhelmed with information”, it is a narrow focus of knowledge. What the coach guides these young players’ attention toward is underpinned by the how – which, in this case, involves continuous prescribed instructions – and the why, which is to limit unpredictability. Overwhelming them with knowledge aboutthe game (secondhand knowledge)- the coach is limiting opportunities for the young players to grow their knowledge of(in game- the direct experience of perceiving opportunties or affordances for action) (4, 8, 9).
It has also been evidenced how the Game Model concept has been implemented in youth football as a way of limiting unpredictability (through over-use of knowledge about), amplifying player compliance,rather than adaptive, real-time engagement with the dynamic play (knowledge of) (4). The risk is that players learn a model of the game, not the game itself.
In summary, football coaching has traditionally been grounded in assumptions of cause-effect proportionality and the idea of step-by-step learning, which have significantly influenced how learning has been (mis)understood (4, 6).
Towards a player “learning in development” approach
These linear approaches have been criticised for overlooking the non-linear, individual, and dynamic nature of learning and how we humans are capable of adjusting our actions in flexible, context-sensitive ways to meet our needs and goals (11). In recent years, contemporary approaches such as those grounded in ecological dynamics, as highlighted by Mjällby AIF coach Karl Marius Askum in a recent Norwegian podcast (12) have gained attention.
Starting with the question- is learning linear or nonlinear? – Karl highlights the benefits of adopting an ecological dynamics rational in football. Here it is emphasised that there are many ways to solve a problem as every situation and each individual is unique, implying that skill development emerges from the complex and dynamic interactions of an individuals’ continuous adaption to surrounding constraints (13).
Figure 1 Adopted from Newell’s model of constraints (1986), conceptualising constraints that shape and guide learning (from O’Sullivan et al., 2021).
Constraints were first categorised by Newell in 1986 (14) (see Figure 1) as:
Individual (e.g., height, speed, cognition, emotions and motivation,)
Task (e.g., specific to the activity to be performed such as rules, boundary markings and information present in the learning environment design)
These three classes interact and evolve over varying timescales. A change (e.g., pubescent growth spurt) in one category (individual constraints) may lead to a change in emergent movement behaviors (sense of balance, co-ordination and timing), resulting in changes in the way an individual interacts with the environment (ball, teammates, opponents, surface), highlighting the nonlinearity of the learner and the learning process. From this perspective, skill learning and performance can be understood as an ongoing ‘functional fit’ between an individual and an environment over time.
This shift in perspective offers a broader, holistic, and contextualised understanding, repositioning players as active agents in their learning. From this perspective, skill is the ability to adaptivly attune to the opportunities for action (affordances) that the environment provides (4, 8, 9). These opportunities or affordances for action are relational, emerging from the interaction between an individual’s action capabilities and environmental properties. For example, a gap directly perceived on field may afford dribbling for one player but passing for another due to their differing action capabilities. Skill learning for a footballer is about learning to become attuned to information that specifies opportunities for action that are matched to their action capabilities.
All coaching is constraints-based, but…..
Regardless of the approach, coaches and players operate within a system of constraints that shape learning and performance.The key difference lies in how those constraints are manipulated. Traditionally coaches have tended to preplan coaching points and interventions, and then look for their coaching points in practice. Is this really coaching? Another example would be the promotion of ‘universal’ constraints in task designs (e.g., the overlapping player must receive the ball, play with two touches). This way of over-constraining practice can strip away the variability, unpredictability and realism needed for true skill transfer, leading to the emergence of new behaviours or team play that is not representative of the performance environment (15).
In contrast, and acting as a guiding theoretical framework, ecological dynamics supports a holistic understanding of skill learning, development, and performance, laying the foundation for what has become known as the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA).The CLA underpins a coaching framework/methodology where the coach acts as a facilitator and by manipulating constraints provides practice conditions high in specificity to encourage problem-solving and skill development through exploration and adaption. To implement a CLA in practice we can turn to the principles of a non-linear pedagogy (11).
What is football?
Football is a complex, dynamic and unpredictable environment. So how is this mirrored in your practice?
Key principles of a non-linear pedagogy as summarised in the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences coach education course can support this:
Representative Learning Design:We can only act meaningfully if we have information that is meaningful. Information offered to the athletes should be similar to the information offered in competition.
Repetition without Repetition:Captures the role that variability. Learning is not the process of repeating a solution, it is repeating the process of finding a solution.
Constraints Manipulation:Keep the movement similar to the movement in the game- keep the movements driven by information. Keep the skill whole, even scaling it down (reducing the size, spacing, equipment).
Capturing the main principles of a nonlinear pedagogy to design football specific tasks
It is important to consider that players never perform movements separated from a performance environment; their actions are continuously shaped by perceptual information, such as the locations and movements of teammates and opponents. The Foundations for Task Design Model (Fig 2) (15) supported by the relational concept of shaping skilled intentions (Fig 3) (16), may support coaches in applying the principles of a nonlinear pedagogy to design football specific tasks.
Figure 2 Ball-opponent(s)-direction are key aspects of task design that shape the players intentions and attention. The idea of consequence (e.g., if we lose the ball and do not win it back, the opponents may score), highlights the continuity and co-adaption of attack and defense. Key information in task design is representative of the game
Figure 3 An illustration of the constitutive and nested relation of skilled intentions to play through, around and over the opposition in football
How can we support opportunities for young players to grow their knowledge ofthe environment (in the game), while dampening a reliance on over prescription of tactical knowledge about the game?
Based on key ideas of a CLA and its pedagogic concepts the user-friendly learning in development framework (Figure 4) (15) can help.
Figure 4 The three phases of the Player learning IN development framework
Phase One defines the coach’s role as a co-designer of training sessions that enhance players’ knowledge of the game. Co-design involves recognising players’ current action capabilities and adapting sessions -potentially with player input -to align with their intentions, based on real-time observations. The Foundations for Task Design Model can serve as the coach’s compass, guiding the planning and manipulation of task constraints, while Shaping Skilled Intentions acts as the players’ compass. The coach’s key responsibility is to create adaptable, information-rich environments that foster exploration, adaptability, and decision-making.
Phase Two focuses on the player’s role in refining perception–action couplingsthrough the progressive detection of information and (re)organisation of action – learned through exploration and adaptation during practice. For example, if uncoordinated defending (e.g. defending at the same time but not together) is making an activity unrealistic, a coach might verbally clarify the players’ intentions and task goal when defending (i.e., “our first priority is to stop the opposition playing through, around or over us, while our second priority is to press to win the ball”).
Phase Three highlights recovery and adaptation following training, considering how players’ action capabilities evolve over time-across days, weeks, months, or years. As players develop physically, cognitively, and skillfully, their ability to perceive and act on affordances(opportunities for action) also changes. Although an affordance is always available in the environment, its value and meaning for each individual may change as the individual matures, develops and grows. For example, with maturation and development, specific action opportunities emerge for young players (e.g. being able to play a long pass over the heads of opponents into space behind them) or being able to shoot past the goalkeeper from a distance away from the goal. Coaches should recognise that effective practice design is an ongoing, adaptive process that evolves through co-design, alongside player development.
Implementing the main principles of a nonlinear pedagogy for the development of specific skills
From an ecological dynamics perspective unopposed or isolated practice should be viewed as an exploratory instead of a prescriptive process (17). For example, as young players mature over different timescale (particularly during periods of growth and maturation during adolescence), they could still engage in unopposed practice to explore their coordination potential. The objective here is not to master a specific technique first and then apply it to the game, but to explore many different techniques within their individual action capabilities
Aim to keep the movement similar to the movement in the sport – keep the movements driven by information (information can be scaled)
Keep the skill whole, but scaling it down (task simplification), reducing the size, spacing, equipment.
Designing meaningful practice contexts in football
Considering that learning is nonlinear, and that athlete/player development is a complex holistic process we can consider the following:
Coaches should embrace variability. Essentially, learning is not the process of repeating a solution, it is repeating the process of finding a solution.
Instead of chasing a mythical “perfect technique” training should therefore incorporate repetition without repetition to reflect the inherent unpredictability of competition. They can do this by designing representative practice, where practice environments contain information that simulates information from real match/competition conditions.
Training should prepare athletes to deal with and adapt to fluctuations in physical, emotional, and environmental variables.
Encourage exploration where players can learn to be creative, and problem solve, so that they can learn to embrace its dynamic uncertainty. This knowledge of the environment grown primarily through active engagement with one’s surroundings, is practical, as it equips players with the skills to navigate and adapt to diverse environmental settings (18).
Be prepared, not just planned – football is complex, dynamic and unpredictable
References
Aggerholm, K. (2017).”Talent development, existential philosophy, and sport: On becoming an elite athlete.”Routledge.
Stone, J. A., Rothwell, M., Shuttleworth, R., & Davids, K. (2020). Exploring sports coaches’ experiences of using a contemporary pedagogical approach to coaching: an international perspective. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(4), 639–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2020.1765194
North, J., Lara-Bercial, S., Morgan, G., & Rongen, F. (2015). The identification of good practice principles to inform player development and coaching in European youth football. Report commissioned by UEFA’s Research Grant Programme 2013–2014.
O’Sullivan, M. (2023). Learning in development research framework for athlete development and sports science support. Doctoral, Sheffield Hallam University. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/32917/
O’Sullivan, M., Vaughan, J., Woods, C. T., & Davids, K. (2023b). There is no copy and paste, but there is resonation and inhabitation: Integrating a contemporary player development framework in football from a complexity sciences perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2288979
Renshaw, I., Davids, K., O’Sullivan, M., Maloney, M. A., Crowther, R. & McCosker, C. (2022). An ecological dynamics approach to motor learning in practice: Reframing the learning and performing relationship in high performance sport. Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2(1), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsep.2022.04.003
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Mifflin and Company.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Bailey, R. P., Madigan, D. J., Cope, E., & Nicholls, A. R. (2018). The Prevalence of Pseudoscientific Ideas and Neuromyths Among Sports Coaches. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 641. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00641
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2016). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in enhancing physical literacy and effective learning in sport. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(5), 459-472.
Renshaw, I., & Chow, J. (2019). A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24, 103 – 116.
Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341–360). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Sullivan, M., Woods, C. T., Vaughan, J., & Davids, K. (2021). Towards a contemporary player learning in development framework for sports practitioners. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 16(5), 1214-1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211002335
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Potrac, P., López-Felip, M. A., & Davids, K. (2021). Football, culture, skill development and sport coaching: Extending ecological approaches in athlete development using the skilled intentionality framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–13. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2021.635420
Parry, T. E., Myszka, S., Yearby, T., O Sullivan, M., & Otte, F. (2025). The value of opposed and unopposed practice: An ecological dynamics rationale for skill development. Quest, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2024.2420759
O’Sullivan, M., & Bjørndal, C. T. (2024). Reconceptualising Constructive Alignment within the epistemological distinction of ways of knowing in a higher education coach development course module. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2024.2439969
Ekologisk fotboll – inte bara att veta mer (kunskap om), utan att veta bättre (kunskap i)
Unga spelare bör vara aktiva i sitt lärande, inte bara passiva mottagare av fördefinierade rörelsemönster eller enbart mottagare av förbestämda kunskap. Vi behöver att diskutera ’agency’ – den fundamentalt karaktärsdrag för att ett spelare ska kunna agera med intention och mening i världen. Agency innebär utforskande, experimenterande, och friheten att ta beslut. Det innebär inte att unga spelare får göra vad de vill, utan snarare att de unga spelarna blir huvudpersonen i sitt eget lärande (1).
Traditionell fotbollsträning har ofta varit tränarledd och baserad på repetition, med fokus på idealiska rörelsemönster/tekniker, och att ge omfattande verbal feedback (2). Den bygger främst på behavioristiska teorier, som försummar individens egen roll i lärandeprocessen, och informationsprocess-teorier som fokuserar på individens “interna mekanik” utan att ta hänsyn till miljöns betydelse, vilket har format traditionella “övning-/färdighets”-metoder (3). Dessa metoder speglar dualistiska antaganden som separerar perception från aktion, individen från miljön och sinne från kropp, och har lyfts fram inom Inom tränarutbildning och mainstream idrottspsykologi. Till exempel har detta ofta inneburit att beslut och aktion ses som separata, åtskilda enheter som följer linjära, sekventiella processer (uppfatta-utvärdera-besluta-agera) (4).
Dessa metoder riskerar att främja konformitet och lydnad på bekostnad av spelarnas agency, vilket begränsar möjligheten för ung spelare att utforska och utveckla sina perceptuella, kognitiva och motoriska färdigheter (5, 6).
Som exempel kan vi hänvisa till en nyligen genomförd intervju med den argentinske världsmästarkapstränaren Lionel Scaloni. I den spanska tidningen Marca (7) uttalade Scaloni att vi “förlorar fotbollens essens både på professionell nivå och bland barn”. Han menade att fotbollsspelare överdoseras med information, vilket berövar dem möjligheter till beslutsfattande och problemlösning. Med hänvisning till sina egna barn som spelar fotboll i Spanien förklarar han hur de “överväldigas av information. De får bollen och får redan instruktioner om vad de ska göra.”
Den “essens” som Scaloni hänvisar till är agency. Även om hans barn “överväldigas av information” är det en snäv typ av kunskap. Det tränaren riktar dessa unga spelares uppmärksamhet mot bygger på hur – vilket i detta fall innebär kontinuerliga föreskrivna instruktioner – och varför, vilket är att begränsa oförutsägbarhet. Genom att överösa dem med kunskap om spelet (andrahandskunskap) begränsar tränaren möjlighetern för de unga spelarna att utöka sina kunskaper i spelet – den direkta erfarenheten av att uppfatta möjligheter för aktion (affordances)(4, 8, 9).
Det har också visats att den Game Model konceptet har implementerats inom ungdomsfotboll som ett sätt att begränsa oförutsägbarhet (genom överanvändning av kunskap om), snarare än adaptivt, realtidsengagemang med dynamiskt spel (kunskap i) (4). Risken är att spelarna lär sig en modell av spelet, inte själva spelet.
Sammanfattningsvis har traditionell fotbollsträning varit grundad på antaganden om orsak-verkan-proportionalitet och steg-för-steg-inlärning, vilket i hög grad har påverkat hur lärande har (miss)förståtts (4, 6).
Mot en ekologisk “relationell” spelarutveckling
Även om dessa linjära tillvägagångssätt har kritiserats för att förbise lärandets icke-linjära, individuella och dynamiska natur (10), har samtida metoder, såsom de som bygger på ekologisk dynamik, vilket Karl Marius Askum lyfte fram i en nyligen podcast (11) har fått uppmärksamhet. Med utgångspunkt i frågan – är lärande linjärt eller icke-linjärt? -lyfter Karl fram fördelarna med att anta ett ekologiskt dynamik-perspektiv på fotboll. Här betonas att det finns många sätt att lösa ett problem eftersom varje situation och varje individ är unik, vilket innebär att färdighetsutveckling uppstår ur de komplexa och dynamiska interaktionerna i individens kontinuerliga anpassning till omgivande constraints (12).
Constraints kategoriserades först av Newell (1986) (13) (se figur 1) som:
Individuella (t.ex. längd, snabbhet, kognition, känslor och motivation)
Uppgiftsrelaterade (t.ex. sådant som är specifikt för den aktivitet som ska utföras, såsom regler, linjemarkeringar och den information som finns i lärmiljöns utformning)
Dessa tre kategorier samverkar och utvecklas över olika tidsskalor. En förändring (t.ex. en pubertal tillväxtspurt) inom en kategori (individuella constraints) kan leda till förändringar i framväxande rörelsebeteenden (balans, koordination och timing), vilket i sin tur påverkar hur individen interagerar med sin omgivning (boll, lagkamrater, motståndare, underlag). Detta belyser lärandets och individens icke-linjära natur. Färdighetsinlärning och prestation kan förstås som en pågående ”funktionell anpassning” (functional fit) mellan individ och miljö över tid.
Ur detta perspektiv är färdighet förmågan att adaptivt anpassa sig till de möjligheter för aktion (affordances) som miljön erbjuder. Dessa möjligheter eller affordances (8, 9) är relationella och uppstår ur samspelet mellan individens och miljöns egenskaper. Till exempel kan en lucka mellan försvarare som uppfattas direkt möjliggöra dribbling för en spelare men passning för en annan, beroende på deras olika egenskaper. Färdighetsinlärning för en fotbollsspelare handlar att koppla ihop information som specificerar möjligheter (affordances) som matchar deras egenskaper.
All coachning är constraints-baserad, men…
Oavsett tillvägagångssätt verkar tränare och spelare inom ett system av constraints som formar lärande och prestation. Den avgörande skillnaden ligger i hur dessa constraints hanteras. I mer traditionella, föreskrivande metoder tenderar tränare att förplanera coachnings-punkter och interventioner, och sedan leta efter sina coachnings-punkter i praktiken. Är detta verkligen coaching? Ett annat exempel är användningen av ’universella’ constraints i övningsdesign (t.ex. att den överlappande spelaren måste få bollen, spela med två touch). Denna överdrivna styrning av träningen kan ta bort den variation, oförutsägbarhet och realism som behövs för verklig färdighetsöverföring, vilket kan leda till uppkomsten av nya beteenden eller lagspel som inte är representativa för prestationsmiljön (14).
I kontrast, och som ett vägledande teoretiskt ramverk, stöder ekologisk dynamik en mer holistisk förståelse av färdighetsinlärning, utveckling och prestation, och lägger grunden för det som har blivit känt som Constraints-Led Approach (CLA). CLA ligger till grund för en coachningsramverk/metodik där coachen agerar som en facilitator och genom att manipulera constraints, tillhandahåller övningsdesigner med hög specificitet för att uppmuntra problemlösning och färdighetsutveckling genom utforskning och adaptivt beteende. För att implementera en CLA i praktiken kan vi vända oss till principerna för en icke-linjär pedagogik (10).
Vad är fotboll? Fotboll är en komplex, dynamisk och oförutsägbar miljö. Hur speglas detta då i din träning?
Centrala principer för en icke-linjär pedagogik, som sammanfattas i Norges idrottshögskolas tränarutbildning, kan stödja detta:
• Representativ lärandedesign: Vi kan endast agera meningsfullt om vi har information som är meningsfull. Informationen som erbjuds spelarna bör likna den information som erbjuds i spelet. • Repetition utan repetition: Fångar den variationens roll i lärandeprocessen. Lärande är inte processen att upprepa en lösning, utan att upprepa processen att hitta en lösning. • Manipulering av constraints: Håll rörelsen lik den som används i spelet – låt rörelserna styras av information. Bevara färdigheten som hel, även om den skalas ner (t.ex. genom att minska storlek, avstånd eller utrustning).
Att fånga huvudprinciperna för en ickelinjär pedagogik för att utforma fotbollsspecifika uppgifter
Det är viktigt att beakta att spelare aldrig utför rörelser separerade från en prestationsmiljö; deras aktioner formas kontinuerligt av perceptuell information, såsom medspelares och motståndares positioner och rörelser. The Foundations for Task Design (Fig 2) (14), som stöds av det relationella konceptet Shaping Skilled Intentions (Fig 3) (15), kan stödja tränare i att tillämpa principerna för en ickelinjär pedagogik för att utforma fotbollsspecifika uppgifter.
Figure 2 Boll- motståndare-riktning är viktiga aspekter av övningsdesign som formar spelarnas intentioner och uppmärksamhet. Idén om konsekvens (t.ex. om vi förlorar bollen och inte vinner tillbaka den kan motståndarna göra mål) belyser kontinuiteten och samanpassningen av anfall och försvar. Nyckelinformation i uppgiftsdesign är representativ för spelet.
Figure 3 En illustration av det konstitutiva och kapslade (nested) förhållandet mellan skilled intentions att spela igenom, runt och över motståndarlaget i fotboll
Hur kan vi stödja unga spelares möjligheter att utöka sina kunskaper i spelet, samtidigt som vi minskar beroendet av föreskrivande taktisk kunskap om spelet??
Baserat på centrala idéer i en CLA och dess pedagogiska koncept kan det användarvänliga learning in development framework (Figur 4) (15) stödja detta.
Figure 4 De tre faserna Player learning IN development framework
Fas ett definierar tränarens roll som co-designer av träning för att utveckla spelarnas kunskap i spelet. Co-design innebär att identifiera spelarnas nuvarande egenskaper och anpassa träningen – eventuellt med spelarnas input – för att anpassa den till deras intentioner, baserat på observationer. Foundations for Task Design Model kan fungera som tränarens kompass och vägleda planeringen och manipulationen av uppgiftsbegränsningar, medan Shaping Skilled Intentions fungerar som spelarnas kompass. Tränarens huvudansvar är att skapa informationsrika miljöer som främjar utforskning, anpassningsförmåga och beslutsfattande.
Fas två fokuserar på spelarens roll i att förfina kopplingar mellan perception och aktion genom progressiv upptäckt av information och (om)organisation av aktioner. Om till exempel okoordinerat försvar (t.ex. att försvara samtidigt men inte tillsammans) gör en aktivitet orealistisk, kan en tränare muntligt förtydliga spelarnas intentioner och uppgiftsmål när de försvarar (dvs. “vår första prioritet är att hindra motståndarna från att spela igenom, runt eller över oss, medan vår andra prioritet är att pressa för att vinna bollen”).
Fas tre belyser återhämtning och anpassning efter träning, med beaktande av hur spelares egenskaper utvecklas över tid – dagar, veckor, månader eller år. Allt eftersom spelare utvecklas fysiskt, kognitivt och skickligt, förändras även deras förmåga att uppfatta och agera utifrån möjligheter för aktion (affordance). Även om en affordance alltid finns tillgänglig i omgivningen, kan dess värde och betydelse för varje individ förändras allt eftersom individen mognar, utvecklas och växer. Till exempel, med mognad och utveckling uppstår specifika möjligheter för aktion för unga spelare (t.ex. att kunna spela en lång passning över motståndarna och bakom dem). Tränare bör inse att effektiv träningsdesign är en pågående, adaptiv process som utvecklas, genom samdesign, parallellt med spelarutveckling.
Implementering av huvudprinciperna för en icke-linjär pedagogik vid utveckling av specifika färdigheter Ur ett ekologiskt dynamik-perspektiv bör övningar utan motstånd eller isolerade övningar ses som en utforskande process snarare än en föreskrivande process (16). Till exempel, när unga spelare mognar över olika tidsskalor (särskilt under tillväxt- och mognadsperioder under tonåren), kan de fortfarande ägna sig åt övningar utan motstånd för att utforska sin koordinationspotential. Målet här är inte att först bemästra en specifik teknik och sedan applicera den i spelet, utan att utforska många olika tekniker inom sina individuella egenskapar.
Sträva efter att hålla rörelsen lik den som används i fotboll – låt rörelserna styras av information (informationen kan skalas).
Bevara färdigheten som hel, men skala ner den (förenkling av uppgiften) genom att minska storlek, avstånd eller utrustning
Att designa meningsfulla träningskontexter i fotboll Med tanke på att lärande är icke-linjärt och att idrottares/spelares utveckling är en komplex, holistisk process behöver vi beakta följande:
Tränare bör omfamna variation. I grunden är lärande inte processen att upprepa en lösning, utan att upprepa processen att hitta en lösning.
Istället för att jaga en mytisk ”perfekt teknik” bör träningen därför innehålla repetition utan repetition för att spegla tävlingens inneboende oförutsägbarhet. Detta kan göras genom att designa representativ träning, där träningsmiljöer innehåller information som simulerar den information som finns under verkliga match
Träningen bör förbereda idrottare på att hantera och anpassa sig till variationer i fysiska, emotionella och miljömässiga faktorer.
Uppmuntra utforskande där spelare kan lära sig att vara kreativa och lösa problem. Målet bör vara att främja en djupare förståelse ”i” spelet, så att de kan lära sig att omfamna dess dynamiska osäkerhet. Denna kunskap i miljö, som främst utvecklas genom aktivt engagemang med omgivningen, är praktisk eftersom den utrustar spelare med färdigheter att navigera och anpassa sig till olika miljömässiga förutsättningar (17).
Var förberedd, inte bara planerad – fotboll är komplex, dynamisk och oförutsägbar
References
Aggerholm, K. (2017).”Talent development, existential philosophy, and sport: On becoming an elite athlete.”Routledge.
Stone, J. A., Rothwell, M., Shuttleworth, R., & Davids, K. (2020). Exploring sports coaches’ experiences of using a contemporary pedagogical approach to coaching: an international perspective. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(4), 639–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2020.1765194
North, J., Lara-Bercial, S., Morgan, G., & Rongen, F. (2015). The identification of good practice principles to inform player development and coaching in European youth football. Report commissioned by UEFA’s Research Grant Programme 2013–2014.
O’Sullivan, M. (2023). Learning in development research framework for athlete development and sports science support. Doctoral, Sheffield Hallam University. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/32917/
O’Sullivan, M., Vaughan, J., Woods, C. T., & Davids, K. (2023b). There is no copy and paste, but there is resonation and inhabitation: Integrating a contemporary player development framework in football from a complexity sciences perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2288979
Renshaw, I., Davids, K., O’Sullivan, M., Maloney, M. A., Crowther, R. & McCosker, C. (2022). An ecological dynamics approach to motor learning in practice: Reframing the learning and performing relationship in high performance sport. Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2(1), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsep.2022.04.003
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Mifflin and Company.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2016). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in enhancing physical literacy and effective learning in sport. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(5), 459-472.
Renshaw, I., & Chow, J. (2019). A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24, 103 – 116.
Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341–360). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Sullivan, M., Woods, C. T., Vaughan, J., & Davids, K. (2021). Towards a contemporary player learning in development framework for sports practitioners. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 16(5), 1214-1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211002335
Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Potrac, P., López-Felip, M. A., & Davids, K. (2021). Football, culture, skill development and sport coaching: Extending ecological approaches in athlete development using the skilled intentionality framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–13. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2021.635420
Parry, T. E., Myszka, S., Yearby, T., O Sullivan, M., & Otte, F. (2025). The value of opposed and unopposed practice: An ecological dynamics rationale for skill development. Quest, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2024.2420759
O’Sullivan, M., & Bjørndal, C. T. (2024). Reconceptualising Constructive Alignment within the epistemological distinction of ways of knowing in a higher education coach development course module. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2024.2439969
Mark O’Sullivan: Department of Sport and Social Sciences, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway
Matías Manna: Argentina national team assistant coach/analyst
Keith Davids: School of Sport and Physical Activity, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
Prelude: Time of trees
Matías Manna is the Argentinian national football team assistant coach/analyst, holding a Master’s degree from Universidad Nacional de Rosario. In his book “Time of Trees” (Tiempo de los Árboles), Manna narrates a tension between technology, biology, and culture, and how we live in an era of over-information, where coaches are obsessed with control over context. As innovation challenges heritage, choosing what to preserve and what to adapt becomes a personal and cultural balancing act. As Manna argues-“Every country has its own culture. It’s contradictory to play in a way that isn’t felt. It’s lying to history (1).”
Mirroring philosophical debates in football, the book further draws attention to how standardized and homogenized training and analysis has become all over the world. These insights, and the publication of our “There is no copy and paste!” paper (2) in 2023, sparked further discussions between Mark O’Sullivan and Matías Manna. The framing of these discussions are captured in these 5 points:
We no longer think of the analyst as an external observer, but as a builder of collective perception that facilitates co-ordination, not through commands, but through shared understanding.
Football knowledge viewed as: sensitive, situated, and relational
Game intelligence emerges, not from isolated data, but from shared narratives and perceptions.
We shouldn’t overanalyze our opponents; we need to pay more attention to our own players.
Can we redefine the role traditionally known as video analyst or coach-analyst, moving toward a more holistic, relational and culturally situated identity?
Together with Keith Davids, we have endeavored to capture these discussions, integrating our practical and academic experience and knowledge into one short article. While we recognize that change is inevitable, without acknowledging how we are shaped at different timescales by culture, history, and the value and meaning of our more immediate lived experiences, innovation risks becoming hollow: like passing without purpose, technically correct, but emotionally empty.
Key Concepts:
Affordances: Opportunities for action perceived in context.
Intentionality: Players act based on purpose, not merely reacting to events. Intentionality can be described as directedness of behaviour towards objects, events and others in their surrounds. Behaviour is lawfully driven along a goal-path, with performers intending to realize certain possibilities for action (i.e., affordances) through applying their skills.
Perception-Action Coupling: Players perceive affordances that align with their action capabilities and team context. Perception isn’t passive, it’s goal-directed. A player raised in a system that values ball possession will perceive different opportunities for action than one trained in a direct, long ball style.
Corresponsive” or “co-responding: Refers to a way of knowing, researching, or analyzing that emphasizes mutual, relational engagement, rather than detached observation or unilateral explanation (incompleteor simplistic view that doesn’t account for the full complexity of the game). Learning with events and others in the environment is emphasised, not learning about the environment through extraction of objective data.Performing, learning and developing emerges by co-creating meaning in the flow of lived experiences with the surrounds, rather than imposing meaning from outside.
Introduction
Traditional football analysis often relies on schematic thinking, tactical formations, identifying patterns in large bodies of data, leading to statistical models that seek to break the game down into fixed interacting parts or systems. This more traditional methodology tends to evaluate performance at the match level, incorporating contextual variables that remain constant throughout the game (opponent profile, venue location), and utilises aggregated data such as pass counts, mean sprint frequency, and total running distance (3).
This way of measuring and analysis leans towards a reductionist and deterministic approach that risks viewing players as fixed objects to be observed, quantified and deployed in performance (rather like chess pieces) (4). Employing avertical, extractive onto‑logic within this conventional approach (5),the data analyst sits above their subjects, extracting data, and claiming detached objectivity. While these tools have some value, they risk reducing the game into abstract representations, disconnected from how it’s actually experienced and played, reinforcing a one‑directional model of knowledge transfer, where inquirer (analyst) is separated from inquiry
Moving away from this conventional detached approach, we can view football as a complex, interconnected adaptive system (a whole entity, not a sum of parts) (6, 7). This perspective rejects a reliance on overly mechanical, data-driven models in favor of sensitive and culturally rooted interpretations of performance. This more ecological perspective focuses our attention on the interactions between players within their environment, and how their intentions, skills,and perceptions shape performance behaviours on field. This more holistic, integrated approach to understanding football performance is more sentient, relational, and ecological. Knowledge is not imposed from an external source but grows longitudinally, through correspondence and dialogue between coach and players and between players (5).
This shift in perspective calls for recognizing how worldviews shape the way we see, play, coach and analyze football.
Worldviews shape our perception
Drawing on the insights of the social anthropologist, Tim Ingold (8), a worldview isn’t just what we think, it’s how we’ve learned to perceive, interpret, and act in the world. It’s embodied, often unspoken, and deeply ingrained. Worldviews guide our perception and intentionality, subtly framing what we see as possible, and often passing unnoticed as simply “the way things are.”
In fact, worldviews can deeply shape how football analysis is carried out, because it influences what we think the game is, what counts as knowledge, and what we value as success or failure. Indeed, analysis is never neutral, it reflects the historically embedded assumptions, priorities, and cultural perspectives of those doing it.
In fact, there are different ways of knowing which helps us make our way through the world.
What counts as knowledge (ways of knowing)?
Traditional football analysis often leans on fixed systems/formations, data patterns, and statistics, breaking the game into parts. This view in seeking to understand football performance reflects what James J. Gibson (9,10) called “knowledge about”the environment: a detached, external view, imposed from outside by relying on banks of data to understand what is going as we make our way through the performance context (e.g. a competitive game of football). Analysts describe what happens in a competitive match from an external viewpoint, creating models and systems that describe patterns, strategies, seeking to predict how players may interact with teammates, opponents and contexts.
While valuable, this knowledge about the performance environment stands apart from the lived experience of players who don’t just think about the game, they play it, making sense of their environment to organise their actions in real time. This form of knowledge is direct, embodied, and practical, what Gibson called “knowledge of” the environment (9,10). It helps players to perceive information to regulate their movements as they look for opportunities or affordances for action during play. For example, an affordance may be available in a gap to exploit between defenders, sensing a teammate’s run, reacting to a threat from an opponent driving towards goal with the ball.
Referring to an interview with the Argentinian national team coach Lionel Scaloni (11), we provide a simple example of knowledge about and knowledge of the environment:
So, how can football analysis evolve by integrating these two types of knowledge to inform understanding of how players may perform, learn and develop?
Performance as perception-action coupling (steeped in knowledge of the environment), not just skill execution (using knowledge about)
Performance isn’t just about being able to produce technical skills or executing tactics, it’s about how playersperceive and act within a specific environment (using knowledgeof their surrounds). For example, information that is useful for one athlete might not be available for another, depending on their unique skills and physical attributes. A gap between two defenders may afford dribbling for a player like Vinícius Júnior (with high 1v1 skill and explosive power and speed) or passing through for a player like Kevin De Bruyne (who may perceive a passing line that others might not, striking a ball sweetly with either foot).
Footballers don’t act in a vacuum. Their decisions emerge not just from the game’s interactive dynamics between competing and cooperating players, but are deeply entangled within the broader socio-cultural and historical context (6). This view implies that affordances aren’t just material possibilities; they’re shaped at different timescales by culture, history, and more immediate lived experiences. For example, in different footballing cultures, how players learn may amplify or dampen engagement with some affordances which solicit their actions. A player raised in street football, may perceive affordances for improvisation that another player might not even see. Alternatively, referring to the example above provided by Scaloni, the amount of external agency his children experience (prescriptive feedback, direction through instructions) may need to be dampened, as it potentially promotes engagement with a narrow range of affordances. Indeed, a constant stream of imposed external information may inhibit players’ problem-solving and decision-making capacities, pushing them towards always seeking external instructions and direction from the coach.
Considering performance as a continuous coupling of perception and action (framed by knowledge of the environment), not just technique execution (directed by knowledge about) implies that “intelligence” in football is not something based on discrete packets of performance data to be just extracted and explained by an external agent (coach, trainer, analyst); it is something to be continuously felt, sensed, and co-created, emerging from the collective perception-action dynamics of the team in the midst of performance. Within thiscorresponsive approach (5)knowledge is grown with athletes and coaches, not imposed upon them by external agents and sources. It is not just about knowing more but knowing better!
Shared Affordances and Team Synergies
From an analyst’s perspective, moving beyond “knowledge about” the game means recognizing that playersperceive and act within a shared, relational space. In this space, affordances are not just individual opportunities for action, but shared invitations to coordinate their activities (12). Teams can develop ways of collectively coupling their perceptions and -actions,allowing them to act on shared affordances for and of each other. This understanding can be reframed as collective knowledge of the team developed together in performance.
When one player presses the ball-carrier, teammates might simultaneously close passing lanes, not because they were told to do it in that moment, but because they perceive a shared affordance to trap the opposition. Analysts can look at how well teams act in sync and how attuned players are to each other’s movements. An important point is that communication in football isn’t just verbal, it’s often ecological as teammates become attuned to subtle information like orientation of a player’s body and information signposted in nods, pointing, vocalisations, feints and directional tilts during play. By understanding how players pick up on shared affordances to form collective actions, analysts can better assess the formation of synergies in teams (how integrated actions are organised in sub-groupings of players in teams).
For the players “in possession of the ball”, the intention to play through shines a light on opportunities for playing penetrative passes in the landscape of shared affordances to pass and receive between the defenders. But for the defenders, the shared affordances perceived would relate to opportunities for pass interception and the closing of spaces for opponents to play penetrative passes.(12, p.6)
An important point here is that the intentions of a player constrain their perception and action. Analysts should seek to understand what the player was trying to do, not just merely record what they did. This approach, incorporating perceived intentionality of a performer, gives deeper insight into their decision-making. For instance, a striker looking to score might interpret the same defender positioning differently than a deep lying midfielder would; they see different affordances because their perspective on their surrounds is uniquely located and their goals may differ at any moment.
By applying an ecological lens we ask not just what happened, but why it happened, where it happened (13), seeking better understanding of what affordances were available, and how players’ intentions may shape their behaviours.
Re‑grounding analysis as a corresponsive, relational and culturally situated practice
This approach to football analysis is not just about what is observed, but about how meaning and value is co-constructed within a living system of relations. The analyst helps the team to reflect on their own coordination, perception, and intentionality, all within their cultural, historical and emotional contexts. Here the analyst becomes a “Linking Coach”– an embedded, relational facilitator of shared understanding within the team. The analyst is located within the system, observing relationally, not objectively spectating from the outside. Focus is not just on what happened, but how meaning, emotion, and intention emerged and were shared among players. Analysis becomes a collaborative reflection process that emerges through detailed observation and collective interpretation (together with the performers).
Analytical Implications for Practice
A corresponsive, ecological framework reshapes how performance is interpreted and discussed:
Competitive performance could be understood and framed as the players coordinatingemergent actions, continuously regulated by game information (and vice versa).
Soliciting affordances could be identified, focusing on which ones were perceived from those available,seeking to understand how they aligned with the preferred dispositions and capabilities of individual players.
Affordance-based play clips could be edited when recording performance to highlight how different players may perceive and act in the same situation. Players’ insights on affordances they utilised could be established in discussions with them.
The focus could shift from categorising discrete actions and events (e.g., frequency data on passes, shots, dribbles, tackles) towards relational dynamics and how shared sense-makingmay unfold during play (i.e., seeking to identify shared affordances).
The emphasis could shift towards how players co-regulate, adapt, and respond to each other’s intentions, rather than isolating individual decisions in discrete data packets. The question shifts from “What did this player do?” to “What did they perceive together? What became possible in their relations?”
Analysts could attend to how intentions, emotions, and cultural backgrounds may be continually shapingactions. More importance could be placed on understanding how teams could exploit self-organizing tendencies and get better at synchronizing efforts to perceive and act together on shared affordances or collective opportunities.
Moving beyond schemas
Reshaping football analysis as a corresponsive, relational and culturally-situated practice means focusing more on the lived experience of play in competition and practice. It’s important to understand how players perceive, move, and respond in real time, and how players’ transactions with each other and the environment, in turn, shape team dynamics and outcomes. This approach means attending, not just to where players are positioned on field, but how they are attuned to the unfolding of a game, and how their attunement to their surrounds is impacted byculture, emotion, intention, and history.
By moving beyond schematic thinking, tactical formations, and statistical models that seek to break the game into fixed components and integrated systems, we come closer to the essence of football, not as a static system to decode, but as a living, breathing, relational encounter between players, environments, and the cultures that shape them.
Conclusion
Standing in contrast to the linear and extractive approach in traditional models, we propose a re‑grounding of analysis as a corresponsive, relational and culturally situated practice.Shaped by task and environmental constraints operating across different timescales, analysis becomes a shared practice of co-responding and sustaining knowledge across entangled relations. This perspective views participants in football performance as entangled parts of a complex, adaptive system. Rather than sitting outside the system, the analyst becomes part of the system, learning with and through the team. This corresponsive approach is participatory, situated, and relational. Knowledge is grown with athletes and coaches, not imposed upon them. Analysts become co-learners whose understanding emerges through ongoing dialogue, shared inquiry, and immersion in the field of play. Knowledge is not a commodity to be owned, but a gift to be shared and sustained within a relational network (5).
O’Sullivan, M., Vaughan, J., Woods, C. T., & Davids, K. (2023). There is no copy and paste, but there is resonation and inhabitation: Integrating a contemporary player development framework in football from a complexity sciences perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 43(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2288979
Memmert, D. (2025). Editorial for Sports Performance section of Journal of Sports Sciences: Moving match analysis forward – Guidelines and perspectives. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2535850
Woods, C. T., Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2024). On a Corresponsive Sport Science. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 54(5), 1071–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01981-3
O’Sullivan, M., Vaughan, J., Woods, C. T., & Davids, K. (2023). There is no copy and paste, but there is resonation and inhabitation: Integrating a contemporary player development framework in football from a complexity sciences perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 43(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2288979
Morin, E., & Le Moigne, J. (1999). L’intelligence de la complexité.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Mifflin and Company.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Sullivan, M. O., Woods, C. T., Vaughan, J., & Davids, K. (2021). Towards a contemporary player learning in development framework for sports practitioners. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 16(5), 1214–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211002335
Araújo, D. & Davids, K. (2009). Ecological approaches to cognition and action in sport and exercise: Ask not only what you do, but where you do it. International Journal of Sport Psychology 40, 5-37.
footblogball 