|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 02/02/2012 14:47:41
Posts: 341,
Visits: 1,835
|
|
| It would be interesting to know on what basis the bodies who are using LTAD took up the system. There is a real push to get some science behind the systems of coaching and the LTAD certainly helps it. I would concur that is "fits" nicely into what we think. The key problem lies in 12-16 age group due to problems PHV (different growth rates). The debate might shift at this stage in "weights" instead of "ages" and whether teams should play in leagues - another can of worms!
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/06/2008 16:09:53
Posts: 17,
Visits: 28
|
|
| From a rugby (selfish) point of view I think it is better to follow a path of LTPD (Long Term Player Development), using a combination of skills/technique that are relevant to the game/postion. If you make things interesting, give achivable goals, & try to set them in a relevant sport specific context, then development should follow. If the tasks/drills etc are boring & repetitive then most tend not to give 100% or give all together, as we all would in any aspect of what we do, sporting or otherwise. Developing players (athletes) at what ever level or age is about getting them to push themselves & not realise that they are doing so. Making activities relevant & achivable can achive this. What would you rather do, run 10 shuttle sprints of 50m, or play in a controlled game situation that could be running between 10 rucks at set positions on the pitch, outcome is the same but the relevance is very different.
Ruck, Ruck, & Ruck again.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 09/05/2008 22:24:24
Posts: 9,
Visits: 16
|
|
I think size is the issue. Rugby is a physical sport. I'd argue that at all levels size is generally considered an advantage over skill.
For example, at a junior level you might see a 6'3" (2 metres) 14 stone (196lbs, c. 90kgs) 14 year-old boy simply running through a team of technically superior and committed 9-stoners (126lbs, c. 57kgs).
How many coaches would prefer a 15 year old fly half to be able to kick tactically prefectly, but only manage 15 metres with a clearance, to a "hoofer" who can kick 40 metres from hand, but in an uncontrolled way?
Which players benefit?
Teams with smaller kids tend to lose. Teams with bigger kids don't get the chance to learn how to play properly.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 02/02/2012 14:47:41
Posts: 341,
Visits: 1,835
|
|
If a player is good enough at 14, he should play a year up. He might be physically well developed.
What I find vaguely amusing about L1 course and LTAD is that there are still competition stages for rugby teams in the first couple of stages of the process.
Here is an interesting summary from a swimming document:
The following are some general observations of sporting systems from around the world (including Britain):
• Young athletes under-train, over-compete;
• Low training to competition ratios in early years;
• Adult competition superimposed on young athletes;
• Adult training programmes superimposed on young athletes;
• Male programmes superimposed on females;
• Training in early years focuses on outcomes (winning) rather than processes (optimal
training);
• Chronological age influences coaching rather than biological age;
• The “critical” periods of accelerated adaptation are not fully utilised;
• Poor training between 6-16 years of age cannot be fully corrected (athletes will never reach genetic potential);
• The best coaches are encouraged to work at elite level;
• Coach education tends to skim the growth, development and maturation of young people;
• Coaches, Swimmers and Parents need to be educated in LTAD principles;
• Administrators and officials need to be educated in LTAD principles.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 31/08/2011 14:34:35
Posts: 3,
Visits: 11
|
|
| hello, while not being as educated as you seem to be in LTAD I have run a program in canada where I have taken 13-17 yr old girls and offered a basic grounding in rugby skills and core fitness, after their first year with me they then started working with strength and conditioning coaches with the first 4 months being based on Movement with many of them not lifting a wieght for almost a month due to movement and form. During the second year we developed all previous drills and also encompassed a knowledge base on the game and laws. The athletes were obviously growing and we of course dealt with emotional breakdowns with the correct people and had Physc people in to talk to them about what they need to do mentally to achieve the next level. The athletes were also given nutritional education. During the third year they then move in to a very different phase where we start to focus on achievement Mentally/Physically. Many of these athletes had not played the sport before and results last year showed as 8 of them made the U20 National team, 3 of them being 17 turning 18. While I was not aware of what it was I was following I was made aware of what we had to do to achieve the goals we set ourself by the athletes. Perhaps this is not the prototypical LTAD it appears that following a set schematic would be difficult as you need to base it on Coach Led and Not allow the athlete set the pace and direction. If this is the case could you ever have a scientific fact with proven results as many of the parameters fluctuate and the definition of success will depend on the athlete and not the Coach. I believe that LTAP would be a better description of what was achieved as we managed to not only develop these athletes but we have now moved many of them in to University where the skills they achieved playing Rugby with us has garnered them scholarships to play Rugby here in Canada and extending their Rugby life from 3 years at High School to now extending past 9 years through university. this might not be relevant to your conversation but i thought I would share this with you.
|
|
|
|