How Does Coaching Behavior Affect Player Creativity?

Introduction

Creativity, in essence, is the diversity of "performance solutions" that an athlete or a team can propose during competition. In other words, when facing the same performance problem (attacking choices, defensive choices, technical choices, tactical choices…), it is the ability to generate multiple reasonable solutions within limited time, and execute them effectively.

Highly creative athletes and teams can use dozens or even hundreds of attacking methods and approaches to break through an opponent's defensive line or score, while less creative athletes and teams typically rely on a single approach, for example, long balls to the flanks, crosses from the byline…

Modern football training methods have continued to evolve, and athletic training has gradually shifted toward deeply developing players' cognitive ability, creativity, and their capacity to read the game and solve problems.

As the older generation of players retires, the new generation has already caught up.

So how do these training methods differ from traditional ones? In training videos, letting young players play on their own rather than having them drill weaving through poles, practice passing, and dribbling every day, can that really improve football skills? Let's start this educational piece by exploring what creativity actually is.

What Is Creativity?

Creativity in the field of sport performance has been continuously studied. Current research has found that when players on the pitch receive and perceive match information, two cognitive thinking patterns emerge:

1. Convergent Thinking Pattern

This is understood as the cognition of the optimal solution for a specific individual, group, or team tactical game situation. For example, after a player receives the ball on the pitch, they identify the "best" option from among different choices, such as observing after receiving in midfield that the best course of action is to turn and immediately play forward, then executing immediately.

The ability within this cognitive pattern is called technical talent, that is, a player's understanding and execution of on-pitch technique. In common football parlance, "this player plays very intelligently."

2. Divergent Thinking Pattern

This is understood as generating various solutions in specific individual, group, and team tactical situations, where these solutions are surprising, rare, and/or innovative. For example, after receiving in midfield and facing a double-team from opponents, the player chooses to flick the ball past them, opening up significant space.

The ability within this cognitive pattern is called technical creativity, that is, a player's ability to continuously produce new solutions on the pitch. In common football parlance, it goes like: "wait… wait… WHAT?!?!… BRILLIANT!"

This classification also aligns with the consensus among coaches, and coaches also tend to envision achieving an ideal balance between convergent behavior and divergent behavior (Reilly, 1996; Smith and Cushion, 2006).

In the practice of improving creativity, creativity has also been divided into three modules based on research by Guilford et al. in 1967:

1. Originality: Technical decisions made by the individual player without prior preparation that are uniquely their own. (For example, the coach hasn't told the player what specifically to do after receiving the ball, but the player, after thinking on their own, executes a solution.)

2. Flexibility: A player's ability to apply different solutions to different situations. (Extrapolating from one case to another, not only knowing how to receive and turn when back-to-goal, but also being able to anticipate how to solve problems when receiving sideways.)

3. Fluency: Different problem-solving methods within a specific technical or team scenario. (For example, when receiving back-to-goal, knowing you can turn, play it back, or use a skill move to beat the defender, etc.)

Does high creativity mean a player's technical ability is insufficient? That they lack discipline? Quite the opposite, Memmert and Roth's research (2007) demonstrated that technical talent and technical creativity actually go hand in hand, so coaches need not worry that strong creativity will result in technique lacking structure.

So when is the best time to train creativity? Memmert's research indicates that the optimal development period for creativity is ages 7-10, and that creativity does not develop linearly but rather stabilizes after age 10. Findings from neuroscience also support these assumptions, because the absolute number of synapses and synaptic density in the human brain both reach their maximum values during this age range (Bekhtereva et al., 2001).

How to Train Creativity?

This brings us to the crux of the matter: how do we train creativity? Or rather, what does a coach need to do to maximize a player's creative potential?

Before comparing past and present training methods, we must establish one premise: scientific training does not mean reducing training time.

Scientific training is about how to improve the efficiency of converting training into actual sport performance, within the longest possible practice time.

However, in "deliberate practice" activities (i.e., highly relevant structured practice that athletes undertake with the primary purpose of improving performance ability), the longer the time spent, the greater the chance of successfully acquiring profession-related knowledge (Ericsson et al., 1993). So to become an excellent athlete, extensive training time and knowledge accumulation are indispensable.

What we often call the "science" in scientific training is mainly reflected in this question: during training, who should be at the center?

That is, a coach-centered system vs. a player-centered system. Through the following table, we can see the differences between the two:

Certainly, the traditional coach-centered instructional approach is effective in some sports that are primarily technique-oriented (weightlifting, gymnastics, diving, shooting, etc.), because fixed/continuous practice, along with constant correction and feedback, can effectively reduce the instability of an athlete's performance, enabling rapid and efficient stabilization of their skills (Guadagnoli and Lee, 2004; Shea et al., 1990).

Game-Based Training

However, in highly complex team sports (football, basketball, rugby, handball, hockey, etc.), the so-called "correct" option is relatively dynamic. For example, the passing method will change based on different defensive formations faced.

Even under high pressure, performance can regress to earlier levels (Baumeister, 1984), for example, when facing high-press situations, passing may revert to the relatively raw level of two or three years prior. Then the player's questions arise naturally: in such a highly complex environment, how exactly should I execute what the coach says is the "correct" method? And if I can't execute it, what should I do?

For football, the simplest fallback is: boot it long up the pitch, not my problem; pass it back in midfield, wait for another long ball up the pitch, not my problem; teammate heads it, if there's an opportunity then score, if not then forget it.

So for players, to improve creativity, they must engage in extensive open-ended, game-based training with lower skill-training efficiency from an early age, rather than focusing attention on "fundamentals" drills and technical exercises. Liao and Masters' research (2002) demonstrates that the more rules acquired during the learning process, the worse the performance under pressure.

However, this type of practice also faces some challenges. For instance, if training cannot be made to feel more controlled and instead allows randomness to increase unchecked, training effectiveness becomes very poor (Edwards and Hodges, 2012). Moreover, this approach can be difficult for learners, making learning very effortful, and is less efficient compared to coach-centered training methods.

But because of the inherent variability in the performance environment, players need to be able to quickly adjust their movements to adapt to the current environmental and task demands unique to competitive sports. And increasing variability in training can help players avoid repeatedly attempting to produce "correct" or effective movements (Huang et al., 2007).

This type of training can also withstand psychological pressure (Hardy et al., 1996; Liao and Masters, 2001; Masters, 1992; Mullen et al., 2007), and even fatigue (Masters et al., 2008; Poolton et al., 2007), as well as allowing players to maintain positivity and engagement. So the relatively slower learning process may well be worth it.

Guided Demonstration

Here, two screenshots can be compared to illustrate different coaching approaches (both from real video footage):

The traditional coach's training process is predominantly about giving prompt-style instructions to players, having them complete movements according to commands.

The modern youth coach's training is more about posing questions to players, letting them think for themselves about what the space on the pitch looks like, enabling players to actively discover and adjust their own positioning during matches.

The traditional coach is very passionate and what they teach is also correct, but this approach causes players to become overly dependent on the coach's prompts and the coach's "correct answers." When players face changes where the "correct answer cannot be applied," they become completely lost.

So when guiding players, coaches should ideally follow these points:

1. When demonstrating, don't use overly rigid instructions and commands, such as "you must" or "you should", to direct players, unless they are learning a skill they have never encountered before. At the same time, after demonstrating, it's best to first let players try on their own, then decide whether they should seek the coach's help. This prevents players from forming fixed mindsets, trapping themselves in a corner rather than stepping out.

2. After introducing rules or during the process of constraint-led guidance, don't focus too much on the precision of technique execution, but rather emphasize whether the player's perceptual ability and reactive ability in different situations are improving. When guiding players, don't use overly explicit language for command-style guidance (e.g., "pass the ball there"). Instead, make it more abstract, let players improve their own judgment and problem-solving ability (e.g., "look up, see where the space is, pass the ball into the space").

3. When providing feedback, it's best to give clear feedback so that players know which of their actions are positive/negative. At the same time, as skill levels continuously improve, feedback should become clearer, more concise, quality over quantity. And be sure to let players decide as much as possible whether to accept the feedback.

4. When designing training combinations, try to mirror match scenarios as closely as possible (high variability, small-group competition), using this as a method to develop players' reactive ability and perceptual ability in matches. At the same time, training scenarios with high degrees of freedom can also boost players' motivation.

We hope this article can inspire coaches to consider adopting a player-centered approach during training, giving players greater autonomy.

After all, every sport begins with passion, and as the adults guiding them, we have an even greater obligation to ensure children receive the most advanced, most scientifically-grounded training possible.

Let them enjoy the sport while improving themselves, and become better people in the process.