4.3 Article

Swedish Tennis Coaches' Everyday Practices for Creating Athlete Development Environments

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17124580

关键词

athlete development environment; athlete development; tennis; Sweden; coaching

资金

  1. Swedish Tennis Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Finding and describing the optimal path to elite athletic performance has, for a long time, been a challenge for researchers. This study examined Swedish tennis coaches' everyday practices for creating athlete development environments and the environmental factors that promote or hinder athlete development. The study was conducted in 2018-2019 and included in-depth focus groups with 13 Swedish full-time tennis coaches. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and by drawing on models for studying athlete development environments. The results highlight how the coaches' everyday work involves a range of administrative tasks, which ultimately means that there is little to no time left for focusing on athlete development. These results also draw attention to concerns about these professional coaches' health, with increasing demands in their roles to manage administrative tasks in addition to the coaching and time spent on the court with their athletes. The results further reveal how the tennis clubs' boards are increasingly interested in sound economy and high participation levels rather than focusing on performance outcomes and developing elite athletes. Finally, the results from this study emphasize the importance of increased collaboration and communication between clubs, coaches, regions, and the national association to create common and clearer guidelines for long-term athlete development. Future studies could engage in longitudinal and ethnographic work with tennis clubs of varying size and geographical locations, involving different stakeholders (e.g., coaches, management, parents, players) in order to further explore the environmental factors that promote or hinder athlete development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据