Author(s): THOMPSON, N., HUGHES, J.D., DE STE CROIX, M.B.A., ROBERTS, W.M., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF NORTHAMPTON, Country: UNITED KINGDOM, Abstract-ID: 455

INTRODUCTION:
Professional soccer academies frequently monitor training load and maturation to foster player development and mitigate injuries linked to growth (1). However, how training load and maturation monitoring data impacts coaching practice remains unclear. For both practices to be successful within club environments, it has been suggested that a collaborative, integrative approach between the key stakeholders should be employed (2). One potential solution to enhance training load and maturation monitoring practices is through employing interdisciplinary approaches (3) however, this may not be feasible for clubs with limited resources. This study adopted a Freirean-informed coach-practitioner workshop design to reflect on training load and maturation practices within each club environment and identify potential solutions to improve coaching practice .
METHODS:
Youth development pathway staff from two Football Association category three academy clubs were purposively sampled (coaches, n=10; sport science practitioners , n=5). Coaches and practitioners initially reflected on training load and maturation monitoring practices within their club environment, and this consequently informed the development of the workshop. Within the 2-hour workshop , collaborative, reflective group discussions around five key statements evaluated practices of training load and maturation monitoring within each club environment. Each workshop was analysed using a deductive, reflexive thematic analysis .
RESULTS:
Five higher-order themes were identified (coach biography, coach philosophy, communication of data to coaches, educating coaches and adapting monitoring practices ). Coaches’ biographies and philosophies appear to influence their acceptance and implementation of training load and maturation monitoring, suggesting a potential mismatch with current practices. An absence of an interdisciplinary environment, and the need for enhanced communication and education on training load and maturation monitoring data were consistently noted across both clubs. Resource limitations, particularly in human support and time constraints were identified as major barriers. In response, clubs have begun developing strategies to adapt their monitoring practices.
CONCLUSION:
Individual coach biography and philosophy may have a significant impact on their approach to adopting and implementing training load and maturation monitoring practices. Although the workshop facilitated a collaborative, multi-disciplinary environment, it was evident that both clubs adopted a segmented approach to training load and maturation monitoring practices. Future research should aim to develop a collaborative, co-constructed club environment that facilitates coaches learning of training load and maturation monitoring practices.

1. Salter et al. (2020) 2. Otte et al. (2022) 3. Johnson et al. (2023)