It can be observed that coaching in youth sports may be based on technique development, while it is inspired by high-performance sports. As it is observed a lack of research that addressed the coaching process with youth handball teams in the Brazilian context, this study aimed to analyze what is expected for the defensive phase and how it is taught.
Methods
We interviewed 22 handball coaches from the U-12, U-14, U-16, and U-18 teams addressing the teaching of defensive skills when facing different offensive systems and the approaches used in the training sessions. The interviews were analyzed using the Collective Subject Discourse (CSD) method.
Results and discussion
The coaches’ discourses revealed an increasing expectation due to players’ experience, but with stimulation of high-level sport since the youngest teams. The discourses also emphasized the use of traditional approaches and game-based approaches to apply the learned skill in the game context, independently of the age group. It was noted that the expectations of the coaches about players’ technical-tactical development and the approaches are controversial, especially when comparing the specific skills with the use of the traditional approach in the younger teams (U-12 and U-14 teams). It is suggested that more attention must be paid when choosing the defensive skills to be taught for youth players, and the chosen teaching approaches must promote a reflexive environment to learners.
HarveySCushionCCopeE, et al.A season-long investigation into coaching behaviours as a function of practice state: the case of three collegiate coaches. Sports Coaching Rev2013; 2: 13–32.
2.
MenezesRMarquesRNunomuraM. Teaching handball to players under-12: the perspective of Brazilian coaches. Motriz2017; 23(4): 1–8. DOI: 10.1590/S1980-6574201700040006.
3.
LightREvansJ. Positive pedagogy for sport coaching. Sport, Edu Soc2017; 22: 1–17.
4.
LightREvansJ. Dispositions of elite-level Australian rugby coaches towards game sense: characteristics of their coaching habitus. Sport, Edu Soc2013; 18: 407–423.
5.
KinnerkPHarveySMacDonnchaC, et al.A review of the game based approaches to coaching literature in competitive team sport settings. Quest2018; 70: 401–418.
6.
JaniJSaliminNShahrilI. The impact of coaching modules based on teaching games for understanding towards school netball players’ performance. J Fundamental App Sci2018; 9: 1250–1257.
7.
Morales-BelandoMCalderónAArias-EsteroJ. Improvement in game performance and adherence after an aligned TGfU floorball unit in physical education. Phy Edu Sport Pedagogy2018; 23: 657–671.
8.
MinhatNNathanSSaliminN. The effects of TGfU, SEM and HTGfU-SEM towards volleyball and badminton cognitive game play on performance among form one students. Adv Social Sci Res J2019; 6: 29–38.
9.
PaulaLCostaFFerreiraR, et al.Analysis of discriminatory game variables between winners and losers in women’s handball world championships from 2007 to 2017. Kinesiology2020; 52: 54–63.
10.
HarveySPillSAlmondL. Old wine in new bottles a response to claims that teaching games for understanding was not developed as a theoretically based pedagogical framework. Phy Edu Sports Pedagogy2018; 23: 166–180.
11.
PetiotGAquinoRSilvaD, et al.Contrasting learning psychology theories applied to the teaching-learning-training process of tactics in soccer. Front Psychol2021; 12: 637085.
12.
LightR. Coaches’ experiences of game sense: opportunities and challenges. Phy Edu Sport Pedagogy2004; 9: 115–131.
13.
BunkerBThorpeR. The curriculum model. In: ThorpeRBunkerDAlmondL (eds) Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: Loughborough, 1986, pp.7–10.
14.
NelsonLCushionCPotracP, et al.Carl rogers, learning and educational practice: critical considerations and applications in sports coaching. Sport, Edu Soc2014; 19: 513–531.
15.
MillerA. Games centered approaches in teaching children & adolescents. Systematic review of associated student outcomes. J Teaching Phy Edu2015; 34: 36–58.
16.
HoltNStreanWBengoecheaE. Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: new avenues for future research and practice. J Teaching Phy Edu2002; 21: 162–176.
17.
ThomasGMorganKMesquitaI. Examining the implementation of a teaching games for understanding approach in junior rugby using a reflective practice design. Sports Coaching Rev2013; 2: 49–60.
18.
PillS. Implementing game sense coaching approach in Australian football through action research. ÁGORA2016; 18: 1–19.
19.
García-LópezLGutiérrezDSánchez-MoraD, et al.Teachers’ use of teaching games for understanding in central Spain. Phy Edu Sport Pedagogy2019; 24: 463–477.
20.
DiSantiJEricksonK. Youth sport specialization: a multidisciplinary scoping systematic review. J Sports Sci2019; 37: 2094–2105.
21.
MenezesRMarquesRNunomuraM. Handball teaching in under-14 teams according to experienced coaches’ discourses. Movimento2015; 21: 463–477. DOI: 10.22456/1982-8918.47664.
22.
MenezesRRamosNMarquesR, et al.Teaching handball to U-16 and U-18 women’s teams: coaches’ perspective on the long-term. Motriz2018; 24(4): 1–9. DOI: 10.1590/S1980-6574201800040001.
23.
SantosWMenezesR. Team handball players’ specialization from coaches’ speeches [in Portuguese]. Cua Psi Dep2019; 19: 47–61. DOI: 10.6018/cpd.360471.
24.
SantosWMenezesR. Specialization of handball players: speeches of school team coaches. J Sport Sci2020; 16: 85–92.
25.
LeonardoLScagliaA. Study on youth handball regulations. A documental analysis on the mandatory use of individual defensive systems in under-12 and under-14 competitions. J Phy Edu2018; 29: 1–11.
26.
MenezesRModoloFSantosW, et al.Influence of normative institutions of handball for coaches’ learning: standpoint of Sao Paulo state coaches. J Sport Sci2017; 13: 183–190.
AlcaláDGarijoA. Teaching games for understanding: a comprehensive approach to promote student’s motivation in physical education. J Hum Kinetics2017; 59: 17–27.
MenezesRMarquesRMoratoM. Handball coaches’ perception of the offensive and defensive variables of the game in u-12 teams. Motricidade2017; 12: 6–19.
33.
Brazil. Law no 9.696, from September, 1st of 1998. Disposes about the regulation of physical education profession and creates its respective Federal Council and the regionals councils of physical education. Official Diary of Federative Republic of Brazil, Brasilia, DF (sep 2nd. 1998), http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9696.htm (accessed 21 September 2021).
34.
ModoloFMenezesR. Ações do goleiro de handebol em arremessos de longa e curta distância. Opinião de treinadores do Estado de São Paulo. Conexões2021; 19: 1–23. DOI: 10.20396/conex.v19i1.8658913.
35.
OliverDSerovichJMasonT. Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces2005; 84: 1273–1289.
36.
RichardsKHemphillM. A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. J Teaching Phy Education2018; 37: 225–231.
37.
LefèvreFLefèvreA. Pesquisa de representação social. Um enfoque qualiquantitativo [Social representation research. A quali quantitative focus]. São Paulo: Liberlivro, 2012.
38.
SparkesASmithB. Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: criteriology and relativism in action. Psy Sport and Exercise2009; 10: 491–497.
39.
CôtéJBakerJAbernethyB. Practice and play in the development of sport expertise. In: EklundRTenenbaumG (eds) Handbook of sports psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2007, pp.184–202.
40.
ElenaB. The importance of anticipation in increasing the defense efficiency in high performance handball. Soc Beh Sci2012; 76: 77–83.
41.
GréhaigneJGodboutP. Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. Quest1995; 47: 490–505.
42.
FariasCHarveySHastieP, et al.Effects of situational constraints on students’ game play development over three consecutive Sport Education seasons of invasion games. Phy Edu Sports Pedagogy2019; 24: 267–286.
