Coaching behaviours often derive from sporting traditions, instinct and previous experiences. Practitioners tend to follow traditional, inherited methods rather than adopt new evidence-based approaches associated with athlete development. This article reviews literature relating to theoretical constructs of a novel coach education framework (CEF) developed by the Irish Rugby Football Union. The three constructs included are: self-determination theory (SDT), explicit learning theories (ELT) and implicit learning theories (ILT). A total of 82 publications met the inclusion criteria (SDT: n = 18, ELT: n = 28, ILT: n = 36). This review supports the efficacy of these constructs in isolation for promoting effective coaching practices and provides a justification for future implementation of the framework and its evaluation. This framework may have the potential to address a shortfall in current coach education formats, which have traditionally focused on What content should be used for athlete development as opposed to How practitioners can coach more effectively.
PartingtonMCushionC. An investigation of the practice activities and coaching behaviours of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Scand J Med Sci Sports2013; 23: 374–382.
2.
HarveySCushionCJMassa-GonzalezAN. Learning a new method: teaching games for understanding in the coaches’ eyes. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2010; 15: 361–382.
3.
DavidsKAraujoDCorreiaV, et al.How small-sided and conditioned games enhance acquisition of movement and decision-making skills. Exerc Sport Sci Rev2013; 41: 1–9.
4.
CushionCJHarveySMuirB, et al.Developing the Coach Analysis and Intervention System (CAIS): establishing validity and reliability of a computerised systematic observation instrument. J Sport Sci2012; 30: 201–216.
5.
FordPRYatesIWilliamsMA. An analysis of practice activities and instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: exploring the link between science and application. J Sport Sci2010; 28: 483–495.
6.
CushionCJ. Modelling the complexity of the coaching process. Int J Sports Sci Coach2007; 2: 395–401.
7.
CollinsDMoodyJ. Effective coaching in strength & conditioning: the foundations of the profession. In: MoodyJJeffreysI (eds) Strength & conditioning for sports performance. London: Routledge, 2016, pp.3–13.
8.
TurnnidgeJCôtéJ. Transformational coaching workshop: applying a person-centred approach to coach development programs. Int Sport Coach J2017; 4: 314–325.
9.
SherwinICampbellMJMacIntyreTE. Talent development of high-performance coaches in team sports in Ireland. Eur J Sport Sci2016; 17: 271–278.
10.
LightRL. Coaches’ experience of game sense: opportunities and challenges. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2004; 9: 115–132.
11.
LefebvreJSEvansMBTurnnidgeJ, et al.Describing and classifying coach development programmes: a synthesis of empirical research and applied practice. Int J Sports Sci Coach2016; 11: 887–899.
12.
McCullickBSchemppPMasonI, et al.A scrutiny of the coaching education program scholarship since 1995. Quest2009; 61: 322–335.
13.
StoszkowskiJCollinsD. Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. J Sport Sci2015; 34: 794–802.
14.
EvansMBMcGuckinMGainforthHL, et al.Coach development programmes to improve interpersonal coach behaviours: a systematic review using the re-aim framework. Br J Sports Med2015; 49: 871–877.
15.
DeciELRyanRM. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychol Inq2000; 11: 227–268.
16.
WulfGLewthwaiteR. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev2016; 23: 1382–1414.
17.
*ReinbothMDudaJLNtoumanisN. Dimensions of coaching behaviour, need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes. Motiv Emot2004; 28: 297–313.
18.
*WulfG. Self-controlled practice enhances motor learning: implications for physiotherapy. Physiotherapy2007; 93: 96–101.
19.
WulfGAdamsN. Small choices can enhance balance learning. Hum Mov Sci2014; 38: 235–240.
20.
MouratidisAVansteenkisteMLensW, et al.The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: evidence for a motivational model. J Sport Exerc Psychol2008; 30: 240–268.
21.
MouratidisALensWVansteenkisteM. How you provide corrective feedback makes a difference: the motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-supporting way. J Sport Exerc Psychol2010; 32: 619–637.
22.
KleynenMBraunSMBleijlevensMH, et al.Using a Delphi technique to seek consensus regarding definitions, descriptions and classifications of terms related to implicit and explicit forms of motor learning. PLoS ONE2014; 9: e100227.
23.
BenzAWinkelmanNPorterJM, et al.Coaching instruction and cues for enhancing sprint performance. Strength Cond J2016; 38: 1–11.
24.
*WinkelmanNCClarkKPRyanLJ. Experience level influences the effect of attentional focus on sprint performance. Hum Mov Sci2017; 52: 84–95.
25.
HarveySJarrettK. A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2014; 19: 278–300.
26.
NewellKMLiuYTMayer-KressG. Time scales in motor learning and development. Psychol Rev2001a; 108: 57–62.
27.
NewellKMVaillancourtDE. Dimensional change in motor learning. Hum Mov Sci2001b; 20: 695–715.
28.
RenshawIAraújoDButtonC, et al.Why the constraints-led approach is not teaching games for understanding: a clarification. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2015; 21: 459–480.
29.
RenshawIMoyB. A constraint-led approach to coaching and teaching games: can going back to the future solve the ‘they need the basics before they can play a game’ argument?Rev Educ Fis Deport Salud2018; 20: 1–26.
30.
KinnerkPHarveySMacDonnnachaC, et al.A review of the game-based approach in competitive team sport settings. Quest2018; 70: 401–418.
31.
CopeEPartingtonMHarveyS. A review of the use of a systematic observation method in coaching research between 1997 & 2016. J Sport Sci2017; 35: 2042–2050.
32.
LaVoiNMDutoveJK. Barriers and supports for female coaches: an ecological model. Sports Coach Rev2012; 1: 17–37.
33.
GilbertWDTrudelP. Analysis of coaching science research published from 1970–2001. Res Quart Exerc Sport2004; 75: 388–299.
34.
*GagneMRyanRMBargmannK. Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. J Appl Sport Psychol2003; 15: 372–390.
35.
*BartholomewKJNtoumanisNThorgersen-NtoumaniC. A review of controlling motivational strategies from a self-determination theory perspective: implications for sports coaches. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol2009; 2: 215–233.
36.
*LafreniéreMAKJowettSVallerandRJ, et al.Passion for coaching and the quality of the coach athlete relationship: the mediating role of coaching behaviours. Psychol Sport Exerc2011; 12: 144–152.
37.
*SheldonKMWatsonA. Coach’s autonomy support is especially important for varsity compared to club and recreational athletes. Int J Sports Sci Coach2011; 6: 109–123.
38.
*BartholomewKJThorgensen-NtoumanisC. The controlling interpersonal style in a coaching context: development and initial validation of a psychometric scale. J Sport Exerc Psychol2010; 32: 193–216.
39.
*StoateIWulfG. Does the attentional focus adopted by swimmers affect their performance?Int J Sports Sci Coach2011; 6: 99–108.
40.
*KellerMLauberBGehringD, et al.Jump performance and augmented feedback: immediate benefits and long-term training effects. Hum Mov Sci2014; 36: 177–189.
41.
*MakarukHPorterJMMakarukB. Acute effects of attentional focus on shot put performance in elite athletes. Kinesiology2013; 45: 55–62.
42.
*IlieASelinIManh-CuongD, et al.Attentional focus effects on sprint start performance as a function of skill level. J Sport Sci2013; 31: 1705–1712.
43.
*WulfGSuJ. An external focus of attention enhances golf shot accuracy in beginners and experts. Res Q Exerc Sport2007; 78: 384–389.
44.
*SampaioJELagoCGonçalvesB, et al.Effects of pacing, status and unbalance in time motion variables, heart rate and tactical behaviour when playing 5-a-side football small-sided games. J Sci Med Sport2013; 17: 229–233.
45.
*FleayBJoyceCBanyardH, et al.Manipulating field dimensions during small-sided games impacts the technical and physical profiles of Australian footballers. J Strength Cond Res2018; 32: 2039–2045.
46.
*RicATorrentsCGonçalvesB, et al.Dynamics of tactical behaviour in association football when manipulating players’ space of interaction. PLoS ONE2017; 12: 1–16.
47.
*CorreiraVAraújoDDuarteR, et al.Changes in practice task constraints shape decision-making behaviours of team games players. J Sci Med2012; 15: 244–249.
48.
*ClementeFMWongDPLourenco-MartinsF, et al.Acute effects of the number of players and scoring method on physiological, physical, and technical performance in small-sided soccer games. Res Sports Med2014; 22: 380–397.
49.
*Serra-OlivaresJSGonzález-VílloraSGarcíaL, et al.Game-based approaches’ pedagogical principles: exploring task constraints in youth soccer. J Hum Kinet2015; 46: 251–261.
50.
*AguiarMGonçalvesBBotelhoG, et al.Footballers’ movement behaviour during 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-a-side small-sided games. J Sport Sci2015; 33: 1259–1266.
51.
*LewthwaiteRChiviacowskySDrewsR, et al.Choose to move: the motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev2015; 22: 1383–1388.
52.
*MallettC. Self determination theory: a case study of evidence-based coaching. Sport Psychol2005; 19: 417–429.
53.
GilbertW. Coaching better every season: a year-round system for athlete development and program success. Leeds: Human Kinetics UK, 2017.
54.
*HodgeKHenryGSmithW. A case study of excellence in elite sport: motivational climate in a world championship team. Sport Psychol2014; 28: 60–74.
55.
*WulfGRaupachMPfeifferF. Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Res Q Exerc Sport2005; 76: 107–111.
56.
*GilletNVallerandRJAmouraS, et al.Influence of coaches’ autonomy support on athletes’ motivation and sport performance: a test of the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychol Sport Exerc2010; 11: 155–161.
57.
*BalaguerIGonzálezLFabraP, et al.Coaches’ interpersonal style, basic psychological needs and the well- and ill-being of young soccer players: a longitudinal analysis. J Sport Sci2012; 30: 1619–1629.
58.
*AdieJWDubaJNtoumanisN. Autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the optimal functioning of adult male and female sport participants: a test of basic needs theory. Motiv Emot2008; 32: 189–199.
59.
*HodgeKLonsdaleCNgJY. Burnout in elite rugby: relationships with basic psychological needs fulfilment. J Sport Sci2008; 26: 835–844.
60.
*AdieJWDubaJNtoumanisN. Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: a longitudinal investigation. Psychol Sport Exerc2012; 13: 1–59.
61.
*GonzálezLGarcía-MeritaMCastilloI, et al.Young athletes’ perceptions of coach behaviours and their implications on their well- and ill-being over time. J Strength Cond Res2016; 30: 1147–1154.
62.
McAuleyEDuncanTTammenV. Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res Quart Exerc Sport1989; 60: 48–58.
63.
*AmoroseAJHornTS. Pre-to post-season changes in the intrinsic motivation of first year college athletes: relationships with coaching behaviour & scholarship status. J Appl Sport Psychol2001; 13: 355–373.
64.
*BartholomewKJNtoumanisNRyanRM, et al.Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: the role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Pers Soc Psychol Bull2011; 37: 1459–1473.
65.
*MahoneyJWNtoumanisNGuccuardiDF, et al.Implementing an autonomy-supportive intervention to develop mental toughness in adolescent rowers. J Appl Sport Psychol2016; 28: 199–215.
66.
MillarSKOldhamARHRenshawI, et al.Athlete and coach agreement: identifying successful performance. Int J Sports Sci Coach2017; 12: 807–813.
67.
WebsterCAHuntKLeFlecheM. Are winning coaches more autonomy-supportive? Examining the context of varsity boys’ soccer. J Sport Behav2013; 36: 209–232.
68.
LemosAWulfGLewthwaiteR, et al.Autonomy support enhances performance expectancies, positive affect and motor learning. Psychol Sport Exerc2017; 31: 28–34.
69.
Sol ÁlvarezMBalaguerICastilloI, et al.Coach autonomy support and quality of sport engagement in young soccer players. Span J Psychol2009; 12: 138–148.
70.
CarpentierJMageauGA. When change-oriented feedback enhances motivation, well-being and performance: a look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport. Psychol Sport Exerc2013; 14: 423–435.
71.
OcchinoJMallettCJRynneSB, et al.Autonomy-supportive pedagogical approach to sports coaching: research, challenges and opportunities. Int J Sports Sci Coach2014; 9: 401–415.
72.
*FreudenheimAMWulfGMadureiraF, et al.An external focus of attention results in greater swimming speeds. Int J Sports Sci Coach2010; 5: 533–542.
73.
*AnJWulfGKimS. Increased distance and x-factor stretch in golf through external focus of attention. J Mot Learn Dev2013; 1: 2–11.
74.
WulfGHößMPrinzW. Instructions for motor learning: differential effects of internal versus external focus of attention. J Mot Behav1998; 30: 169–179.
75.
WulfGSheaCHParkJH. Attention and motor performance: preferences for and advantages of an external focus. Res Q Exerc Sport2001b; 72: 335–344.
76.
*WulfGMcConnelNGärtnerM, et al.Enhancing the learning of sport skills through external-focus feedback. J Mot Behav2002; 34: 171–182.
77.
*ZacheryTWulfGMercerJ, et al.Increased movement accuracy and reduced EMG activity as resulted of adopting an external focus of attention. Brain Res Bull2005; 67: 304–309.
78.
*WulfGZacheryTGranadosC, et al.Increases in jump-and-reach height through an external focus of attention. Int J Sports Sci Coach2007; 2: 275–284.
79.
*PorterJMOstrowskiEJNolanRP, et al.Standing long-jump performance is enhanced when using an external focus of attention. J Strength Cond Res2010b; 24: 1746–1750.
80.
*PorterJMNolanRPOstrowskiEJ, et al.Directing attention externally enhances agility performance: a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the efficacy of using verbal instructions to focus attention. Front Psychol2010c; 1: 1–7.
81.
WulfGMcNevinNHSheaCH. The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Q J Exp Psychol2001a; 54A: 1143–1154.
82.
*PorterJMAntonPMWikoffNM, et al.Instructing skilled athletes to focus their attention externally at greater distances enhances jumping performance. J Strength Cond Res2013; 27: 2073–2078.
83.
*PorterJMSimsB. Altering focus of attention influences elite athletes sprinting performance. Int J Coach Sci2014; 7: 41–51.
84.
*SchuttsKSWuWFWVidalAD, et al.Does focus of attention improve snatch lift kinematics?J Strength Cond Res2017; 31: 2758–2764.
85.
*BeckerKASmithPJK. Attentional focus effects in standing long jump performance: influence of a broad and narrow internal focus. J Strength Cond Res2015; 29: 1780–1783.
86.
MarchantDCGreigMScottC. Attentional focusing instructions influence force production and muscular activity during isokinetic elbow flexions. J Strength Cond Res2009; 23: 2358–2366.
87.
*PorterJMWuWFWPartridgeJA. Focus of attention and verbal instructions: strategies of elite track and field coaches and athletes. Sport Sci Rev2010a; 19: 199–211.
88.
*WulfGDufekJS. Increased jump height with an external focus due to enhanced lower extremity joint kinetics. J Mot Behav2009; 41: 401–409.
89.
*PorterJMAntonPMWuWFW. Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention enhances standing long jump performance. J Strength Cond Res2012; 26: 2389–2393.
90.
WinkelmanNC. Attentional focus and cueing in sprinting. Strength Cond J2018; 40: 13–25.
91.
*LiaoCMMastersRSW. Analogy learning: a means to implicit motor learning. J Sport Sci2001; 19: 307–319.
92.
SeifertLDavidsK. Intentions, perceptions and actions constrain functional intra- and inter-individual variability in the acquisition of expertise in individual sports. Open Sports Sci J2012; 5: 68–75.
93.
*OrthDDavidsKAraújoD, et al.Effects of a defender on run-up velocity and ball speed when crossing a football. Eur J Sport Sci2014; 14: 316–323.
94.
*BarnabéLVolossovitchADuarteR, et al.Age-related effects of practice experience on collective behaviours of football players in small-sided games. Hum Mov Sci2016; 48: 74–81.
95.
*FrenckenWVan Der PlattsJVisscherV, et al.Size matters: pitch dimensions constrain interactive team behaviour in soccer. J Syst Sci Complex2013; 26: 1–9.
96.
*VilarLDuarteRSilvaP, et al.The influence of pitch dimensions on performance during small-sided and conditioned soccer games. J Sport Sci2014a; 32: 1751–1759.
97.
*OlthofSBHFrenckenWGHLemminkKM. Match-derived relative pitch area changes the physical and team tactical performance of elite soccer players in small-sided soccer games. J Sport Sci2018; 36: 1557–1563.
98.
*HeadrickJDavidsKRenshawI, et al.Proximity-to-goal as a constraint on patterns of behaviour in attacker–defender dyads in team games. J Sport Sci2011; 30: 247–253.
99.
*BourboussonJDeschampsTTravassosB. From players to teams: towards a multi-level approach of game constraints in team sports. Int J Sports Sci Coach2014; 9: 1393–1406.
100.
*PizarroAPDel Villar ÁlvarezFPizarro MateoD, et al.The impact of nonlinear pedagogy on decision-making and execution in youth soccer players according to game actions. J Hum Kinet2017; 62: 185–198.
101.
*VilarLEstevesPTTravassosB, et al.Varying numbers of players in small-sided soccer games modifies action opportunities during training. Int J Sports Sci Coach2014b; 9: 1007–1018.
102.
*TravassosBVilarLDuarteR, et al.Tactical performance changes with equal vs unequal numbers of players in small-sided football games. Int J Perform Anal Sport2014; 14: 594–606.
103.
*SilvaPEstevesPCorreiaV, et al.Effects of manipulations of player numbers vs. field dimensions on inter-individual coordination during small-sided games in youth football. Int J Perform Anal Sport2015; 15: 641–659.
104.
*TimmermanEDe WaterJKachelK, et al.The effect of equipment scaling on children’s sport performance: the case for tennis. J Sport Sci2015; 33: 1093–1100.
105.
*FitzpatrickADavidsKStoneJA. Effects of Lawn Tennis Association mini-tennis as task constraint on children’s match-play characteristics. J Sport Sci2016; 35: 2204–2210.
106.
*FarrowDReidM. The effect of equipment scaling on the skill acquisition of beginning tennis players. J Sport Sci2010; 28: 723–732.
107.
LeeMCYChowJYKomarJ, et al.Nonlinear pedagogy: an effective approach to cater for individual differences in learning a sports skill. PLoS ONE2014; 9: 1–13.
108.
AnsonGElliotDDavidsK. Information processing and constraints-based views of skill acquisition: divergent or complementary?Motor Control2005; 9: 217–241.
109.
BernsteinNA. The control and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon Press, 1967.
110.
ChowJYDaviesKHristovskiR, et al.Nonlinear pedagogy: learning design for self-organising neurobiological systems. New Ideas Psychol2011; 29: 189–200.
111.
ChowJYDavidsKButtonC, et al.Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: an introduction. London: Routledge, 2016.
112.
FajenBRRileyMATurveyMT. Information, affordances, and the control of action in sport. Int J Sport Psychol2009; 40: 79–107.
113.
RietveldEKiversteinJ. A rich landscape of affordances. Ecol Psychol2014; 26: 325–352.
114.
BruinebergJRietveldE. Self-organisation, free energy, minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances. Front Hum Neurosci2014; 8: 599.
115.
SchollhornWIHegenPDavidsK. The non-linear nature of learning: a differential learning approach. Open Sports Sci J2012; 5: 100–112.
116.
CorreaUVilarLDavidsK, et al.Interpersonal angular relations between players constrain decision-making on the passing velocity in futsal. Adv Phys Educ2014; 4: 93–101.
117.
CorreiaVCarvalhoJAraújoD, et al.Principles of nonlinear pedagogy in sport practice. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2018; 24: 117–132.
118.
SchollhornWIBeckmannHMichelbrinkM, et al.Does noise provide a basis for the unification of motor learning theories?Int J Sport Psychol2006; 37: 1–21.
119.
NorthJPiggottDRankin-WrightAJ, et al.An empirical examination of UK coaches’ issues and problems, and their support and advice networks. Int Sport Coach J2020; 7: 283–294.
120.
DempseyNCopeERichardsonDJ, et al.Less may be more: how do coach developers reproduce “learner-centred” policy in practice?Sports Coach Rev2021; 10: 203–224.
121.
*LeeMCChowJYButtonC, et al.Nonlinear pedagogy and its role in encouraging twenty-first century competencies through physical education: a Singapore experience. Asia Pac Educ Rev2017; 37: 483–499.
122.
RenshawIOldhamARBawdenM. Nonlinear pedagogy underpins intrinsic motivation in sports coaching. Open Sports Sci J2012; 5: 8899.
123.
ChowJYDavidsKButtonC, et al.Nonlinear pedagogy: a constraints-led framework for understanding emergence of game play and movement skills. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci2006; 10: 71–103.
124.
ChowJYAtencioM. Complex and nonlinear pedagogy and the implications for physical education. Sport Educ Soc2014; 19: 1034–1054.
125.
CampbellPGPeakeJMMinettGM. The specificity of rugby union training sessions in preparation for match demands. Int J Sports Physiol Perform2018; 1: 496–503.
126.
PhibbsPJJonesBRowG, et al.The organised chaos of English adolescent rugby union: influence of weekly match frequency on the variability of match and training loads. Eur J Sport Sci2017; 18: 341–348.
127.
*PassosPAraújoDDavidsK, et al.Information- governing dynamics of attacker-defender interactions in youth rugby union. J Sport Sci2008; 26: 1421–1429.
128.
PassosPMilhoJFonsecaS, et al.Interpersonal distance regulates functional grouping tendencies of agents in team sports. J Mot Behav2011; 43: 155–163.
129.
AtencioMChowJYTanCKW, et al.Using a complex and nonlinear pedagogical approach to design practical primary physical education lesson. Eur Phy Educ Rev2014; 20: 244–263.
130.
TravassosBDuarteRVilarL, et al.Practice task design in team sports: representativeness enhanced by increasing opportunities for action. J Sport Sci2012a; 30: 144–154.
131.
*TravassosBAraújoDDavidsK, et al.Improving passing actions in team sports by developing interpersonal interactions between players. Int J Sports Sci Coach2012b; 7: 677–688.
132.
RothwellMStoneJADavidsK, et al.Development of expertise in elite and sub-elite British rugby league players: a comparison of practice experiences. Eur J Sport Sci2017; 17: 1252–1260.
133.
JowettSNtoumanisN. The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q): development and initial validation. Scand J Med Sci Sports2004; 14: 245–257.
134.
CôtéJYardleyJHayJ, et al.An exploratory examination of the coaching behaviour scale for sport. Avante1999; 5: 82–92.
135.
WoodenJJamiesonS. Wooden: a lifetime of observations on and off the court. London: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
136.
*Al-AboodSABennettSJHernandezFM, et al.Effect of verbal instructions and image size on visual search strategies in basketball free throw shooting. J Sport Sci2002; 20: 271–278.
137.
*BellJJHardyJ. Effects of attentional focus on skilled performance in golf. J Appl Sport Psychol2009; 21: 163–177.
138.
*CastellanoJSilvaPUsabiagaO, et al.The influence of scoring targets and outer-floaters on attacking and defending team dispersion, shape and creation of space during small-sided soccer games. J Hum Kinet2016; 51: 153–163.
139.
*DuarteRAraújoDFernandesO, et al.Effects of different practice task constraints on fluctuations of player heart rate in small-sided football games. Open Sports Sci J2010; 3: 13–15.
140.
*DuarteRAraújoDGazimbaV, et al.The ecological dynamics of 1v1 sub-phases in association football. Open Sports Sci J2010; 3: 16–18.
141.
*EstevesPTde OliveiraRFAraújoD. Posture-related affordances guide attacks in basketball. Psychol Sport Exerc2011; 12: 639–644.
142.
*GabbettTWakeMAbernethyB. Use of dual-task methodology for skill assessment and development: examples from rugby league. J Sport Sci2011; 29: 7–18.
143.
García-LópezLMGonzález-VílloraSGutiérrezD, et al.Development and validation of the Game Performance Evaluation Tool (GPET) in Soccer. SporTK2013; 1: 89–99.
144.
*GonçalvesBMarcelinoRTorres-RondaL, et al.Effects of emphasising opposition and cooperation on collective movement behaviour during football small-sided games. J Sport Sci2016; 34: 1346–1354.
145.
*KellerMLauberBGottschalkL, et al.Enhanced jump performance when providing augmented feedback compared to an external or internal focus of attention. J Sport Sci2015; 33: 1067–1075.
146.
*OppiciLPanchukDSerpielloFR, et al.Long-term practice with domain-specific task constraints influences perceptual skills. Front Psychol2017; 8: 1–9.
147.
*PorterJMWuWFWCrossleyRM, et al.Adopting an external focus of attention improves sprinting performance in low-skilled sprinters. J Strength Cond Res2015; 29: 947–953.
148.
*SilvaPAguiarPDuarteR, et al.Effects of pitch size and skill level on tactical behaviours of association football players during small-sided and conditioned games. Int J Sports Sci Coach2014; 9: 993–1006.
149.
*SilvaPDuarteRSampaioJ, et al.Field dimension and skill level constrain team tactical behaviours in small-sided and conditioned games in football. J Sport Sci2014; 32: 1888–1896.
150.
*SilvaPVilarLDavidsK, et al.Sports teams as complex adaptive systems: manipulating player numbers shapes behaviours during football small-sided games. Springerplus2016; 5: 1–10.
151.
*TallirIBPhillippaertsRValckeM, et al.Learning opportunities in 3 on 3 versus 5 on 5 basketball game play: an application of nonlinear pedagogy. Int J Sport Psychol2012; 43: 420–427.
152.
*TimmermanEAFarrowDSavelsbergGJP. The effect of manipulating task constraints on game performance in youth field hockey. Int J Sports Sci Coach2018; 12: 588–595.
153.
*WuWFWPorterJMBrownLE. Effect of attentional focus strategies on peak force and performance in the standing long jump. J Strength Cond Res2012; 26: 1226–1231.
154.
*WulfG. Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol2013; 6: 77–104.
155.
*WulfGChiviacowskySSchillerE, et al.Frequent external-focus feedback enhances motor learning. Front Psychol2010; 1: 1–7.
156.
*WulfGDufekJSLozanoL, et al.Increased jump height and reduced EMG activity with an external focus. Hum Mov Sci2010a; 29: 440–448.
157.
136-156 are not cited explicitly in the text of the manuscript they formed part of the analysis and narrative throughout the review, hence their inclusion in the reference list.
