1. Unit 27 referral 1/2
Task 2 – Coaching Log

2. Athlete Introduction Name: Russell Cook Gender: Male
Date of birth: 13/3/97
Age:17
Height: 5 foot 8 inches
Weight: 10.3 stone
BMI:21.7
Sport: Football
Position: Left Back
Level: Performance

3. Coaching Log – Athlete Observation
Date
7/12/14
Location
Worthing-Hill Barn
Strengths
Watched it In person and so I got a first hand view on his performance. I got to watch him play in his actual positioning and so all the traits I identified where valid.
Improvement Areas
The fact I only watched him once and it wasn’t videoed means I only have one reference to his performance and I may have missed things and I cant watch it back.
Points for future discussion
Whether watching him only once is enough to create a performance profile of an athlete. I feel that next time it would be good to ask Russell how he thought he played and any thoughts or feedback he had his would have allowed me to see whether we had similar thoughts and views about his performance and this will make the strengths and weaknesses more accurate.
Possible actions arising
Next time possibly watching him more than once or videoing a game to watch it back to make sure he doesn’t miss anything. Checking all my 20 traits are appropriate for Russell having just seen him play.

4. Coaching Log – Athlete Profiling Meeting
Date
11/12/14
Location
Worthing College
Discussion points
We discussed a lot and he co-operated well, I explained to him how it will work with the API and ASI and he fully understood. The fact it was a face to face meeting allowed meeting to feel natural and allowed me the opportunity to ask him questions on certain traits he gave very high or low API scores to, this gave me more of an insight into his thinking about the game.
Concerns
He disagreed on a few of the traits I selected and so he may have not given a truly honest score on those traits, this will affect the overall validity of the results. Also our score differed greatly on a few traits this shows that our thoughts differed a lot on certain things, or that maybe Russell wasn’t always giving honest scores.
Points for future discussion
Me and Russell had a good discussion and he understood well what we we’re doing however in the future we may need to discuss traits before hand to confirm whether we both think they are appropriate. Making sure and confirming all the identified scores so we can then work on creating a plan to improve.
Possible actions arising
Having a meeting with the coach with the same detail and understanding to create our triangulated score results, this will then allow me to Create a program to work on and improve the traits we identified in the meeting.

5. Coaching Log – Coach Profile Meeting
Date
13/12/14
Location
Phone call
Discussion points
We had a good discussion, he understood all the traits and on the whole he agreed with all the traits. We discussed his scores against mine and Russell’s. I feel he answered very honestly and this increases the results validity.
Concerns
It was over the phone and so it lacked the feel of a flowing conversation and so it prevented me from asking any other possible questions that would gave come up during the discussion, such as discussing a trait he scored very differently to Russell.
Points for future discussion
He said would he thought were good improvements point for the future, we both agreed on what we though his main strengths and weaknesses were which is positive as it means we both had the same points meaning the results and outcome is going to be more reliable.
Possible actions arising
I will use what he said to help create a suitable plan for improving his weaknesses.