The objective of this study was to explore how UK professional youth football coaches construct knowledge and integrate training load and maturation monitoring into their coaching practice. Eleven experienced (≥5 yrs) coaches working with players in the youth development and/or foundation phase, from a range of elite player performance plan category clubs (1–3), were purposively sampled based on their coaching experience and qualifications. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and coding was carried out using NVivo v12. An inductive, reflexive, thematic analysis was employed to analyse transcripts, and three themes were identified: 1. coach learning, 2. club environment, and 3. coach behaviour. Coaches predominantly constructed their knowledge through formal youth athlete coaching qualifications, sports-related higher education degrees, and informal learning opportunities facilitated within club environments that promoted interdisciplinary collaboration. How coaches learn, and the environments in which they operate, appear to shape behaviour, with effective communication playing a crucial role in supporting decision-making based on monitoring data. Category two and three status coaches reported a lack of human resources, poor knowledge exchange, and limited communication between coaches and sports scientists as a barrier to using training load and maturation monitoring data. Interdisciplinary practices, non-formal continuing professional development programmes and frequent communication facilitated the implementation of monitoring practices within category one clubs. These findings contribute a novel coach-centred perspective by revealing how formal, non-formal, and informal learning experiences shape coaches’ monitoring knowledge, while identifying the environmental conditions and interdisciplinary practices that facilitate or constrain the implementation of training load and maturation monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thompson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: