Accelerating the world's research.

Analysis of swimming performance:

perceptions and practices of US-
based swimming coaches
Leo R Quinlan

Cite this paper Downloaded from

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of the best related papers

Application of Video-Based Methods for Competitive Swimming Analysis: A Systematic Revie…

SEM OJ

Inertial Sensor Technology for Elite Swimming Performance Analysis: A Systematic Review Leo R Quinlan
Measuring Kinematic Variables in Front Crawl Swimming Using Accelerometers: A Validation Study Andrew Callaway
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES, 2015
Downloaded by [National University of Ireland - Galway] at 06:50 16 September 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1085074

Analysis of swimming performance: perceptions and practices of US-based

swimming coaches
Robert Mooney1,2, Gavin Corley1,2, Alan Godfrey3, Conor Osborough4, John Newell5, Leo Richard Quinlan6
and Gearóid ÓLaighin1,2
1
Electrical & Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering & Informatics, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland; 2Bioelectronics Research Cluster, National
Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland; 3Institute for Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne,
UK; 4Department of Exercise & Sports Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Crewe, UK; 5Biostatistics Unit, HRB Clinical Research Facility,
NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland; 6Physiology, School of Medicine, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In elite swimming, a broad range of methods are used to assess performance, inform coaching Accepted 12 August 2015
practices and monitor athletic progression. The aim of this paper was to examine the performance KEYWORDS
analysis practices of swimming coaches and to explore the reasons behind the decisions that Swimming; coaching;
coaches take when analysing performance. Survey data were analysed from 298 Level 3 competitive biomechanics; video
swimming coaches (245 male, 53 female) based in the United States. Results were compiled to analysis; inertial sensor
provide a general- ised picture of practices and perceptions and to examine key emerging themes. It
was found that a disparity exists between the importance swim coaches place on biomechanical
analysis of swimming performance and the types of analyses that are actually conducted. Video-
based methods are most frequently employed, with over 70% of coaches using these methods at least
monthly, with analyses being mainly qualitative in nature rather than quantitative. Barriers to the
more widespread use of quantitative biomechanical analysis in elite swimming environments were
explored. Constraints include time, cost and availability of resources, but other factors such as sources
of information on swimming performance and analysis and control over service provision are also
discussed, with particular empha- sis on video-based methods and emerging sensor-based
technologies.

Introduction performance; (ii) monitor progress; (iii) track changes in per-

formance-related variables; and (iv) identify strengths and
The preparation of elite swimmers for competition is charac-
weaknesses of both the athlete and opposition. However,
terised by detailed annual training plans designed to improve
many other analysis options exist. These include force plat-
all aspects of performance. Central to these preparations are
forms, tethered devices and recently developed inertial-
processes of regular testing and measurement as a method to
sensor-based technologies for biomechanical assessment;
assess and monitor progression. The swimming coach plays
physiological tools such as heart rate and lactate monitors;
the vital role in the training process, with responsibility for
as well as an assortment of systems and methods for
instigat-
assessing other areas including psychology, nutrition, and
ing a positive change in a swimmer’s performance. This is strength and conditioning. What is unclear is the extent to
achieved by implementing a structured, periodised which coaches incorporate these various tools when
programme of training and competition that simultaneously analysing their swim-
addresses phy- sical, mental, tactical and technical components
mers’ progression.
(Bompa & Haff, 2009; Dick, 2002). Consequently, control over
Competitive swimming is a highly researched area and
the nature of sports science service provision typically lies
technological developments have aided advances in the
with the coach.
understanding of the biomechanical principles that underpin
Ultimately, an extensive range of resources must be con-
these elements and govern propulsion through the water
sidered to decide the appropriate method of analysis for any
(Payton, Baltzopoulos, & Bartlett, 2002; Sanders et al., 2006;
given training environment. A comprehensive review of the
Toussaint & Truijens, 2005). Deterministic models have been
area summarised that performance analysis of competition
developed through biomechanical research to highlight the
using video is the most complete method available, providing
interplay between various temporal, kinematic and kinetic
a method of analysing the outcome of a performance that
principles during swimming performance (Chow & Knudson,
incorporates all the factors necessary for that performance
2011; Grimston & Hay, 1986; McLean, Holthe, Vint, Beckett, &
(Smith, Norris, & Hogg, 2002). Performance analysis can be
Hinrichs, 2000; Sanders, 2002). These models serve to
defined as the provision of objective feedback to athletes
identify the key parameters that practitioners could monitor
and coaches through the use of different means, typically
to assess improvements when conducting performance
involving video analysis and statistical information. The
analysis.
analy- sis can then be used to (i) make a permanent
record of
 CONTACT: Leo Richard QuinlanPhysiology, School of Medicine, NUI Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland.
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
 2 R. MOONEY ET AL.
Commonly, a coach will conduct the analysis themselves,
Downloaded by [National University of Ireland - Galway] at 06:50 16 September 2015
through observation and qualitative assessment using the naked
eye and video playback (Lees, 2002; Wilson, 2008). Qualitative
biomechanical assessment is based on the coach’s own knowledge
and experience. A key advantage is that it is
both low cost and easy to implement with large numbers of
athletes. The value of qualitative analysis of technique should not be
ignored. Researchers have argued that biomechanical laws and
principles can be counterintuitive (Knudson, 2007) causing
confusion when explaining and interpreting the meaningful
information that results from quantitative analysis. However, a
subjective methodology also relies heavily on the
coach’s expertise and requires them to know what they should
be looking for.
A coach may utilise the services of a sports scientist or
biomechanist who will use specialist equipment and semi-
quantitative analysis approaches to assess specific aspects of
performance (Payton & Bartlett, 2008). Semi-quantitative ana- lysis
is useful in conditions where direct measurement is not feasible
and can be defined as gathering approximate, rather than exact, data
measurements. For example, using video analysis software to
estimate the distance travelled during the underwater glide phase
following a turn or to approximate a joint angle or segment position
using lines overlaid on video footage. However, time delay in data
processing can often limit the effectiveness and use of such
approaches in applied settings (Phillips, Farrow, Ball, & Helmer,
2013).
Finally, a coach may access a biomechanical service deliv- ery
that uses quantitative methods through a nationally coor- dinated
programme (Mason, 2010; Payton, 2008). Quantitative approaches
allow for the greatest level of detail and require access to
sophisticated equipment and therefore are often reserved for only
elite level athletes. In practice, this type of delivery would not be
coordinated by a club coach and focus
would be on an individual swimmer’s needs rather than that
of a group. However, research work conducted using similar
methods can produce findings that can be generalised for wider
impact potential.
The coach is the link between research and practice and
therefore it is important to understand their views and inves-
tigate practices carried out in elite swimming. However, despite
their critical role in the process, the opinions of swim coaches
have rarely been reported in the extant literature. Stewart and
Hopkins (2000) surveyed 24 swim coaches and 185 swimmers to
investigate the relationship between training prescription and
performance outcome. The focus of that paper was on the
periodisation of training, measuring training intensity, duration and
volume. Surveys of swimmers them- selves have explored the
incidence of injury (Walker, Gabbe, Wajswelner, Blanch, & Bennell,
2012), training practices (Gould, Guinan, Greenleaf, & Chung, 2002),
coaching climate and behaviours (Coatsworth & Conroy, 2009), or
nutritional con- siderations (Corley, Demarest-Litchford, & Bazzarre,
1990; Heffner, Ogles, Gold, Marsden, & Johnson, 2003). However
these studies have collectively failed to address methods of
monitoring performance progression through measurement and
testing.
To the authors’ knowledge, no published research paper
has yet aimed to quantify the practices of top-level swimming
coaches regarding the performance analyses that they con- duct. It is
unclear to what extent various tools are used and for what purposes.
Understanding the motivations of coaches and how environmental
constraints impact on their decisions is important. Previous
surveys of other sports coaches have reported poor knowledge
transfer between research and
applied settings (Martindale & Nash, 2013; Reade, Rodgers, &
Spriggs, 2008); therefore, coaches may not analyse swimmers’
techniques based on the key findings emerging from research
studies, potentially limiting coaching effectiveness.
Therefore, the aim of this paper was to survey a large sample
of American Swim Coaches Association (ASCA) Level 3 swim
coaches regarding their practices and to gain insight into their
perceptions regarding the performance analysis tools that they
use. Particular attention was given to biome- chanical analysis of
swimming performance and exploration of the use of various
systems, specifically video-based methods of analysis and emerging
sensor-based technologies.
Methods
A self-administered online questionnaire was distributed to all
swim coaches affiliated with the ASCA. The survey was
reviewed by the Chairman of the NUI Galway Research Ethics
Committee and the conditions of the Helsinki Declaration were
satisfied. The United States can be regarded as the top swimming
nation internationally and consistently tops the rankings at major
competitions. For example, USA won 30 medals at the 2012
Olympic Games (31% of the total medals available), including
50% of gold medals. Therefore, the opinions and practices of
coaches working in the United States are important and may
provide insight into the preparations of elite athletes for competi-
tion. In total 635 coaches responded to the survey. However, in
order to gain insight into the practices of more senior level
coaches with experience working in an elite or competitive
setting, a filtering process was carried out and the final analysis
was limited to responses from coaches with a minimum of ASCA
Level 3 swim coaching qualification (N = 298). This level of
coaching qualification was deemed appropriate as coaches will be
more likely to be coaching older, more senior/elite level
swimmers with national and international level experience.
Categories of questioning included (i) coaching experi-
ence, (ii) importance of various areas of sport science service
provision, (iii) types of analysis conducted and equipment used
for these analyses and (iv) advantages and disadvan- tages of various
video and inertial-sensor-based systems. Opportunities for coaches
to express their views in their own words were also included to
gain a better insight into their perceptions and to allow them to
expand on the responses provided. Questions were intended to be
general in nature regarding all available systems and tools for
analy- sis in swimming, to avoid bias regarding the specific aims
of the survey. Coaches were asked to consider their experiences over
the preceding 6 years, in order to gain awareness of their current
practices, taking into account the latest techno- logical
developments.
The majority of the data Minitab (version 16.0, Minitab
presented in the results are Inc., State College, PA, USA).
descriptive in nature. Statistical The Chi-Square test was used to
analyses were carried out using test for association between
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 3
coaching experience and level received a higher average performance is shown in Table
Sports science and
Downloaded by [National University of Ireland - Galway] at 06:50 16 September 2015

of success and to compare the ranking 3. The data highlight the

proportions of qualitative and medicine service provision overall. A summary of the central importance placed on
quantitative video-analysis Coaches were asked to rank, in categories of performance temporal measures of
practices used by coaches order of importance, several mea- sures reported by performance. In fact, the start-
(Newell, Aitchison, & Grant, areas of sport science service coaches as those most and turning-related
2010). In order to investigate provision typically included as important to quan- tify in parameters reported were
if differences existed part of the annual training order to analyse swimming also mainly
between coaches’ rankings of plan of elite swimming pro-
different service areas, a one- grammes (1 = most important;
way ANOVA and Kruskal– 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10
10 = least important). The
Wallis test was conducted on 6
the mean and median scores, ranking was based on
perceived impact of the Biomechanics (1)
respectively. A significance
level of service area on swimming Strength and Conditioning (2)
0.05 was used for all analyses. performance. Figure 1
summarises these results. Psychology (3)
Service Area

Biomechanics was ranked Nutrition (4)

Results most important in order of
Physiology (5)
Characteristics of priority for coaches. There
participants was a significant difference in Performance Analysis (6)
mean (ANOVA) and median Lifestyle (7)
Table 1 provides descriptive (Kruskal–Wallis) rankings across
information for the final group the service areas where Medical (8)
of survey respondents (N = 298, biomechanics tends to be Physical Therapy (9)
245 male, 53 female). More than ranked higher, on average,
half of respondents have over 20 compared to the other service Physiotherapy (10)
years swim coaching experi- areas. Interestingly, medical- 1 2 3
ence and almost one third of related areas such as sports
4 7 8 9 10
respondents have coached an 6
medicine, physical therapy and
athlete ranked inside the top R
physiotherapy were ranked a
100 in the world in the lowest in order of perceived n
previous 6 years. There is k
importance and potential for
evidence of a significant i
performance impact, but these n
association between- coaching
outliers do not represent the g
experience and ranking, where
views of any one coaching
the more senior coaches tend Figure 1. Box plot summarising areas of sports science service provision
group (i.e. more successful or
to produce better ranked ranked in perceived order of importance for inclusion in training programme
more experi- enced coaches). (1 = most important; 10 = least important). Mean ( ), median (|),
swimmers. Over 40% of
interquartile range and outliers (*) are displayed.
coaches with 20+ years
experience have coached
Systems of
swimmer
analysis and key
(s) in the top 100 of the world
rankings.
performance-
related
parameters
Table 1. Descriptive information
for survey respondents, detailing Coaches were asked to
years of coaching experience and provide details of the
highest world ranking of athletes
coached.
frequency of use of various
Coachi T T systems available for
ng N= o op analysing swimming
experie p 26 performance and also what
nce –
50 they regarded as key system
2
5 requirements when choosing
an analysis tool. Table 2 dis-
plays results of coaches’ usage
0–4 years 8 0 0
5–9 years 34 3 2 frequencies. Figure 2
10–14 years 46 4 2 provides a ranked order of
15–19 years 39 2 3 system requirements,
20+ years 171 3 1 indicating that although more
7 6
Total 298 4 2 coaches ranked
6 3 “accessibility” as their top
priority, “ease of use”
 Table 2. Summary of the frequency of use of various systems available for swimming analysis. The most frequent response is highlighted
Downloaded by [National University of Ireland - Galway] at 06:50 16 September 2015

in bold for each device. All values are percentages (%) based on the responses of coaches.
Less
Analysis system Dail Wee Mont Quarte Annu than Not at
y kly hly rly ally annu all
ally
Heart rate monitor 27. 13.5 12.2 5.7 2.2 3 35.4
5 .
5
2D Video-based system 9.2 38.8 25.3 9.6 5.7 3 7.9
.
5
3D Video-based system 3.9 16.6 11.4 5.2 3.5 5 54.2
.
2
Inertial sensor device 3.9 7.9 9.6 7.0 2.6 6 62.9
.
1
Physical activity monitor 3.9 3.9 6.1 5.7 1.7 3 75.2
.
5
Lactate monitor 2.6 10.9 16.6 8.7 1.7 4 54.7
.
8
Pressure sensor 1.7 3.5 6.6 7.9 1.3 5 73.8
.
2
Portable metabolic system 1.3 3.1 7.0 5.2 3.5 3 76.8
.
1
Tethered device (i.e. 0.9 12.2 14.4 10.0 4.4 3 54.2
velocimeter) .
9
Force platform 0.0 3.9 10.0 8.7 2.6 6 68.2
.
6
Frequency of Response

25.0%
Ranked 1stRanked 2ndRanked 3rd

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

User Requirements

Figure 2. Ranking of the perceived most important system requirements reported when choosing an analysis tool. The frequency of response of coaches who
ranked each category as one of their top three responses is included. Results indicate a preference for easy to use systems that can be implemented readily
into training programmes.

Table 3. Summary of the self-selected performance indices reported by coaches

as the most important parameters to measure in order to analyse swimming which above-water and below-water cameras are used is
performance. Parameters are grouped into areas such as temporal, kinematic not clear. Further questions were posed to gain additional
and kinetic parameters based on the specific responses provided. insight into the type of analysis carried out using video
Frequency of (Figure 3). The expectation was that each category of ana-
System requirements response (%) lysis would be equally represented but a Chi-square good-
Temporal parameters (i.e. stroke rate, splits) 41.3 Psychological parameters 0.5
Body positioning 17.6 N/A responses 4.7
Start and Turn specific parameters 14.8
Kinematic parameters (i.e. stroke length, velocity, acceleration) 14.0
Physiological variables (i.e. heart rate, lactate) 3.4
Kinetic parameters (i.e. force) 3.7 temporal in nature (i.e. breakout time, rotation time), but are
grouped separately due to the high response rate amongst
coaches, indicating a preference for assessing these key
phases of swimming.
Video-based analysis
As shown in Table 2, video-based methods are used extre-
mely frequently by swim coaches, although the extent to
ness-of-fit test showed that a greater than expected
proportion of qualitative analysis is taking place, with a
subsequent under-representation of quantitative analysis
(X2 = 35.93, P < 0.05).
Sensor-based technology
Sensor-based technologies are a topic of recent research
attention. Therefore, further enquiry was made regarding
familiarity with this emerging technology. Overall familiarity
was found to be very low (Figure 4) and when
subsequently asked explicitly if they had used the devices in
the preceding 6 months a much lower number of coaches
reported that they
had (N = 14). Figure 5 compares coaches’ perceptions of key
barriers to the use of both video and inertial-sensor-based
systems.
Downloaded by [National University of Ireland - Galway] at 06:50 16 September 2015

Qualitative analysis only *

Mostly qualitative analysis

Quantitative and qualitative analysis evenly

Mostly quantitative analysis

Quantitative analysis only *

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

Figure 3. Comparison of types of video analysis most frequently carried out. Coaches were asked to state the relative proportions of both qualitative and
quantitative analysis conducted within their training programmes. * The results indicate a significant over-representation of qualitative analysis and under-
representation of quantitative analysis (P < 0.05).

Coaching philosophy
Extremely familiar
Availability of suitable equipment
Discussions with other coaches
Moderately familiar
Functionality of the equipment
Coaching literature
Somewhat familiar
Discussions with athletes
Academic literature
Slightly familiar
Input from sport scientist

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Not at all familiar
Figure 6. Ranked order of the sources of information for coaches regarding
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% factors that influence decision-making regarding the methods of analysis
used within their programmes. Academic and non-academic sources are
included as
Figure 4. Familiarity amongst swimming coaches of the application of body well as user requirements for analysis equipment.
worn sensor-based devices for the analysis of swimming performance, high-
lighting a lack of familiarity with the technology.

Information sources
Finally, coaches were asked about their preferred sources
of information on swimming performance analysis when
deciding what tools to use and what parameters to mea-
sure (Figure 6). Academic literature and input from a sport
scientist ranked lowest. Instead, coaches opt for other
information sources such as discussions with other coaches
or their own coaching philosophy when making these
decisions.
Discussion
The purpose of this research was to determine the practices
and perceptions of elite swim coaches based in the United
States regarding different performance analysis tools used in
competitive swimming, with a specific focus on
biomechanical analysis. It was found that coaches regard
biomechanics as the most important area of sport science
service provision, of the categories queried. This is likely a
reflection on the importance of correct technique and also
on an accumulation of knowl- edge emerging from several
decades of research into the

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Time taken to complete analysis
Cost
Availability of equipment
Lack of knowledge about technology
Expertise required
Not relevant to athletes level
Lack of belief about benefits
Poor responsiveness to feedback
Accuracy
Useability of information
Concern over information overload
Reliability of the information
Other

Video Sensors

Figure 5. Comparison of perceived barriers to use of video-based methods and sensor-based technologies for the analysis of swimming performance. Common
barriers exist for both systems, but the time taken to complete analysis is an additional barrier to more widespread use of video.
 biomechanical principles governing the four competitive
Downloaded by [National University of Ireland - Galway] at 06:50 16 September 2015
swimming strokes (Counsilman, 1955; Maglischo, 2003; Payton
et al., 2002; Schleihauf, 1979; Toussaint & Truijens, 2005). Coaches
also indicated that in the majority of cases (196 of 298
respondents), they have sufficient control over how the services
are implemented. Not surprisingly, therefore, almost three quarters of
respondents used video-based meth- ods of analysis on a monthly
basis and close to 50% used video weekly. However, whilst the
use of video was wide- spread, there was a disparity between the
perceived impor- tance of quantitative biomechanical data analysis
and existing practice that largely employs qualitative analysis of
video footage. One coach summed this up by stating:
While biomechanics is an area that is a major focus, it’s not always the
first focus of either the swimmers or the coach.
[Male, 5–9 years experience; swimmer ranked top-25 in world]
This disparity is consistent with previous research that has
suggested that the development of video technology in coaching
has had an emphasis on qualitative approaches in many sports
(Wilson, 2008), albeit with a lack of detailed information on
specific methods used (Lees, 2002). Moreover, other
performance monitoring tools are much less seldom incorporated
into coaching practices. Usage rates of inherently quantitative
systems such as force plates, activity monitors and pressure sensors
appear limited, sug- gesting that either significant barriers exist
that prevent coaches from conducting such work more frequently
or that quantitative data analysis is not considered important.
When asked if actual provision mirrors their ideal or pre- ferred
provision as shown in Figure 1, less than half of respondents
agreed (N = 136).
Barriers
According to the coaches surveyed, the main constraints pre- venting
more widespread use of biomechanical tools in swim- ming were a
lack of finances, time restrictions and accessibility to suitable
testing equipment. Several coaches commented on the difficulties
of balancing resources with requirements, hampering their ability
to deliver the sports science services in an ideal manner.
Additionally, coaches were often forced into balancing the needs
of a group versus those of the individual.
Time is always the culprit, we only have so much time and space so I
must make the decisions to do what I think is best for the team and
then the individual.
[Male, 20+ years experience; swimmer ranked top-50 in world]
Time and budget make it difficult to spend as much time analysing
mechanics and performance data.
[Male, 0–4 years experience; swimmer ranked outside top-250 in
world]
Several coaches remarks also indicated that in an ideal situa- tion,
without these constraints, they would perform more quantitative
analysis, such as in-depth kinematic examination of specific skills;
increased investigation into propulsive forces
I love being able to offer [video analysis]; but it is extremely time
consuming to provide good analysis to every swimmer. With even
a small team of 40 athletes it can take me a week dedicated just
generated by individual athletes and acceleration profiling for
different stroke phases. However such views were not univer- sally
held, with other coaches making reference to the experi- ence and
skill of the coach as the vital component in achieving swimming
excellence.
Swimming excellence is based on form feel and aggressive approach.
I am not convinced that those things can be acquired by the majority,
using [available] technologies.
[Female, 15–19 years experience; swimmer ranked top-100 in
world]
Coaches are too hung up on technology and forgetting that we are
artisans. There is no perfect scientific way to create a champion; it must
happen between the ears, not with a magic box.
[Male, 5–9 years experience; swimmer ranked outside top-250 in
world]
Video-based analysis methods
Many coaches provided interesting insight into what can be
considered the key advantages and disadvantages of using video.
Interestingly, none of the advantages related to quantitative
approaches. Instead, coaches’ comments concur with research
findings that the main feature pro-
moting the use of video is the objective record of a swim- mer’s
activity provided (Wilson, 2008), from which both coach and
swimmer can benefit. Visual feedback on per- formance is
perceived to be vital for skill acquisition, with
many coaches suggesting that swimmers’ awareness of their
movements in the water may be at odds with what they are
actually doing much of the time. Manipulation of
the video image using tools such as slow motion replay, frame by
frame viewing or split screen comparisons are also perceived as
important advantages. Most of the swim- mers’ movements occur
under the water, causing difficultly for a coach to see what is
going on; therefore, the video
appears to be just as important for the coach as for the athlete.
[Video gives a coach the] ability to show the athlete what they are
actually doing versus what they feel they are doing so your instruc- tions
are supported by fact in their minds.
[Male, 10–14 years experience; swimmer ranked top-25 in world]
[Video] truly helps a swimmer to see what they are doing or need to
do. Sometimes telling them just doesn’t work, but letting them watch
it does. [Video] also helps to slow down a stroke and allow you to see
things you could not see [otherwise].
[Male, 0–4 years experience; swimmer ranked outside top-250 in
world]
Commonly perceived disadvantages to video analysis meth- ods
were clearly found from the results. Cost and availability are both
important factors; however, time delay has been found to be the
most critical barrier. This may involve the
time to complete data collection – time to interpret and
analyse information or time lost from training to provide feed-
back information to swimmers.
It is difficult to provide relevant information to a large group in a
timely manner.
[Male, 15–19 years experience; swimmer ranked top-50 in world]
to videotaping, analysing it for hours at home, and then with 15
min- utes of feedback to the swimmer each, it takes me 10
hours to review with them all.
[Female, 20+ years experience; swimmer ranked outside top-250 in
 world]
Many programs that you can use (Dartfish for instance) offer great
analysis, but are extremely labour intensive. The best programs
offer immediate feedback for the athlete to make adjustments
quickly.
[Male, 10–14 years experience; swimmer ranked outside top-250 in
world]
Time delay is often cited as a disadvantage of video in
research literature also (Callaway, Cobb, & Jones, 2009;
Fulton, Pyne, & Burkett, 2009). Aside from the editing pro-
cess, digitisation and data processing for quantitative analy-
sis is labour-intensive and time-consuming, thus reducing
the effectiveness of the feedback. Guadagnoli, Holcomb,
and Davis (2002) demonstrated that video is an effective
method of producing changes in technique over and
above verbal feedback. However, others have shown that
quantitative feedback is also important for swimming analy-
sis rather than using video purely to provide the visual
record of performance (Thow, Naemi, & Sanders, 2012).
Researches have also questioned the accuracy of various
video-based methods (Kwon & Casebolt, 2006). Moreover,
video capture in aquatic environments has other inherent
disadvantages, such as hidden or obscured body segments,
water turbulence and issues with light refraction (Callaway
et al., 2009; Dadashi et al., 2013), none of which were
referenced by respondents to the survey.
Sensor-based technology
Comparison of the perceived barriers of video to those for
sensor-based technology is of interest as inertial sensors have
been touted as a possible substitute for video-based analysis
(Callaway et al., 2009). Cost and availability were commonly
expressed as disadvantages, but for inertial sensors a per-
ceived lack of knowledge amongst coaches is clearly another
important issue. Despite recent claims of the potential benefits
of inertial-sensor-based systems, usage remains extremely low,
with very few of the coaches surveyed (N = 14) using these
systems within the previous 6 months. Close to half of
respon- dents (N = 138) described themselves as “not at all
familiar” with the technology, with coaches commenting:
More literature needs to be published in the swimming
commu- nity. As an everyday coach, if I have not heard of it, and
I do more reading than the average coach, then there is a
problem with the advancement of the technology right there.
[Male, 10–14 years’ experience; swimmer ranked outside top-250 in
world]
[I would] need a demo of the technology and testimonies of
people using it and making a difference.
[Male, 15–19 years’ experience; swimmer ranked outside top-250 in
world]
Swimming-related applications for sensor-based technology
have received much research attention recently (Dadashi
et al., 2013; Davey, Anderson, & James, 2008; Le Sage et al.,
2011; Ohgi, Ichikawa, Homma, & Miyaji, 2003) and some com-
mercially available devices have recently emerged. The small
number of coaches who have used sensors did provide insight
into possible advantages of sensor-based technologies. They
reference both the speed of feedback provided as well as the
quantitative nature of the data obtained.
[sensors provide] immediate feedback for multiple swimmers at
once.
[Male, 10–14 years experience; swimmer ranked top-100 in world]
It is quantifiable.
[Male, 20+ years experience; swimmer ranked top-100 in world]
Information is collected automatically and feedback is given
within seconds. Detailed information can be accessed [at a later
time].
[Male, 20+ years experience; swimmer ranked outside top-250 in
world]
These sentiments echo the key conclusions of other research-
ers’ findings. Sensor-based systems have been developed to
provide rapid feedback to swimmers on key performance
indices such as lap times and stroke rates (Davey et al., 2008;
Le Sage et al., 2011). Other research purported advantages
include high levels of accuracy and the potential for integra-
tion with other feedback systems (Callaway et al., 2009;
Dadashi et al., 2013; Le Sage et al., 2011). Interestingly, some
academic sources also refer to the low cost of sensor-based
technology (James et al., 2011), which is at odds with the
perceived opinion amongst coaches.
Coaches’ perceptions of key performance-related
parameters
Biomechanical swimming research has found certain
measure- able parameters to have a significant influence on
swimming performance. Therefore it is interesting to explore
and com- pare coaches’ perceptions of the most important
parameters and the data they most frequently collect. A
common theme
evident from results presented in Table 3 is that coaches
consistently reported time-based parameters such as stroke
rates or split times over and above other types of information
as being of most importance to them. Temporal measures are
useful benchmarks of performance but more in-depth analysis
of the underlying kinetic and kinematic factors influencing
these temporal outcome is recommended (Smith et al., 2002).
The analyses of starts and turns are recognised by coaches
as a vital component of overall performance but again the
remarks of coaches are focused on time-based parameters. For
example, time to 15 m is frequently used as a measure of
starting performance but has been shown to be influenced by
other underlying factors, such as the horizontal velocity at
take-off or time spent in flight (Blanksby, Nicholson, & Elliot,
2002; Galbraith, Scurr, Kencken, Wood, & Graham-Smith,
2008). Another theme that emerged was the perceived
impor- tance of body position, including
streamlining, hand
 movements and joint angular positions. Coaches would
appear to assess these areas through direct observation or
Downloaded by [National University of Ireland - Galway] at 06:50 16 September 2015
qualitative examination of video footage to get a general
picture of a swimmer’s position in the water and coordination
of various body segments, without typically relying on quanti-
tative data to support their opinions. Therefore, the coaches
view would be that sophisticated data analysis tools are not
currently used to get the information that they are looking for.
User requirements
Comparisons of the findings in the present study with
previous research exploring the main user requirements
of coaches when selecting an analysis tool are of interest.
The data presented in Figure 2 show that the main
requirements are (i) ease of use, (ii) accessibility and (iii)
ease of understanding, suggesting a preference for
straightforward analysis systems that do not require com-
plex implementation. Presumably, coaches are more con-
cerned with the data output for use with their athletes.
Surprisingly, coaches ranked real-time feedback eighth out
of eleven user requirements, which is unexpected given
their comments on the issue of time affecting their prac-
tices. These findings contradict previously reported user
requirements that suggested the capture of skill-specific
measures and the repeatability of measures to be the key
user requirements (Le Sage et al., 2011). User requirements
had been determined through a similar methodology in
this previous study, which involved interviews and ques-
tionnaires with coaches, biomechanists and swimmers, but
the numbers involved were unreported. Contradictory find-
ings such as these serve to highlight that the requirements
for different end user groups may not always be the same.
Information sources
A potential explanation for the key findings of the present
study lies in the sources of information used by swimming
coaches. A coaches’ knowledge source will drive the coaching
process by informing training plans (Abraham, Collins, &
Martindale, 2006). Coaches would appear to rely on their
own coaching philosophy, coaching literature and other coa-
ches’ opinions rather than academic or scientific sources when
making decisions about technical analysis of swimming.
Interestingly, time constraints have also been cited
elsewhere as a reason for ignoring certain sources of
information (Reade et al., 2008). Although not considered in
the present study, it would have been interesting to assess
the academic back- ground of respondents in addition to
their vocational training, as access to such resources may
also be a limiting factor.
A supportive coaching community working within a colla-
borative knowledge-sharing environment is to be welcomed.
However, the results of the present study raise concerns that
research-led developments in elite assessment of swimming
may not be filtering down to those on the side of the pool,
a finding that is consistent with previous research (Martindale
& Nash, 2013; Reade et al., 2008; Williams & Kendall, 2007).
Potentially, a situation may develop whereby coaches might
not recognise how important certain kinetic or kinematic
parameters are, or fully appreciate the link between these
parameters and overall race performance.
Conclusion
The results of this survey highlight a disparity between ASCA
Level 3 coaches’ perceptions and their practices in
monitoring and assessing technical aspects of swimming
performance. On the one hand, the findings suggest an
understanding of the
importance of applying biomechanical principles in their train-
ing programmes. However, swim coaches have a clear focus
on measuring temporal-based parameters and place limited
emphasis on the underlying principles influencing these. A
variety of factors are at play, including constraints due to
their personal situations (time, cost, availability); accepted
coaching practice and their awareness and application of the
findings of research studies.
What is unclear from this study is whether practices would
change if the barriers were to be removed. Additional
explora- tion of coaches’ needs is warranted, to examine more
fully the reasons for conducting different types of analyses
with their
swimmers. It would also be interesting to compare these
find- ings against other prominent swimming nations.
Additionally, gaining the opinions of elite swimmers would
also allow further insight into what they consider to be the
best methods of analysing their technique and what
modes of feedback and instruction they would find most
beneficial.
These findings have implications for coaches and researchers
alike, as well as impacting on device development for swim-
ming analysis. Enterprises concerned with new product devel-
opment for swimming performance analysis can benefit from
fresh insight into the barriers that prevent the use of existing
technology and the key user requirements according to
coa- ches. Poor crossover between research and applied
practice is not unique to swimming. However, with such
emphasis on technical development, it is important that swim
coaches mea- sure the parameters that will most impact
performance. Coaching literature plays a large part in
disseminating the information emanating from academic
research and presenting findings to coaches in a convincing
manner. Until such time that coaches fully evaluate the
potential value of quantitative data, it is likely that coaches
will continue to opt for traditional practices and their own
intuition as the main means of asses- sing elite swimming
performance.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge to contribution of Mr John Leonard
of the ASCA in assisting with the distribution of this survey within
their coaching community.
 Disclosure statement
Downloaded by [National University of Ireland - Galway] at 06:50 16 September 2015
Funding
This research is funded by the Irish Research Council Enterprise Partnership
Scheme in conjunction with Swim Ireland [grant award reference
EPSPG\2012\361].
References
Abraham, A., Collins, D., & Martindale, R. (2006). The coaching schematic:
Validation through expert coach consensus. Journal of Sports Sciences,
24(6), 549–564.
Blanksby, B., Nicholson, L., & Elliot, B. (2002). Biomechanical analysis of the
grab, track and handle swimming starts: An intervention study. Sports
Biomechanics, 1, 11–24.
Bompa, T. O., & Haff, G. G. (2009). Periodization: Theory and methodology of
training (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Callaway, A. J., Cobb, J. E., & Jones, I. (2009). A comparison of video and
accelerometer based approaches applied to performance monitoring in
swimming. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching , 4(1),
139–153.
Chow, J. W., & Knudson, D. V. (2011). Use of deterministic models in
sports and exercise biomechanics research. Sports Biomechanics, 10(3), 219–
233.
Coatsworth, J. D., & Conroy, D. E. (2009). The effects of autonomy-
supportive coaching, need satisfaction, and self-perceptions on initia- tive and
identity in youth swimmers. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 320–328.
Corley, G., Demarest-Litchford, M., & Bazzarre, T. L. (1990). Nutrition knowl-
edge and dietary practices of college coaches. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 90(5), 705–709.
Counsilman, J. E. (1955). Forces in swimming two types of crawl stroke.
Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education
and Recreation, 26(2), 127–139.
Dadashi, F., Crettenand, F., Millet, G. P., Seifert, L., Komar, J., & Aminian, K.
(2013). Automatic front-crawl temporal phase detection using adaptive
filtering of inertial signals. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(11), 1251–1260. Davey,
N., Anderson, M., & James, D. A. (2008). Validation trial of an
accelerometer-based sensor platform for swimming. Sports
Technology, 1(4–5), 202–207.
Dick, F. W. (2002). Sports training principles (4th ed.). London: A&C Black.
Fulton, S. K., Pyne, D. B., & Burkett, B. J. (2009). Validity and reliability of kick
count and rate in freestyle using inertial sensor technology. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 27(10), 1051–1058.
Galbraith, J., Scurr, J., Kencken, C., Wood, L., & Graham-Smith, P. (2008).
Biomechanical comparison of the track start and the modified one- handed
track start in competitive swimming: An intervention study. Journal of
Applied Biomechanics, 24, 307–315.
Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., & Chung, Y. (2002). A survey of U.S.
Olympic coaches: Variables perceived to have influenced athlete per-
formances and coach effectiveness. Sport Psychologist, 16(3), 229–250.
Grimston, S. K., & Hay, J. G. (1986). Relationships among anthropometric and
stroking characteristics of college swimmers. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 18(1), 60–68.
Guadagnoli, M., Holcomb, W., & Davis, M. (2002). The efficacy of video feed- back
for learning the golf swing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(8), 615–622. Heffner, J.
L., Ogles, B. M., Gold, E., Marsden, K., & Johnson, M. (2003). Nutrition and
eating in female college athletes: A survey of coaches.
Eating Disorders, 11(3), 209–220.
James, D. A., Leadbetter, R. I., Neeli, A. R., Burkett, B. J., Thiel, D. V., &
Lee, J. B. (2011). An integrated swimming monitoring system for the
biomechanical analysis of swimming strokes. Sports Technology, 4 (3–4),
10.
Knudson, D. (2007). Qualitative biomechanical principles for application in
coaching. Sports Biomechanics, 6(1), 109–118.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Kwon, Y.-H., & Casebolt, J. B. (2006). Effects of light refraction on the accuracy
of camera calibration and reconstruction in underwater motion analysis.
Sports Biomechanics, 5(2), 315–340.
Le Sage, T., Bindel, A., Conway, P. P., Justham, L. M., Slawson, S. E., & West,
A. A. (2011). Embedded programming and real-time signal processing of
swimming strokes. Sports Engineering, 14, 1–14.
Lees, A. (2002). Technique analysis in sports: A critical review. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 20(10), 813–828.
Maglischo, E. W. (2003). Swimming fastest. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martindale, R., & Nash, C. (2013). Sport science relevance and application:
Perceptions of UK coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(8), 807–819.
Mason, B. R. (2010). Biomechanical services and research for top level
swimming: The Australian Institute of Sport model. Paper presented at the
Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming XI, Olso, Norway.
McLean, S., Holthe, M., Vint, P., Beckett, K., & Hinrichs, R. (2000). Addition of an
approach to a swimming relay start. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 16,
342–355.
Newell, J., Aitchison, T., & Grant, S. (2010). Statistics for sports and exercise
science: A practical approach. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Ohgi, Y., Ichikawa, H., Homma, M., & Miyaji, C. (2003). Stroke phase
discrimination in breaststroke swimming using a tri-axial acceleration sensor
device. Sports Engineering, 6(2), 113–123.
Payton, C. J. (2008). Biomechanics support for British world class disability
swimming. SportEx Medicine, 36(4), 9–13.
Payton, C. J., Baltzopoulos, V., & Bartlett, R. M. (2002). Contributions of
rotations of the trunk and upper extremity to hand velocity during front
crawl swimming. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 18(3), 243–256.
Payton, C. J., & Bartlett, R. M. (2008). Biomechanical evaluation of movement
in sport and exercise: The British association of sport and exercise sciences
guidelines. Abingdon: Routledge.
Phillips, E., Farrow, D., Ball, K., & Helmer, R. (2013). Harnessing and under-
standing feedback technology in applied settings. Sports Medicine, 43, 1–7.
Reade, I., Rodgers, W., & Spriggs, K. (2008). New ideas for high perfor-
mance coaches: A case study of knowledge transfer in sport science.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(3), 335–354.
Sanders, R. H. (2002). New analysis procedures for giving feedback to
swimming coaches and swimmers. Paper presented at the XXth
International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports – Swimming,
Caceres, Spain.
Sanders, R. H., Psycharakis, S., McCabe, C. B., Naemi, R., Connaboy, C., Li, S., &
Spence, A. (2006). Analysis of swimming technique: State of the art
applications and implications. Portuguese Journal of Sport Sciences , 6(2), 20–
24.
Schleihauf, R. E. (1979). A hydrodynamic analysis of swimming propulsion.
In J. Terauds & E. W. Bedingfield (Eds.), Swimming III (Vol. 8, pp. 70–109).
Baltimore, MA: University Park Press.
Smith, D. J., Norris, S. R., & Hogg, J. M. (2002). Performance evaluation of
swimmers: Scientific tools. Sports Medicine, 32(9), 539–554.
Stewart, A. M., & Hopkins, W. G. (2000). Seasonal training and performance
of competitive swimmers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(11), 873–884.
Thow, J. L., Naemi, R., & Sanders, R. H. (2012). Comparison of modes of
feedback on glide performance in swimming. Journal of Sports Sciences,
30(1), 43–52.
Toussaint, H. M., & Truijens, M. (2005). Biomechanical aspects of peak
performance in human swimming. Animal Biology, 55(1), 17–40.
Walker, H., Gabbe, B., Wajswelner, H., Blanch, P., & Bennell, K. (2012).
Shoulder pain in swimmers: A 12-month prospective cohort study of
incidence and risk factors. Physical Therapy in Sport, 13(4), 243–249.
Williams, S. J., & Kendall, L. (2007). Perceptions of elite coaches and sports
scientists of the research needs for elite coaching practice. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 25(14), 1577–1586.
Wilson, B. D. (2008). Development in video technology for coaching. Sports
Technology, 1(1), 34–40.
View publication stats