This is in reference to Mike’s and James last two post.
I firmly believe when you look at a coach’s training, you cannot look past how they motivate athletes. However, if his physical training methods and philosophy produce results they should transcend and be replicated across race, gender, and age. I am critical of Arthur Lydiard’s influence in the distance community for this very reason, in almost all instances were people have tried to replicate his training even when scaled to this tables the training doesn’t work and results in injuries. He’s not alone, Clyde Hart’s training has been tried to be replicated without much success also with frequent injuries. In Lydiard’s case, he’s worked wonders in different sports and vastly different environments, but not many have replicated his type of success adhering strictly to his tables and philosophy on training.
One other thing I look for is in-season developmental progress and season to season progress and it seems the best coaches don’t have a set system, they are variable from year to year with athletes keeping long term development in their eye and how the athlete responds to training now and in the past and applying such observations to enhance the athlete’s current competitive state of readiness.