#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
šāļø @Pirlo_official & @chielliniĀ are in the house to preview #FCPJuve!
š“š„ Follow our presser LIVE on @JuventusTV ā”ļø https://t.co/hCNqMpy1if
#JuveUCL #ForzaJuve
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuWf5niXIAMk6HL.jpg)
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
#FCPJuve #JuveUCL
āļøš More #JuveUCL build-up to follow!
More from Sport
A (long) thread on why Andrew is correct but ultimately incorrectā¦
Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying youāre an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you
believe the earth is round and flat. Itās simply not possible.
You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity youāre helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).
No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.
He is basing his critique of an āit dependsā stance at a neurological ārepresentations vs informationā level (see his thread). But this isnāt the level that
āit dependsā functions (in a coaching context). āIt dependsā exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). āIt dependsā relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping
people manage and change behaviour ā how a coach does this will ādependā on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we donāt have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively
Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying youāre an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you
Many coaches advocate for picking and choosing methods from a variety of theoretical camps, on the premise that which is best \u2018depends\u2019 on the player, the coach, etc and you want the biggest toolkit you can get.
— Andrew D Wilson (@PsychScientists) November 27, 2020
I think this is an error, which I will now attempt to defend
believe the earth is round and flat. Itās simply not possible.
You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity youāre helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).
No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.
He is basing his critique of an āit dependsā stance at a neurological ārepresentations vs informationā level (see his thread). But this isnāt the level that
āit dependsā functions (in a coaching context). āIt dependsā exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). āIt dependsā relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping
people manage and change behaviour ā how a coach does this will ādependā on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we donāt have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively