If you ask many who play sport today they will describe those who run the sports, no matter at what level as having an ‘all care no responsibility approach.’ This in truth may be harsh in a lot of cases, but it is how people feel. Remember that the impact of your actions is more memorable than the specific words or deeds themselves.
One area that has grown in prominence in the past 20 years is the role of the High Performance Director or Technical Director. One wonders how sport survived without them for so many decades. Just as there never used to be a Human Resources department in the workplace, managers simply interviewed applicants for the jobs they had in their department and they agreed the terms and conditions with whom they thought was the best candidate.
Those of us of a certain age remember those times and question whether the world wasn’t a much simpler place, and everyone knew where they stood. Certainly in the sporting landscape things were a lot simpler.
At the high performance level there was a coach, who chose those they trusted to come and work with them, people that they knew they could trust and who would help them achieve their goals.
Players would be selected either by a selection panel of which the coach was usually a member. Scouts would be keeping an eye on players and sending regular reports on players progress to make these selections easier. Often based on this scouting a player was already pencilled in for the coming intake. Some sports opted to have an event at which all were expected to play such as a National Championships or a State Championships, and this would act as the shop window for all to show what they were capable of. Sometimes a player would emerge who had slipped through the net.
Much of this is now done today by the High Performance Director. In some sports they have the greatest influence on the players selected. Something that understandably many coaches do not like. As they want to work with players that they choose or players they feel share the same values.
Just like the managers in the workforce most coaches will sit down and talk to a player to try and understand them a bit better before inviting them into the squad. They want to, and need to gauge many facets of them as people to ensure that they will be the right fit for the squad, and can cope with such an intense and competitive environment. If we look at the US College system they are tracking players for over a year following their behaviour on social media and away from sport to get a better idea of the person they are before they even make an approach to have them join their University.
Like with the general workplace it is best to find out the bad traits before you bring someone in, as the damage they can do to a workplace or a team in a short space of time can take a long time to mend.
Some High Performance Directors in some sports do go to such lengths. Others do not. It varies from sport to sport, and club to club.
The key responsibilities of a High Performance Director in simple terms is that they are expected to manage all aspects of an organisation’s elite team’s, performance to ensure the best outcomes for the team. They are responsible for developing long-term strategies, usually in collaboration with the coach. Their role is to be on top of developments within the game, be it different styles of play etcetera, and create high-performance training programs so that the players and the team are across all of these developments. They also oversee areas like sports science, analytics, nutrition, and mental skills. It is their responsibility to ensure that staff in all these areas work together cohesively, and share information to enable the coach and the team to reach their maximum potential.
When it works it is a hugely successful system. That is why so many sports and teams have gone with this approach. When it doesn’t it can be disasterous. When trust breaks down in any link in the chain the system simply will not work.
One area where many of the High Performance Director roles fall down is when they are the ones who set performance targets. Especially if this is done with limited input from the coach.
It is hard to pinpoint which club or sport was the first to have such a role. Many of the strong American sports like Gridiron and Basketball have had people in similar roles for over 30 years. European football clubs were the same, especially the Dutch.
When the English Premier League evolved into a more global competition more non-British coaches started to take charge of clubs.
Frank Arnesen is beleived to be one of the first to take on such a role in the EPL. He was the Sporting Director of PSV Eindhoven for a decade before he moved to Tottenham Hotspur in 2004. When he left a year later and joined Chelsea, he was replaced by Damien Comolli who had previously had such a role at Saint-Étienne in France.
Technical Directors were around before then, and Mike Rigg was the Technical Director of the Football Association of Wales (FAW) between 1995 and 2001 and since leaving that post has operated as Sporting Director at several Premier League clubs. He has therefore seen first hand the role evolve, as he was quoted as saying on the Association of Sporting Directors (ASD) website “When I began in the role it was solely focused on effective player recruitment with a small team of scouts. Now there are requirements to have wider expertise in areas like negotiation, data, and psychology.”
On the same website Les Reed who was Technical Director of the Football Association (The FA) between 2002 and 2004 and then from 2019 to 2020 states what he believes are two of the most pivotal developments in such a role. “The transition of certain football responsibilities from the manager or head coach to the sporting director, and the transition of certain strategic responsibilities from the CEO or managing director to the sporting director.”
Sport is an environment with very strong egos. It is probably pertinent to ask at this time whether coaches and CEO’s in clubs and sporting associations overseeing national programs are willing to cede some areas of power to the High Performance/ Sporting Director? Once again trust and respect are two very important components.
As former Rugby League player, coach and administrator Paul Broughton said when he was a guest on the show, The CEO has to have complete trust in the coach, and the coach has to trust the CEO. If they don’t, success will be very hard to achieve.
Now a third person has been added to that relationship, a High Performance Director.
As fans across the globe have repeatedly asked if the High Performance/ Sporting/ Technical Director hired the head coach, when results don’t go the way everyone hoped should they be shown the door as well? After all they are responsible for so much which impacts on the coach’s ability to be successful. Certainly fans in many sports question how they keep their position when the coach is fired.
One of the million dollar questions is are the skills required for this role transferable? In other words can someone who has no knowledge of a sport still be effective in a High Performance Director role? Can someone with experience in solo sports adapt to life in such a role in a team sport?
This writer has over the years heard arguments for an against; the general conclusion is that team sports are very different to individual sports, and the second is if moving to a sport you do not know, or do not have experience in a sport, – like in business, – you are going to need people around you who know the sport inside out to assist you. Are you prepared to concede that you lack that knowledge, and are you willing to listen to those who do know it? In such a situation it could mean that you are going to be far more reliant on the coach.
Football Australia appointed John Boultbee to the role of FFA Head of National Teams and Football Development. He was brought in from Rowing by Frank Lowy and John O’Neill in 2004, and remained at the FFA as it was then for eight years. He left in 2013 stating his desire to stand for the presidency of rowing’s international governing body FISA. In November 2014 he became Volleyball Australia’s Director of High Performance a position he held until March 2020. Was his time with Football a success? There are many who will be quick to share their opinion, and like all such situations not everything was bad, although some decisions have caused the game long term pain.
After the Tokyo Olympic Games in October 2021 Hockey Australia announced Bernard Savage as their new High Performance Director. Like Boultbee, Savage had previously been involved with rowing and prior to that with swimming, and triathlon. Eyebrows were raised within hockey as to how he would go within a team sport.
At the time of his appointment there were allegations that his appointment was linked to a potential sponosrship for hockey; which never eventuated.
It certainly appeared a slightly risky appointment, especially as in January that year, following some really bad press for the sport and the Hockeyroos, Toni Cumpston, the previous high performance director resigned. The report claimed that the high performance program was “toxic.”
Following the London Olympic Games there had been a review into the Swimming program. The swimming scandal at the London 2012 Olympics involved the Australian men’s swim team, and six high profile swimmers known as the “Stilnox six.” These athletes it was claimed took a sleeping medication in a controversial bonding session. This event It was alleged was part of a larger culture of “toxic” behaviour, which included bullying, misuse of prescription drugs, and breaking curfews, all highlighted in post-Olympic reviews. Penalties were imposed on the swimmers, including fines and deferred suspensions. A review pointed to a lack of leadership and discipline within the team.
The 2012 and 2016 Olympic results for Australia’s swimming team were well down on previous and subsequent Games.
Savage had been involved with Swimming Australia since 2001 as a High Performance Science Manager before becoming High Performance Director in 2007, a position he would hold until after the London Olympic Games.
He then moved to Triathlon as National Performance Director for the next Olympic cycle before transferring to rowing in October 2016.
Australia’s women had medalled in every edition of the Olympic Games since Triathlon was introduced in Sydney in 2000. They have not medalled since. The men have never won an Olympic medal.
In the rowing at the Tokyo Olympic Games Australia claimed 2 gold and 2 bronze medals following on from one gold and two Silver in Rio de Janeiro in 2016. In Paris they only managed a sole bronze medal. Cynics have pointed to these results being the legacy of the previous High Performance Director. Only those in the sport of rowing are in the best position to judge that.
Coming into the Hockey program the Hockeyroos had gone through a re-boot following the whole “toxic culture” period within the women’s program, and in March Trini Powell was appointed coach until the end of the Tokyo Olympic Games.
At the Tokyo Games the Kookaburras had claimed silver following a shoot-out loss in the final to Belgium, and the Hockeyroos finished 5th. Prior to Savage taking over at Hockey Australia both coaches were locked in for Paris 2024. (Paying a Price for the Past?)
At the Commonwealth Games the Australian Men had continued their winning ways taking gold. The women had to settle for silver for the first time since 2002.
At the 2023 Hockey World Cup the Kookaburras lost in the semi-finals to Germany and then in the bronze medal match to the Netherlands. The Hockeyroos had also lost their semi-final to the Netherlands but won their bronze medal match against Germany.
Leading into the Paris Olympic Games the Kookaburras had won the FIH Pro League. A time when the league witnessed teams putting out strong teams in order to prepare for the Olympic Games. The Hockeyroos had finished 6th.
What was clear to most in the build up to Paris was that Australia was strugging in knock-out games in major tournaments. Was this in part due to their involvement in the FIH Pro League and the lack of tournaments involving knock-out games before the Olympics and World Cups?
The High Performance Director could not be blamed for Australia’s involvement in the Pro League as this was a decision made before he was employed. However, should he have been or be suggesting that in the best interests of the national team it may be beneficial – not only financially – from a playing perspective to pull out? ( Acting In The Best Interests?)
It is alleged that strangely the coaches and teams were not given expectations in relation to performances, but that the focus wass far more on funding.
In other words success will result in more funding, which will allow us to do more.
At the Paris Olympic Games the Kookaburras progressed to the quarter-finals despite losing two pool matches. They met the Netherlands in the quarter final and were defeated 2-0. They finished 6th. The Hockeyroos topped their pool but also were knocked out in the quarter-finals by China. They finished 5th.
As most will know there was the controversy after that match when one of the Kookaburras was arrested for buying cocaine on the streets of Paris. The handling of this issue has come under scrutiny and the comments made at the time questioned by many alomg with the suspension that never was that followed was seen as a lack of leadership within the organisation. (The Punishment That Never Was)
After a ten day break the coaches returned to Australia where on his first day back Kookaburras coach Colin Batch was advised that he would no longer be leading the team. A week after Batch’s “resignation” Trini Powell was re-instated through to the end of the Los Angeles Olympic Games in 2028.
At the time it was stated that she would now have a full time assistant coach, as Hockey Australia now had the funds to support such a role. The assistant was announced in January 2025,. South African Rhett Halkett being appointed to the role. This was an appointment that is believed to have been made with the High Performance and teh Head Coach in consultation.
Questions have been asked in the year since that time, and it would appear that there was no actual performance review produced for either coach. With no performance indicators how were such decisions reached?
With Trini Powell’s sacking following the failure to win direct qualification to the World Cup through the Oceania play offs, this lack of a review process is even more questionable. Powell was appointed until the end of the next Olympic Games, so why the sudden change? What has changed in one year? After all the team lost in a shoot out, which can become a lottery and to be fair New Zealand and their goalkeeper Grace O’Hanlon played out of their skins to win the series and qualify for the World Cup.
Should the assistant coach have gone too? After all that was the only major change coming into the role in January. In fact the assistant coach has now been given the head coach role after allegedly being the only person interviewed.
Rhett Halkett holds the unique position of being the first foreigner to coach Australia. Something that again has not gone down well with some, but also highlights the lack of coach development in Australia in recent times.
Whether the decision to ask Powell to “resign” was right or wrong is for others to decide, however the question has to be about the process to reach that decision. You have to have performance targets for teams and coaches to reach, without them how can you possibly make such calls when the goal is clearly a medal at the World Cup or the Olympic Games?
It was the writer and activist James Baldwin who said “where there is no vision the people perish.” It would appear to be a sentiment that is true for the national coaches in Hockey.
As one experienced coach at the elite level once said, “while success in a role may not be explicit, it is implicit.” In other words in top flight sport results are what you are judged on, it is not necessary to write down expectations, but it is expected that you will be successful.
Another individual who wished to remain nameless, but with years of experience in high performance sport believed it was foolish not to share expectations and goals with coaches and players. “How else can you determine if they are making progress and on the right track?” Which makes a great deal of sense. They also said “if you do not set such goals in each tournament, and have a post mortem after the event on what worked and what didn’t, how can you possibly make an informed decision to sack or keep a coach?”
Looking at the only meaningful tournament – and this is questionable when one looks at the personnel used by various teams – since the Olympic Games, the FIH Pro League, both teams finished 5th.
The Hockeyroos elimination in a shoot-out in the Oceania World Cup Qualifiers has simply added more fuel to the fire that the teams cannot win when it matters in a do-or-die situation, which appears to have become an issue since entering the Pro League.
The Hockeyroos played in one game where there was a shoot out in the Pro- League, which they won and gained a bonus point. However, the old team scoring second winning the shoot-out once again came into play in the Oceania qualifiers.(The Price of Conceding Late)
It is understandable that there is a backlash from fans and followers of sport against the High Performance Directors as like sports administrators once on the employment merry-go-round they seem to happily move from sport-to-sport, many once an Olympic cycle has been completed. A four year period in which it is too short to be able to truly judge their influence or impact.
Even if a High Performance Director or a CEO are moved on they usually will pick up another role in another sport; often purely because they have held a similar role before. Background checks are often simply not carried out.
If a coach is sacked, especially in a Olympic sport, which are rarely flush with money, they are unlikely to find a similar full time role. They may go back to coaching a state team or a club, but these roles will not pay enough to be a full time role. So it is understandable that many do not trust and even resent the High Performance Directors.
Players and coaches at this level cannot simply change sports if they are sacked or dropped. They have spent a lifetime honing their skills.
As stated earlier to succeed there has to be a very special relationship, a bond between the two and the CEO.
So once again how important is it that the High Performance Director has experience and understanding in the sport? If like them the CEO has come from another sport with little or no experience in the sport the coach is a deadman – or woman – walking. One of these two positions must have the relevant game or sport knowledge, ideally both or the team and the sport will suffer.
Certainly those respeonsible for employing two people from outside of the sport also need to be held accountable, but in all likelihood never will be.
The CEO and the High Performance Director demand excellence from the players and the coaches, surely the players and the coaches have a right to expect knowledge and excellence from them? Or that they too are judged on results?
.
.
