Verkhoshansky's Critique of Soviet Periodization

The original english translation of this text is available in the downloads section. It is also free to download from Dr. Verkhoshanky's website.

This article was published in the late 1990's, maybe even the early 2000's. I only know that because of the dates in the references sections. I know Dr. V died in 2010. This means alot actually, relative to the idea of periodization and its use in team sports specifically. I am reading this as a hockey coach, so bear that in mind.

The general idea of the article is to take Matveev to task on his 1977 theoretical approach to forecasting adaptation based on planned training loads. This is done systematically, eventually breaking down the ever popular Soviet model into its foundational assumptions - and putting forth logic to prove them incorrect. It calls to mind a Plato and Aristotle situation - the teacher's theoretical framework is being deconstructed by the student.

The cliff notes are this: you can watch adaptation happen if you test every day in training. You don't need to forecast adaptation because, a) that's impossible and b) adaptation is fuzzy. Periodization, in the view of Dr. V, is more effective when it is flexible and based on a rigourous foundation of scientific learning and coaching experience.

I) Motor Potential of the Athlete - fuzzy

In the article, motor potential (P) is not explicitly defined as a synonym of sport skill. It is defined as the primary aim of training and periodization - which is to say the improvement of the athletes functional capacity. Dr. V has this to say about it on page 3,

" Therefore, the main constant in the training process is the continuous development of an athletes motor potential and of his efficiency in exploiting this potential, while the effectiveness of the training process can be evaluated by measuring how much of this potential is in fact put to use. All the other goals and components of the training process, which are certainly important, must be seen as conditions or factors favoring the achievement of this main constant."

He goes on in figure 2 to give a spaghetti bowl description of how this works in real life; an excellent illustration of the complex nature of team sport strength and conditioning. While the rhetoric of the section included in the

quote above is not describing technical / tactical ability as a synonym of motor potential, I find it hard to believe, with the experience of a coach, that these two factors exist in equal ratios to one another in all athletes at all times. Far more likely is the relative interplay between the factors in light blue - for an athlete who has higher proficieny in the "efficiency" box, the role of the other two will be deminished. In my experience, a heavy lack in the "efficiency" category, can never be compensated for by over development of biomotor or bioenergetic abilities alone. There is an old phrase used in college football which describes this failed attempt to compesnate for lack of sport skill or efficiency;

"Train like Tarzan, Play like Jane."

II) Theoretical Scaffolding for Sport Periodization

In the paragraphs preceding figure 5 in the text, Dr. V lays out the long winded version of, in my understanding, "training should be relative to the sport task required of the athlete". Let it be known that he actually uses the words "external loads" in describing the required level of adaptation for a given sport that should be achieved in training for each athlete. Suck on that for a hot minute. This assumes that the (strength) coach is aware of, in charge of, and planning all training for team sport athletes, year round.

Lets just examine for a second, the underlying assumptions we can glean from figure 5 at right. The theoretical structure for planning training dictates the training effect observed. The only inputs which govern these are;

I) biomotor, bioenergetic development

II)Techincal / Tactical development

There is clearly some cross over here.

He goes on in figure 9 to demonstrate just how complex this overlap can be.

III) Wrap Up

The gist of this article is summed up in the following from the last few pages;

"Hierarchy of final objectives.....(assumes) the coach will identify all the conditions required to achieve this improvement, ie. the corresponding improvement in technical, tactical, and competition skill, the corresponding increase in the athlete's specific work capacity at that given work regimen, and the variations in the athlete's special physical preparation that become necessary."

This is a significant departure from the the 1970's system put forward by Matveev. Simply, the old system assumes that achievement of planned training loads was a matter of participation in several threshold levels of volume for a bolus of accessory exercises and this solidfied competitive gains. Dr. V observes this to be untrue in practice.