Original research Athlete and coach agreement: Identifying successful performance Sarah-Kate Millar 1 , Anthony RH Oldham 1 , Ian Renshaw 1,2 and Will G Hopkins 1 Abstract Traditional coaching views the coach as an informed resource and the athlete as a reflection of expert knowledge. Recent approaches have criticised a strictly coach driven model of expertise, and in doing so have acknowledged the unique and developing knowledge of athletes, which emerges from extended practice. The growth of the athlete’s contribution in the coach–athlete dyad invites interesting questions about the usefulness of athlete knowledge and the changing role of the coach. Athlete–coach agreement was assessed via a triangulation of quantitative boat speed data from a single sculler and matched to phases of successful rowing that rowers and coaches both agreed on. Coach and rower were able to identify when the boat was travelling its fastest or slowest. However, when the performance was marginally faster or slower, they disagreed, and generally the rowers were more accurate about the performance than their coach. Implications for contemporary coaching practices are considered. Keywords Athlete knowledge, rowing, self-identify performance Introduction Traditionally designated roles for a sport coach include planner, observer and provider of feedback. 1 These roles require a coach to have knowledge sufficient to determine success and, where necessary, prescribe changes in pursuit of improved performance. This sup- ported by Kundson and Morrison, 2 who state that a critical step for coaches is communicating to athletes desired changes necessary for better performance. The approach outlined here sees the coach as an informed resource and the performer as a reflection of expert (coaching) knowledge. Recent approaches have criti- cised this strictly coach driven model of expertise and in doing so have recognised the coach–athlete dyad as a more appropriate approach. The dyadic approach acknowledging the unique and emergent knowledge coaches and performers bring to the process as a result of extended practice. 1,3 Recognising the import- ance of athlete knowledge complementing coaching knowledge in the coach–athlete dyad invites interesting questions about the type of knowledge and the chan- ging role of the coach as a reflection of practice. Considering expertise development from the per- spective of the athlete–coach dyad takes into account how the ability or level of the athlete influences the nature of the coaches’ role. In the situational coaching model proposed by Hadfield, 4 non-expert athletes are viewed as needing considerable resources and support, while experts are more self-reliant and proficient. This view is commensurate with established knowledge regarding the differences between non-experts and expert performers; with experts being able to demon- strate more sport specific knowledge. This knowledge permits more direct attunement to specifying environ- mental patterns and the production of more effective movement patterns than non-experts. 5 As a result the relationship athletes have with their coach alters from one of dependence to independence as they become more expert, with control moving towards the athlete Reviewer: David Mann (VU University, The Netherlands) 1 Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand 2 School of Exercise & Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia Corresponding author: Sarah-Kate Millar Coaching Research Group, Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), AUT Millennium Campus, Auckland University of Technology, Level 2, 17 Antares Place, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, New Zealand. Email: skmillar@aut.ac.nz International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0) 1–7 ! The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1747954117738886 journals.sagepub.com/home/spo