Coaching Interests

After analysing the qualitatively different ways in which creativity was experienced and understood by the AaB coaches (i.e., the varied meanings, benefits and applications of creativity are outlined in SS2), we discussed their practical

consequences and scrutinized which coaching interests they served. Sorting the metaphors based on their benefit, four abstract categories emerged. These signified that “working with particular kinds of creativity may (1) help players solve problems in the complex game, (2) facilitate the players’ learning and development by sparking curiosity, (3) sustain their engagement and participation by stimulating gratification and/or (4) enhance the team’s chance to win by sharpening certain player’s ability to perform match-decisive actions” (SS2, p. 8). Broadly considered, these areas enhance the significance of developing creativity in competitive interaction sport.

Revising SS2, “offensive aesthetics” could be added as a coaching interest. As elaborated in the state-of-the-art review (section 5.4.3.), Lacerda and Mumford (2010), among others, highlight the aesthetic value of unique and original innovations of sporting geniuses which make them orthodoxies in their domain. Based on SS2, the aesthetic element also seems to play a role at lower levels. For example, the AaB coaches praised and applauded MAGICALLY astonishing solutions, exceptional CIRCUS tricks and compelling DECEPTIONS. Further, resonating with Adam’s focus on aesthetical football in SS3, participants in SS2 pointed out that creative players are eye-catching and conspicuous, “exciting and nice to watch” (John) and

“conjure up the extraordinary” (Frank). Like the other interests, the orientation to aesthetics signifies a bias towards offensive attributes. For example, AaB coaches preferred small, fast, technical players able to control the ball under pressure in tight spaces. Although other cultures value different aesthetic aspects, the popularity of match-oriented views may arise from, and contribute to, the objectification of players within coaching practice, where coaches don’t see development as an end in itself, but use it as a means to supply players to other clubs (Cushion & Jones, 2012). Developing in-game creativity by prescribing football-specific skills such as hiding intensions (as done by some AaB coaches in SS2) may increase the chance of developing DESIGNERS and DECEIVERS that can make a difference for the club’s professional team, attract public attention to the club, and later be sold to the highest bidder.

The practical consequences of the four orientations were discussed in SS2. One of the central issues was that metaphors oriented towards winning matches and solving in-game problems were applied by means of activities that did not involve much creativity (e.g., of the kind defined in SS1), but primarily coach-centred activities focusing on effectivity and appropriate actions rather than novelty and uncertain experiments, and e.g., aimed to “arm players with a predetermined collection of football-specific skills” (SS2, p. 11). Even when asked to come up with their best ideas for how to promote creativity, many coaches proposed specific practice forms that did not require the players to be creative.

On the contrary, the learning and engagement-oriented metaphors involved more player-centred activities, e.g., with exploration of unfamiliar situations and encouragements to attempt difficult things. Further, while the learning- and engagement-oriented metaphors concerned all players in all kinds of game situations during training and matches, those oriented towards winning emphasized the offensive part of competitive matches, where opponents could be surprised with efficient, well-timed decisions. Although the interview guide covered questions which allowed the coaches to talk about the significance of being creative in training (e.g.,

what does mean for a players’ development the be creative?), several did not do so, or merely transferred their match-specific notions to training (e.g., designing or deceive in small sided games).

As argued in SS2, coaches’ conceptions may delimit who are allowed to be creative.

For example, those associating creativity with an offensive mindset believed that creative players cannot conform to defensive structures and agreements. Therefore, it was inappropriate to choose 11 creatives for starting line-ups, because their risk-taking, playfulness and unworriedness make the game “explode” (Jan). Opposed to

“players with structure, who keep track of our tactics” (Kaj) and plays safe, creative players do not think about things that can go wrong. Hence, several participants did not welcome DECEPTION, TRANSGRESSION, and CIRCUS in the defence, since they could “dribble in an inconvenient area and loose the ball” (Jan). However, as a whole, the 15 metaphors do establish a new vocabulary of creativity in football, which may facilitate more nuanced dialogues and applications. Indeed, the results expose that it is not just number 10 who should be considered as creative, but that all tactical positions can be creative in different ways. Yet, although several metaphors from SS2 cover all positions, creativity was mainly associated with the offensive parts of the game, attacking actions happening on the last third of the pitch and techno-tactical solutions performed in possession of the ball.

Also, several modalities of knowledge were used to explain the creativity of local pioneers and role-models. One prominent midfielder was variously recognized as a NAVIGATOR (Claus; Brian), SURVIVOR (Lars; Claus), DESIGNER (Jan; Kaj; John;

Mogens), CO-CREATOR (Viggo) and DEVEIVER (Peter; Lars; Torben). Most agreed that he was creative, but few agreed why. Depending on their particular interests and the circumstances in the situation, the coaches draw upon particular knowledge forms.

For example, nuancing the match- and solution-oriented metaphors, the coaches who focused on advancing their players’ interrelationships often accentuated relational kinds of creativity (i.e., CO-CREATION; DESIGN), while those focusing on technical skills attended to individual kinds (e.g., DECEPTION; SURVIVAL; CIRCUS).

2.3.9. CONTRIBUTION

Besides offering rare qualitative insights in coaches’ conception of creativity, SS2 showed that “coaches’ conceptions delimit if, why and how creativity is conceived and promoted, where and when creativity is endorsed and who are believed and allowed to be creative.” (p. 14). Hence, the results demonstrate how coaches understanding of creativity guide their interpretations of player abilities and actions, which kinds of solutions are regarded as creative, “which players are believed and allowed to be creative, and how they chose to promote creativity” (p. 6). Thus, it was argued that researchers “should recognise the multifaceted and contextual nature of creativity, which entails many ways to interpret, engage with and transform the world”

(p. 13) and consider which purposes are served.

In this regard, the amount of different conceptions of creativity illuminates that it may be difficult to work with creativity in practice, because there is little agreement about its nature. Contradictory conceptions, for example, make it hard to evaluate creative efforts and inconsistent practices may confuse players. Nevertheless, SS2 show that

the different ways to understand, value and apply creativity may supplement each other.

Further, SS2 exposed how coaches’ conceptions of creativity are interrelated with cultural features (e.g., cultural practice forms) and personal capacities and desires (e.g., coaching interests). In this regard, the findings of SS2 suggests that the learning- and -engagement oriented metaphors may be deprived by enhanced focus on results, appropriate decisions and team-tactical concepts during the developmental pathway designed by the club. The findings also suggest “that paying attention to creativity conceptions may reveal whether stakeholders are oriented towards long-term potentials or acute achievements” (p. 12). Enhancing the relevance of SS3 (see section 2.4.), several coaches were unaware about the learning- and engagement-oriented potentials of nurturing creativity, and most coaches were ignorant of the possibility to enhance creative capacities that could benefit players in a many different situations in football and their everyday lives as talents. For future research, it was suggested that researchers study sport participants perspectives on how creativity have helped them

“survive and thrive in elite sport settings” (p. 13).

On the one hand, SS2 demonstrate that there may be “more room for creativity in elite football than alluded elsewhere” (p. 13), e.g. section 1.5. and critical studies on high-performance sport. On the other hand, the findings suggest that “traditional, prescriptive practice forms may have a pervasive impact on how coaches conceive of [and promote] creativity in their sport” (p. 13). Consequently, “this may constrain how players think they ought to be experiencing playing football, cutting off their possibility to experience their sport in explorative, inventive, stylish or transgressive ways” (p. 13). This issue may have limited the range of ideas that was operationalized in SS3 (see section 2.4.).

The results show the advantage of holding different conceptions of creativity and using these in dynamic ways. The main idea of SS2 was to explore the dimensions of meaning, or to use a metaphor, the landscape of conceptual variations regarding creativity in AaB. As described in SS2, we aimed “to provide a contextual account of the multifaceted roles played by creativity in football” (p. 4). Hence, the idea was not to arrive at a singular or exclusive conception of creativity in football, but to celebrate the “multiple ways to interpret, experience and engage with the world” (p. 3), while carefully monitoring their practical consequences. As McKerracher (2016) argue

“each metaphor reveals something important about creativity” (p. 424). Hence, their varied attributes and implications could be explored in much greater depth. The metaphors pave the way for further inquiries in specific kinds of creativity that may spawn new of refine extant conceptual frameworks.

Also, “this study opens new vistas to understand and nurture creativities" (p. 13).

From a pragmatist view (section 3.5.), the metaphors may stimulate new and broader interests, beliefs and possibilities in the context of competitive interaction sports, e.g., leading coaches to shape their training environments in novel, meaningful ways. This may be facilitated by the use of metaphors, which works as “a tool for comparison and understanding [and] helps shift through the complexity of conceptual differences”

(McKerracher, 2016, p. 417). The multifaceted metaphors for creativity may generate

novel ways to appreciate the range of potentials implicit in creativity in sport. Finally, the metaphors may help coaches reflect on the limitations and possibilities of their own ideas about creativity. Outlining the range of creativity metaphors operating in a given context “may help stakeholders realise if their situation requires inquiry, and in turn, expand the perspectives, objectives and experiences of practitioners” (SS2, p. 4).