Adaptability vs Rigidity in Elite Sport - Are We Building One-Dimensional Athletes?

Listening to Test Match Special early on Sunday morning, on the way to the airport for a flight to Cologne, I found myself thinking deeply about something that has been bubbling in the back of my mind for a while.

The commentary was discussing England’s current batting philosophy, known widely as Baz-ball. The idea is simple: attacking intent, pressure on the opposition and an unwavering commitment to that style. And the commentators raised the question, is this approach becoming so rigid that England only knows how to play that way? Even when it’s not working, this is how we will play.

Then the conversation shifted to Steve Smith, not a coach, but arguably one of the most adaptable batters of the modern era. His success isn’t just in his technique, but in his ability to adjust to the situation: field, bowler, match context, pitch conditions, momentum swings. He isn’t a prisoner to a philosophy; he’s a student of the environment.

One of the most striking points raised in the commentary was how it seemed players are being forced to adapt their game to fit a single philosophy. Not because it is the best approach for them, but because if they don’t they simply won’t be selected. If England are only selecting players who can play one way, are we unintentionally excluding brilliant cricketers who don’t fit this narrow mould?

Someone like Jonathan Trott, for example, was famous for being a steady accumulator. Labelled by many as a “plodder”, yet he was utterly reliable with a Test average of 44.08 and a top test score of 226. He could bat time, grind out pressure innings, steady the ship… but when the situation demanded it, he could score freely and change tempo.

Trott was adaptable to the environment, not chained to a philosophy. He wasn’t one-dimensional; he played a style that made England stronger. The question is, would a player like that even get selected now if the expectation is to play only one way? If not, that tells us everything we need to know about the dangers of forcing players to fit a system rather than building systems around adaptable players.

That is when the penny dropped.

Are we as coaches guilty of creating systems that make our athletes less adaptable?

In elite sport, there is an underlying belief that systems equate to success.

• We design a style of play.

• We commit to a tactical model.

• We build frameworks and philosophies.

• And then consciously or unconsciously, we force everyone to fit that model.

  
  

But what happens when the circumstances change?

What happens when the opposition do something unexpected?

What happens when the plan no longer works?

If our athletes have only ever lived inside the structure, they have no idea what to do outside of it. They become deer in the headlights. They freeze, hesitate or continue doing what they’ve always done. Even when it is failing, because no one has ever encouraged them to adapt.

So why don't coaches change the system?

As coaches, is the real reason we don’t change the system because we don’t want to risk being seen as wrong? Do we live and die by our original belief or philosophy, even when evidence shows it isn’t working, simply because changing course feels like admitting failure? The danger here is that ego and attachment to a system can become more powerful than what the game actually needs in that moment. A coach’s job isn’t to be “right”, it’s to create the best environment for players to succeed, and sometimes that means evolving, adapting and letting go of what no longer works.

Are we building one-dimensional athletes?

We praise “system players.” - (A system player is an athlete who performs well when the game follows rehearsed tactics and structured patterns, but struggles to adapt when situations change. They rely on the system to guide decisions rather than reading and responding to the moment.)

We talk about “culture and structure.”

We drill patterns, processes, shapes, principles and playbooks.

This works beautifully when the environment aligns with the system.

But the moment something shifts…

• a messy bounce of the ball,

• an unexpected tactical change,

• a momentum swing,

• fatigue and pressure changing decisions,

• late-game chaos…

...players crumble.

Not because they’re weak.

Not because they’re unprepared.

But because they’ve never been required to think and adapt beyond the structure.

Is this a coach problem or an athlete problem?

Truthfully, both. Coaches shape the learning environment, and if that environment is rigid, athletes grow up dependent on structure. Likewise, athletes who have never been encouraged to think, analyse, and adapt will continue to rely on systems rather than developing game intelligence. If the environment is rigid from age 10, they learn rigidity as truth.

But the responsibility begins with coaches.

We influence:

• How adaptable players become

• What problem-solving skills they develop

• What decision-making capabilities they learn

• How they react to uncertainty

Because sport is uncertainty.

So what can coaches do differently?

1. Teach Principles, Not Just Patterns

The goal isn’t to abandon structure, but to teach why actions are chosen, not just what actions are chosen.

2. Build Decision-Making into Training

Expose athletes to unpredictable drills, unfamiliar conditions and chaotic decision environments. Yes this won't completely replicate the game environment but it will go some way to helping prepare for that environment.

3. Reward Adaptability

Praise smart adjustments, not blind obedience to the playbook.

4. Encourage Creative Thinking

Ask players questions in training:

• “What options do you have?”

• “How might you beat this shape?”

• “What changes if they switch their style?”

  
  

5. Train the Ability to Scan and React

Sport is about attention, awareness and perception as much as execution.

So How Do We Change This?

If we want adaptable athletes at the elite level, we cannot wait until they reach elite level to build adaptability. By the time they get there, their habits are formed.

Their reactions are automatic. Their understanding of the game and their ability to adjust within it is largely shaped by what they were exposed to at younger ages.

Where It Begins: Youth Sport

Right now, youth sport has become incredibly structured.

Kids are put into systems from day one trying to replicate professional teams and copy their style:

• Predetermined positions

• Rehearsed plays

• Scripted ball movement

• Rigid defensive structures

  
  

This creates neat, organised teams but it produces limited thinkers rather than intuitive problem-solvers.

And we have to ask: Are we coaching for the scoreboard today?

Or are we coaching to build better athletes for tomorrow?

If our goal is the latter, then the solution becomes clear.

Less Script. More Discovery.

Young players don’t need:

• strict formations,

• rehearsed shape,

• pattern-based dependency.

  
  

Instead, they need freedom to:

• explore,

• experiment,

• fail,

• reflect,

• and adapt.

  
  

Loose Structure. Flexible Thinking.

This doesn’t mean chaos. It doesn’t mean “just go and run around aimlessly.”

It means:

• Provide a loose structure,

• Give principles, not plays,

• Let them build understanding through experience.

Then the real development happens after the play.

Let the Kids Analyse the Game

After a passage of play, instead of the coach saying:

“That didn’t work - next time do this.”

We should be asking:

• “What did you see there?”

• “Why do you think that didn’t work?”

• “What was the opposition doing?”

• “What could we try next?”

This builds:

• perception,

• tactical awareness,

• problem solving,

• adaptability,

• decision-making.

And that is what elite sport requires.

Create Players Who Understand. Not Just Players Who Obey.

If we teach youth athletes to:

• analyse the game,

• diagnose problems,

• propose solutions,

• adapt strategy…

…then when they reach elite sport, they don’t panic when things go wrong.

Because they’ve already spent years learning how to respond when the situation changes.

They have experience with uncertainty, not just experience executing drills.

The Long Game

Letting kids make decisions means:

• They will make mistakes.

• They will occasionally lose games they “should” have won.

• They will take longer to develop polished patterns.

But what they gain is far more valuable:

They learn how to think.

And thinking players become adaptable players.

-

Adaptable players become indispensable players.

The Bottom Line - In my opinion at least...

Systems are useful.

Philosophies are important.

Coherent styles of play matter.

But they should be foundations, not limitations.

An adaptable athlete is not unpredictable. They’re reliable because they can handle the unpredictable.

That, in my opinion. Is what makes a player indispensable.