Should Athletes Train Their Weaknesses - or Double Down on Their Strengths?

Should athletes focus on their strengths or fix weaknesses? A deep dive into balance, identity and long-term athlete development.

Which camp are you in, the “sharpen the sword you already got” crowd, or the “fix the holes before they sink the ship” gang? Personally for me the truth sits somewhere between those two extremes. So do we double down on what makes the athlete special (their strengths), while deliberately and consistently “drip-feeding” their weaknesses so they become less limiting ideally turning them into new strengths or, at minimum, neutralising their negative impact.

Why strengths pull us in

Let’s start with the obvious. Athletes are often defined by their strengths. The world remembers Usain Bolt’s top end speed, Serena Williams’ serve, Steph Curry’s three-point shooting. Strengths are not just qualities they are calling cards. They’re what win matches, catch selectors’ eyes and build an athlete’s identity.

Psychologically, these same strengths are tied to confidence. Every rep on a familiar movement, every session on a favoured drill, reinforces self-belief. That’s not trivial. Confidence itself is a performance enhancer; it changes how athletes take risks, how they recover from mistakes as well as how they express themselves under pressure.

And there’s science to back this focus on strengths. The principle of specificity tells us that training adaptations are highly specific to the task. When you repeatedly practice the exact movements and forces you need in competition, you build the neural and muscular adaptations that transfer directly to performance. In other words: doing more of what you’re already good at often makes you even better at the very thing that wins games.

One of the few things I remember from my time at University is something from I believe psychologist Anders Ericsson’s work on deliberate practice adds another dimension. He showed that what we call expertise, comes not just from hours, but from focused, structured work on the precise skills that matter most. For elite athletes, those “most important skills” are often their strengths the competitive edges that separate them from their competitors.

So in my very busy and bizarre mind there’s a compelling argument here: why divert precious time into something you may never excel at, when you could become uncatchable by doubling down on what makes you extraordinary?

The danger of blind spots

Yet, when I think of a potential athlete

weakness I then have a period of time when I completely flip flop to the opposite case that can also be equally persuasive. Weaknesses are not just minor flaws; sometimes they are ticking time bombs.

Think of a sprinter with electrifying acceleration but poor hamstring resilience. Or a netball shooter with laser accuracy but sluggish footwork. These weaknesses don’t just cap performance they can derail it entirely. Injury risk, tactical exploitation by opponents, or simple limitations in movement quality can turn an athlete’s brilliance into vulnerability.

Research on force-velocity profiling in sprinting and jumping shows that athletes often have clear imbalances: they may be highly velocity-dominant but underpowered at the force end or vice versa. Individualised training that specifically targets these deficits has been shown to improve performance more than generic approaches. Or in other words, sometimes fixing the weak link is exactly what unlocks the next level of strength.

And from a health perspective, certain weaknesses carry disproportionate weight. Poor landing mechanics, for example, are linked with a higher risk of ACL injuries in female athletes. That’s not just a “gap to close”; it’s a threat to career longevity. This is something that I face week in week out in the world of Netball and is an area that draws great interest and passion from myself and my team.

So the message is clear: ignore weaknesses entirely and you invite stagnation, or worse, breakdown.

The “drip feed” philosophy

If strengths and weaknesses both matter, the real question becomes how much attention each deserves.

My own philosophy shaped over the years of coaching netballers, sprinters and team sport athletes is this:

• Keep strengths sharp: They are the reason the athlete is on the court or track in the first place. Without them, there is no competitive edge.

  
  

• Drip feed weaknesses: Don’t let them dominate training, but don’t ignore them either. Address them consistently, in small doses, until they are no longer liabilities.

One way to look at it is, think of it like tending a garden. You keep watering the plants that are already thriving (your strengths), because they feed you and bring life to the space. But you also pull weeds (your weaknesses) before they spread and choke growth. You don’t spend all day on weeds, but you don’t let them take over either.

This approach isn’t about balance for its own sake it’s about pragmatism. Weaknesses rarely need to be eradicated overnight. What they need is steady attention, enough to make them less harmful and, over time, potentially turn them into new assets.

A sliding scale, not a fixed ratio

Some coaches use neat heuristics: spend 70% of your time on strengths, 30% on weaknesses. It’s a helpful starting point and theoretically it makes a lot of sense, but real life, in the moment it is much messier.

The ratio shifts depending on:

• Season timing: In the off-season, there’s room to lean into weaknesses; in competition, strengths should dominate.

  
  

• Athlete maturity: Developing athletes may need more broad-based work on weaknesses, while elite performers fine-tune strengths.

  
  

• Context: If a weakness is a safety issue (e.g., poor deceleration control), it demands urgent priority.

  
  

The art of coaching lies in knowing when to tip the balance.

Sometimes that means a whole training block devoted to eccentric strength. Other times it’s two extra sets of mobility after a main session. The key is adaptability. One thing I have learnt is that this is something that you work out. There is no fixed method, and what works one season might not work the nest, it is an everchanging dynamic beast and that is another part of the puzzle that never finishes.

Identity and the psychology of progress

One of the underappreciated aspects of this debate is how it affects athlete identity.

Imagine telling a player who has always been praised for their shooting accuracy that most of their time will now be spent on defensive footwork. How might that affect their motivation? Athletes don’t just train skills; they train a sense of self. Too much focus on weaknesses can erode confidence, they feel like they aren't being seen for who they are. Making training feel like a punishment, and saps the joy from the sport.

Conversely, strengths work is energising. It reinforces why the athlete loves their sport, why they feel special. The clever coach weaves weakness work into this context. Framing it as an enhancer of strengths rather than a detour. “Improving your lateral quickness will let you create more shooting opportunities.” “Fixing your deceleration mechanics will keep you fresher for that explosive first step.”

By tethering weaknesses to strengths, you give them purpose. That’s how you maintain buy-in.

A thought experiment: what if we went all in, one way or the other?

To really test this philosophy, imagine two extreme worlds. Which one is better?

World A: Only strengths.

Every session amplifies what you already excel at. Performances skyrocket in the short term, but the cracks deepen. Injuries become more likely, opponents learn to exploit weaknesses, and eventually progress stalls because the base is too narrow.

World B: Only weaknesses.

Every session is a grind on what you hate. Confidence dips, motivation disappears and the very strengths that made you competitive begin to dull. You become a more “balanced” athlete, but perhaps a less effective one.

Neither world is appealing. The sweet spot is the tension between them where strengths stay sharp and weaknesses are gradually reshaped.

The long game

For me a big issue is when athletes and coaches make the mistake of expecting weaknesses to disappear quickly. Strengths are often built over years of reinforcement; weaknesses need the same. A few weeks of corrective work won’t rewrite movement patterns or tissue qualities. But drip feeding, consistently, over months and seasons, does.

The patient athlete, and the patient coach, know that today’s “weakness” may become tomorrow’s unexpected strength. And even if it doesn’t, neutralising it so it no longer holds you back is often victory enough.

Closing thoughts

So we have gone round and round and come back to the same question, should athletes train their weaknesses or double down on their strengths? The answer is both but with variation.

Strengths are the furnaces of performance. They’re what get you noticed, what keep you confident and what directly translate into competitive outcomes. They must never be neglected and always nurtured.

Weaknesses on the other hand, they are the brakes. Left unaddressed, they slow you down, make you fragile or cap your growth. They don’t need to dominate training, but they need steady attention, like the slightly disruptive child in the classroom.

The philosophy then is simple: sharpen what cuts, but smooth what snags.

For coaches and athletes alike, the challenge is not choosing between strengths and weaknesses, but learning to balance them artfully, season by season, athlete by athlete.

Because in the end, chasing greatness is not just about shining brightly. It’s about shining without burning out, and shining in ways that no weakness can dim.

Well that's my thoughts on it anyway.

By Harry, with editing support from Gary