Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Sports Act. Living

Sec. Sports Coaching: Performance and Development

Volume 7 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1642020

This article is part of the Research TopicAdvances in Sports Science: Latest Findings and New Scientific Proposals- Volume IIIView all 12 articles

Swimming Coaches' Perceptions and Practices on Periodization, Performance Monitoring, and Training Management

Provisionally accepted
  • Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha - Campus de Toledo, Toledo, Spain

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

This study examined the beliefs and practices of Spanish national swimming coaches regarding season planning, aiming to gain a deeper understanding of how they organize training throughout the year. A total of 18 coaches participated and were classified based on the performance level of their swimmers: World Class (27.8%), Elite (11.1%), and National (72.2%). A validated questionnaire was used to gather information on training structure, session management, and feedback strategies. The most reported planning model was traditional periodization (35.3%), typically structured into general, specific, and competitive phases, with individualized tapering strategies lasting between 7 and 21 days. While most coaches (89.9%) did not involve swimmers in the planning process, they did consider contextual factors such as academic and personal schedules (94.4%). Coaches emphasized strength-endurance and coordination work during early phases, shifting toward speedstrength and sprint capacity in the competitive phase. Training sessions were commonly adjusted based on objective and subjective indicators (83.3%), including heart rate (77.8%) and perceived exertion (55.6%). Feedback was mostly provided during training and addressed psychological (72.2%) and technical aspects (38.9%). Recovery strategies included active rest (22.7%), professional guidance (22.7%), and collaborative planning between coach and swimmer (61.1%). Performance assessments were conducted using tools such as the force-velocity profile (44.4%), one-repetition maximum test (22.2%), countermovement jump (16.7%), and swim-specific sets (7x200 m) (22.2%), although one-third of coaches did not use formal testing. While the limited sample size restricts the generalizability of findings, the results offer valuable insight into how experienced coaches conceptualize and manage the training process. These findings highlight the importance of individualized planning, continuous monitoring, and athlete-context integration in high-performance swimming coaching.

Keywords: swimming coaches, Season planning, periodization, training load, tapering, 45 performance monitoring, Coaching practices

Received: 05 Jun 2025; Accepted: 07 Aug 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Cano Cuartero, López Hernández, Rodríguez-Barbero and GONZALEZ-RAVE. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Sergio Rodríguez-Barbero, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha - Campus de Toledo, Toledo, Spain

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.