Imagine the scene, a room full of very enthusiastic young riders, mostly aged under 16, all under 18, brought together, via their schools and clubs, under the initiative of the local council. Many are accompanied by their parents, and all are very receptive and willing to learn. The lecture starts, the two exercise physiologists who have been brought in for the evening start to explain the subject matter. The evening goes on and information is imparted, diagrams are drawn, the riders are put into small groups and discuss what they have learned and how it applies to their training. A question and answer session follows, and after more talk, the meeting doses. Some riders and parents (many of whom are bikies) hang around to ask more questions. A typical meeting of its type. This is the future of our sport - or is it?

Afterwards I talked at length to the two guys giving the talk, and we discussed what we thought was good and bad about it. I had met them both before and know one quite well, so they were interested in my view as a coach: in other words it was a candid, two-way discussion. The vast majority of the problems were minor but all too familiar with a group of mixed age and ability like this had been. As we reviewed what had happened, and in particular what we thought were the shortcomings of the actual presentation and some of the problems in getting the message across, one of the sports physiologists commented that perhaps we are getting it all wrong. maybe the physiologists shouldn't be doing the actual coaching. but dealing with the coaches, giving them the latest and best information on sports physiology, and letting the coaches deal with the riders.

That statement rattled around in my head for several days; in fact I rang the guy to talk through it again. It just seemed so simple and yet, as is so typical, it took that sort of environment to focus on the problem and bring out the obvious. What a statement like that actually does is ask more questions than it answers.

I must say at this stage that none of what I'm talking about here is in any way critical of the sports physiologists themselves - quite the opposite: I have the greatest respect for them and the work that they do, a respect that is further enhanced by anyone brave enough to look at themselves critically and say what they are good at and what they are not, and to look for ways of improving their weaknesses even if that means using other people's expertise in that area. The real question that this asks is: do we have the range of expertise available? If we have, are we using it? And if we haven't, are we doing anything about providing or improving it?

So, what are the problems? Firstly it seems obvious that we have to do more to ensure that it's the qualified coaches who do the coaching and then find ways of encouraging regular dialogue between the sports physiologists and the coaches. That doesn't only mean for the lucky ones like me who (because of where I live and because of the riders I coach) visit or phone Chichester College on a regular basis and so often have the opportunity to talk to the guys based there. It should mean all the coaches, including (perhaps especially) student coaches or newly qualified ones. If coaches are expected to do the best job they can, then they deserve to get all the up-to-date information available on a regular basis; and moreover, information which is offered in a manner or in an environment where they get a chance for discussion.

Secondly there is the general question about communication skills. I am not aware that any part of our coaching qualifications tests more than basic skills of communication; since I believe that the ability to communicate information to the riders in a form to which they are receptive is a coach's greatest skill, then this does seem a sad omission. This again focuses on the situation identified in the original statement: are we using people's skills effectively and are we trying to improve the important coaching skills that may be lacking in the majority of us?

So far I seem to have asked a lot of questions, but to be honest I'm not sure that I have that many answers. One of the main points of writing something like this is to provoke thought and ideas from you the reader, but I will list what I see as some basic solutions. I am sure that Cycle Coaching Magazine will be only too pleased to be a forum for further discussion and ideas on this or any other subject aimed at improving our ability to coach.

I'll start with the sports physiologists. It seems to me that we assume that their sports science degrees automatically makes them coaches when in fact this is not the case. In order to become successful coaches they must add the necessary practical and interpersonal skills to the science-based ones they already have. Otherwise it would be like asking an R & D department to market the product they have just invented, a recipe for disaster in almost any business environment. The skills they have are in exercise physiology and these skills are often theoretical. Many of the discussions I have with them are about the practicality of the ideas they are putting forward. Also, by the very nature of what they do, they are at the cutting edge of new concepts, not all of them proven, and I am sure they would agree that all these ideas should not necessarily be adopted wholesale without trial, or at the very least without question. In many cases their new thinking only applies to certain aspects or disciplines within cycling and it would be wrong to assume it is the best thing for all types of rider under all circumstances.

How, when, and indeed if, the science is applied to riders should be a coaching decision based on a knowledge of the individual, not a scientific one based on models. That said, the work they do is very important and as coaches we need them to challenge traditional ideas because that's how we make improvements. It is with discussion and refinement that these new concepts will, when properly and practically introduced, lead to success.

On the subject of the communication of those ideas to us as coaches there are many ways that this could happen, always bearing in mind the ever-present enemies of time and cost.

• Features written by the sports physiologists in Cycle Coaching Magazine

• Information updates produced and sent out jointly by the sports governing bodies and the ABCC

• Regular updating and upgrading of the coaching exam syllabus to include the work they have done

• Regular regional meeting between the physiologists and coaches, with specific regard to the level of coaching experience and expertise of those involved

• Regular field testing of new ideas done in conjunction between the physiologists and specific coaches

• Publication of the results and findings of such tests

• The adoption of a long-term view with regard to new ideas, their testing and the results

I am sure there are many more but that would seem to be more than enough to start with.

A coach's ability to communicate with the riders is vital, yet it is probably the most difficult skill for him to acquire. As coaches.we are sponges for information (indeed in this very article I am asking for that flow of information to increase), but how good are we at digesting and regurgitating it in a form that is both acceptable and informative to the riders? I think, maybe for the good coaches the ability to communicate successfully is not a problem: in fact that ability is probably one of the main things that makes them good coaches. It is certainly not good enough to give out information, from books or any other source, verbatim. It is also clear that while they want, and indeed deserve, a degree of explanation, the riders only really want to be told what to do to get the best results. They certainly don't want all the theory - after all that's exactly what they come to us for, to avoid having to learn that theory, and so shortcut the collecting and leaming process while obtaining the benefit (and results) that the knowledge provides. This all goes to suggest that the coach's job is indeed one of communication; unfortunately it doesn't get us any nearer the process through which we can improve it.

I have a business background in sales and marketing and have attended and indeed given many training courses. Perhaps it is this style of business training that we should be looking at, or maybe there are those amongst us who are directly involved in this sort of training and know of, or could produce a programme aimed at improving communication skills. If we wish to improve the quantity and quality of cycle coaching in this country then we must look for avenues of this sort to help us do the job better. It is sad that most riders, while they are happy to spend thousands on equipment, expect coaching to be free. It is only by producing a quality product and marketing it effectively that we will change this attitude and put a value on what we do, a value so essential to our future. I hope I have, at the very least, made you think. If we want improvement, then we must be prepared to work for it. I am sure that between us we have the skills and ability to make things happen; after all, who's coaching the coaches?