How many decisions does your training session make room for?

We count metres, minutes and repetitions. How often do we examine the opportunities each player had to read a situation and choose? A different starting point for discussing youth water polo practice.

Practice ends. Players leave the water and the first question is almost ready: “Was it a hard session?”

Let us add another: “When did you have to change what you had planned to do?”

That second question starts a different conversation. The athlete has to recall what they saw, which option they had and what changed around them. This is the focus of this article: examining a training session through the decisions it asks a player to make.

What the research found

A 2026 study in Sports examined 20 male U16 and U18 players in three versions of four versus four. Larger formats produced higher perceived load; the smallest produced higher involvement and technical-tactical performance indices. [1]

These findings are specific to the conditions studied. Space, possession time and goal configuration changed together, so the effect of space cannot be isolated. The study also does not establish lasting improvements in decision making or one format’s superiority for every team. [1]

The question before the drill

YARE’s proposal is to express the objective through behaviour that a coach can observe.

“I want quick decisions” is a broad ambition. “I want the player to check the defender’s position before receiving” gives the coach something specific to watch.

Similarly, when cooperation is the objective, it is worth examining who offers the ball carrier an option. When the objective is responding to a turnover, who recognises first that their role has changed?

This allows the discussion to include the player who created space, the defender who removed an option and the goalkeeper who spotted an early outlet.

Which decision do you want the player to learn to make in this drill?

YARE editorial emphasis, not a researcher’s quotation.

A practical observation exercise

For a coach interested in exploring this question within their team, we suggest a simple process. This is an observation idea, not a validated research protocol.

Choose a familiar drill and one behaviour to watch. For example, offering a passing option after releasing the ball.

Observe which players show that behaviour and which remain outside the cooperation. A general impression that “the ball moved well” can leave unanswered whether everyone participated meaningfully.

Then, if appropriate, adjust one condition and observe again. That might involve the available space or one drill rule. There is no need to treat every difference as evidence of learning. The purpose is to understand more clearly what the practice environment asks of the players.

The conversation after the play

Three questions can provide material for feedback:

1. What did you see before receiving the ball?
2. Which other option did you consider?
3. What changed and made you continue with your decision or choose another?

The answers are a starting point for discussion. They are not, on their own, a test of game intelligence. A player may struggle to describe a situation they read correctly in the water.

The value lies in connecting the explanation with what was observed during the drill and with the next opportunity to try.

What does the player take away?

The team can finish with one small objective for the next session: recognise a particular situation earlier and consider the available options.

Training has room for conditioning, technique, repetition and play. The challenge for the coaching staff is to explain what each part serves.

One question remains: which decision did the last session help the player think through more carefully?