Lessons on communication and thinking from Neil deGrasse Tyson - 3/4

So the previous weeks we talked about understanding that being right isn’t enough without effective communication, about recognizing cognitive biases in player evaluation, about embracing scientific thinking and tailoring your messages to different athletes.

Get ready for lessons five and six from astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, applied to field hockey coaching 😉

When Neil deGrasse Tyson delivered a masterclass on Scientific Thinking and Communication it wasn’t only about astrophysics, his field of expertise. It’s about how we discover truth, overcome our biases, and communicate complex ideas effectively. These are precisely the skills that separate good coaches from great ones.

We’ll explore eight lessons from Tyson that directly apply to coaching field hockey at competitive levels. Learning from Tyson’s insight that “the scientific method is, do whatever it takes to not fool yourself into thinking something is true that is not.”

We explore how to tailor your coaching to different types of athletes, implementing his principle that “the same ideas, the same concepts, can be framed, shaped, in different ways depending on the audience.”

Today its about lessons five and six we wanted to share, based upon the masterclass given by Neil deGrasse Tyson. But make sure you also take a look at these earlier posts:

→ Danny Kerry: World Cup 2023 panel talk
→ Simon Blanford: How data analysis can change your team’s circle behavior
→ Simon Blanford: A gentle introduction to data analysis in hockey

These lessons aren’t theoretical—they’re immediately applicable to your training session tomorrow, your team talk on gameday, and your season planning for next year. Let’s dive in….

You’re teaching a new tactical concept: rotating between your two central midfielders to create numerical superiority in the build-up. A simple concept at the international level, but your players look lost after your explanation. So you explain it again, in more detail, with more terminology, covering every possible scenario. They look more lost.

The problem isn’t that you didn’t explain enough—it’s that you explained too much, too fast, without building a foundation first.

He uses the example of explaining Earth’s shape. First level: “It’s a sphere. It’s definitely not a cube.” Once that’s established, add complexity: “Earth rotates, so it’s slightly flattened at the poles—an oblate spheroid.” Then more detail: “It’s actually slightly wider below the equator—pear-shaped.” Finally: “Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador is the farthest point from Earth’s center, not Mount Everest because of the shape of our Earth.”

Each level is accurate but progressively more precise. Crucially, stopping at level one isn’t lying—it’s pedagogical approximation, providing the level of truth appropriate for the current understanding.

“Almost everything any educator ever tells you, is some approximation of a deeper truth for the purpose of the lesson plan of the day,” Tyson explains. “I could have broken off the conversation at any point, depending on the need of the lesson.”

Apply this to teaching that midfielder rotation:

Level 1: “When we have the ball at the back, one of you comes deep to receive, the other stays high.”

That’s it. That’s your first session. Drill it. Repeat it. Don’t explain why, don’t cover every scenario, don’t discuss what happens if the opposition adjusts. Just establish the basic pattern.

Level 2 (next session): “The player coming deep creates a numerical advantage—now we have four at the back against their two forwards. This makes it easier to play through their press.”

Now they understand why the pattern exists. You’ve added purpose to the pattern.

Level 3 (the following week): “The player staying high pins their defensive midfielder. If she drops to mark you, we have space in behind. If she stays, you’re free to receive. Read her position.”

You’ve added the opponent’s decision-making and how to exploit it.

Level 4 (after it’s working in matches): “Notice when their right winger is slow to recover. That’s your trigger to rotate right rather than left. We can expose the space she’s leaving.”

You’ve added sophisticated pattern recognition and variation.

At each level, the information is true—but it’s appropriately complex for the current stage of understanding. Tyson makes a crucial point: “I can give them the whole truth and they’ll forget it ten minutes from now. Or I can give them part of the truth, which is kind of interesting. They get curious and then later on they research it more themselves.”

Too many coaches try to demonstrate their tactical sophistication by explaining everything at once. Tyson warns against this: “If they don’t know anything about a subject, you don’t give them the full hammer of details. That’s pointless. Because they’ll just get lost in the details, and they’re not going to learn anything.”

Consider your preseason planning. You have three months to build your tactical system with a new team. Instead of installing the entire system in week one and spending the rest of preseason “polishing” it (which really means fixing the fact that nobody understood it in the first place), build it progressively:

Each phase builds on the previous one. Each phase is mastered before adding the next layer.

Give your players a taste of tactical understanding at each level, and watch them hunger for the next.

You’re reviewing your team’s statistics: 58% possession, 12 shots, 6 corners. You lost 1-0. The data says you dominated. The scoreboard says you lost. Which one is lying?

Neither—but you might be measuring the wrong things.

Tyson dedicates an entire lesson to measurement, beginning with a simple observation: “Every measurement ever made, and ever will be made, has uncertainties built into it.” He explains that even something as simple as measuring height involves unacknowledged uncertainties—the thickness of the measuring line, exact positioning, posture variations.

In field hockey, we’ve entered an era of unprecedented data availability. GPS tracking, video analysis, notational analysis—we can measure everything. The question is: Are we measuring what actually matters?

You can precisely measure the wrong thing. Possession percentage is a precise measurement—GPS units can tell you exactly how long each team had the ball. But is it accurate to what matters? Not necessarily. Possession in your defensive third under pressure from a press isn’t the same as possession in the attacking third creating chances, yet both count equally in the statistic.

Similarly, shot count is precise but potentially inaccurate to what matters. Twelve shots from the edge of the D in a crowded circle are not equivalent to six shots from within the zone between penalty stroke spot and the goalie in front of the goal, but shot count treats them equally.

The answer depends on what you’re trying to improve. Tyson describes how redefining the measurement of a second (from a fraction of Earth’s rotation to cesium atom vibrations) allowed scientists to discover that Earth’s rotation was slowing down: “If you’re going to define a second in terms of the rotation of the earth, you will never know that earth’s rotation is slowing down.”

What truths about your team’s performance are hidden because you’re measuring the wrong things or the wrong way?

Instead of total shots, measure:

Instead of total possession, measure:

Instead of total passes, measure:

Tyson’s insight about discovering Earth’s slowing rotation is profound: “Only after we did that were we able to measure the fact that Earth’s rotation is slowing down.” By changing what you measure or how, you can discover truths about your team that were previously invisible.

Perhaps most importantly, Tyson reminds us that measurement has limits: “For anything you will measure, there is no precise answer. There’s only the answer that you’ll be happy with.”

Applied to coaching: Don’t let the pursuit of perfect data prevent you from taking action. Sometimes you need to “be good with this, let’s just leave it at that and go have a beer,” as Tyson jokes.

A young coach might postpone making a tactical change until they’ve analyzed three more matches of data. An experienced coach recognizes when they have sufficient information to act, even if it’s not perfect information. Paralysis by analysis is real.

Conversely, don’t dismiss measurement because it’s imperfect. Tyson notes that “without sufficient precision, important phenomena may remain undetectable.” Just because your measurements aren’t perfect doesn’t mean they’re useless.

The balance: Measure what matters, recognize the limitations of your measurements, and use data to inform rather than dictate decisions.

Before your next match, identify three metrics you’ll track that directly relate to your tactical game plan. If you’re planning to press high, track:

After the match, review these metrics. Do they tell you whether your tactical plan worked? If not, you’re measuring the wrong things.

As Tyson wisely concludes about measurement precision: “If your precision of measurement is not refined, there could be things going on you will never know because they’re lost in your inability to measure them.”

What’s happening in your team’s performance that you can’t see because you’re not measuring it—or because you’re measuring the wrong things?