Coaching lessons from a respected zoologist

The women’s game is growing faster than ever – and that is both incredible, and a little unsettling.

 

Everywhere I look, there is energy, funding, visibility and research being pumped into women’s soccer.

 

We are talking about female health more openly. We are designing programs, building apps and investing in new performance metrics. On paper, it looks like we are doing the right things.

 

But, when you step away from the headlines, and into the environments where real development happens – at the grassroots level, in under-resourced clubs – you quickly realise something.

 

We’re building fast, but we’re not building deep.

 

We are investing in the surface of the game – elite performance, branding and data systems – without strengthening the roots. 

 

The people on the ground are overwhelmed. Young players are under-supported. Coaches don’t have the time or the tools to properly develop athletes long-term. 

And we’re copying systems from the men’s game without asking: "Does this actually fit our environment?".

 

A lesson from the jungle

Recently, I rewatched the National Geographic documentary ’Jane’, about zoologist Jane Goodall’s early work with chimpanzees in Gombe, Nigeria.

 

I couldn’t stop thinking about how much her story mirrors the challenges we are facing in women’s sport right now.

 

Jane didn’t arrive in the jungle with a PhD or a checklist. She arrived, in 1960, with curiosity and presence. 

 

While the scientific community of her time treated animals as data points, Jane did something revolutionary: she observed without bias.

 

She gave all the chimps names. She noticed their personalities. She let herself connect.

 

This challenged everything science believed at the time. But, because she was patient, empathetic and willing to observe before intervening, Jane discovered things no-one else had.

 

She changed how we do science – not by rejecting rigor, but by reimagining it.

 

And that’s exactly what we need to do in women’s football.

 

Let’s talk about bias and science

As coaches, we often bring our own biases into how we train and support athletes.

 

We assume what works for men must work for women. We rush to apply protocols and plans, without taking the time to understand the ecosystem each player exists within, both on and off the pitch.

 

Perhaps more importantly, we often forget to leave space for players to figure things out for themselves.

 

We tell them what to do, how to feel, and what’s right and wrong for their body, before they even get a chance to tune into it on their own. This isn’t empowerment – it’s instruction.

 

We need to create environments where players can build trust in their own bodies, develop awareness, and learn how to self-regulate. Observation, reflection, and autonomy should be just as valued as training load data.

 

Science is important. But real performance happens in the messy, changing ecosystem of daily life – not in a controlled environment.

 

 

It’s not about the best program – it’s about the right environment

I’ve worked in high-performance set-ups, with access to all the tech and data in the world. And I’ve worked with clubs that could barely afford cones and GPS vests.

 

What I’ve learned is this: The most important variable in player development isn’t technology. It’s the environment.

 

In some of the teams I have worked with, we started making small, human-cantered changes based on feedback. 

 

Players said they felt mentally drained during camp – sharing rooms, packed schedules, not enough downtime. So we gave them solo rooms, we reduced meetings and we added optional gym sessions. 

 

At first, not a lot of people came. But, over time, something changed. 

 

As we gave them more autonomy and mental space, they started choosing to train. We didn’t push harder – we just created the right conditions for ownership.

 

That’s COM-B behavior theory in action: Capability, Opportunity, Motivation. When you build environments that respect people’s needs, they show up.

 

 

Grassroots deserves better

This principle doesn’t just apply to elite teams – it’s even more critical at the grassroots. 

 

Right now, there are talented young female athletes being coached by people who are exhausted, underpaid and unsupported. 

 

There are young coaches with potential, who want to grow in the women’s game but get stuck in roles without mentorship or resources.

 

If we want to future-proof the women’s game, we have to invest in people, not just programs. 

 

Let’s train coaches from the ground up, place them in grassroots environments, and give them years observing, learning, and creating systems that work for the women and girls they are coaching – not just copying what’s been done in the men’s game.

 

Time, trust and the long view

In nature, growth takes time. You don’t build a forest by constantly uprooting trees.

 

But, in football, we still operate with short-term Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and reactionary staffing. 

 

No one asks: "What’s happening in this environment? What support is missing? What’s the long-term vision?".

 

Jane Goodall didn’t publish world-changing discoveries in her first week. She spent months observing, building trust, and respecting the process.

 

So why don’t we do the same?

 

What if we rewrote the KPIs?

Instead of tracking only wins, sprints, or recovery scores, what if we also measured the following:

• How proud players are to be part of their club?
• How safe and supported coaches feel in their roles?
• How much players feel ownership over their development?
• How well the environment reflects values like transparency, empathy, and autonomy?

Recently, at the Women in Sport Forum in London, I had the chance to hear Maggie Murphy – director of the Equal Playing Field initiative – speak. 

 

Her keynote really stuck with me. She challenged us to think beyond traditional performance markers, and start defining unique KPIs for the women’s game – ones that actually reflect the values we say we care about.

 

She spoke about building a more resilient and sustainable ecosystem – not by copying the men’s model, but by humanizing our structures, and making space for wellbeing, purpose, pride and collaboration. 

 

It was a powerful reminder that we’re allowed – expected, even – to define success differently.

 

What if our best metric of performance wasn’t just how strong a player becomes, but how deeply they thrive in the system we build around them?

 

Final thought

We don’t need to make women’s football more like the men’s. It should be more like natural ecosystems – more interconnected, more responsive, more human. 

 

Let’s and start doing what Jane did: Observe. Question assumptions. Build trust. Create space for growth. And never underestimate the power of small changes in the right environment.

 

The future of the women’s game doesn’t just depend on more data – it depends on more care.