RESEARCH REVIEW

Attentional Focus and Cueing for Speed Development

Original article by Nick Winkelman

Firstly, I think it’s important to recognise that knowledge is only as valuable as its ability to be applied.

Background

Recently, the phrase “putting the C back in strength and conditioning coaching” has been making the rounds—and I completely agree. The conditioning side of our field has often been overshadowed in discussions by topics like plyometrics, GPS dashboards and the king of all topics: Isometrics. But here’s the thing: that C might not even be the most important C in the title. The real game-changer? The kicker. The final word: Coaching.

As Dave Cripps noted in his Sportsmith article on an S&C coach's 'voice,' “one standout quality emerged as a key differentiator”—a quality that “can make the difference between being good versus being great, between being one of many and standing out amongst all the others.”

I’ll admit, I’ve been guilty of this oversight myself. As coaches, we pour endless hours into learning how to increase fascicle length or designing the most sophisticated monitoring systems (I love a good spreadsheet). But too often, we overlook one of the most fundamental—and deceptively complex—tools at our disposal: the way we communicate with our athletes.

Communication, particularly cueing, often drives performance outcomes in ways we don’t see. It represents the skill of transforming a coach’s knowledge and intention into action. However, many of us, myself included, tend to stick to classic coaching phrases such as "push through your hips!” or “stay low!” While these phrases may sound inspiring and feel good to say, do they really have an effect?

Nick Winkelman’s 2018 paper “Attentional Focus and Cueing for Speed Development” lays it out: what you say as a coach matters just as much as what you program. And the science backs it up. Shifting from internal to external focus cues—like “explode off the ground” instead of “extend your knees”—can unlock better sprint mechanics, improve skill retention, and create faster athletes.

The right words make skills stick.

What the author did

Nick Winkelman reviewed the literature on attentional focus and cueing, analysing the effects of internal cues versus external cues on performance, retention, and skill transfer in speed development.

He explored how distance, direction, and description of cues influence execution, linking findings to sprint-specific examples. The goal was to create a practical, evidence-based framework for optimising coaching instructions to improve speed development.

Key Findings

Internal vs. External Focus of Attention:

• Internal focus: Attention on body parts or movements (e.g., “push your foot into the ground behind you”).

• External focus: Attention on movement outcomes (e.g., “push the ground away”).

• External focus leads to improved performance (faster reaction times, increased velocities and improved technique), better skill retention, and greater transfer to other skills.

The 3 D’s of Cueing:

• Distance: Proximal (near the body, “Stay long & low as you drive the ground back as explosively as you can”) vs. distal (far away, “Stay long & low as you explode toward the set of cones on the 10- meter line”). Distal cues appear to be more effective for advanced athletes, whereas proximal may be more suitable for developing or inexperienced athletes aiming for technical skill development.

• Direction: Toward or away from a target. (e.g., away: “Get long as you drive away from the start line as rapidly as possible”; toward: “Get long as you drive toward the set of cones on the 10- meter line”). A “toward” external focus resulted in superior performance compared with an “away” external focus.

• Description: Use verbs and analogies to help calibrate intent and intensity (e.g., “punch the ground”). Analogies, imagery-based cues, and action words promoted better outcomes compared to anatomical/mechanical descriptions.

• Descriptive Cues Over Body Part Focus:

  The description within an external focus cue is critical. Use vivid, outcome-driven phrases like "explode off the ground" or "hammer the ground back as hard and fast as you can" instead of body-part-focused instructions like "drive with your legs." These cues are more impactful and easier for athletes to apply.

• Terminology Matters:
  The words you choose shape the athlete’s perception and intent. For example, “push” suggests a longer, sustained force application, while “explode” implies a rapid, powerful action. The right term depends on the context, such as emphasizing acceleration versus maximum velocity.

Limitations

1. Short-term focus: Most studies measure immediate performance changes, not long-term retention or learning.

2. Complexity overload: Providing multiple cues can reduce effectiveness, especially during high-intensity activities. However, it is difficult to determine whether performance changes resulted from the quality of instructions or the amount of information given, particularly when using multiple cues.

3. Generalisability issues: While external focus cues outperform internal ones, intermediate athletes sometimes show equal benefits from control conditions (no cueing)

Coach's Takeaway

I’ll admit I’m deeply invested in the heavy science—mastering physiology, biomechanics, and all the intricacies that come with them. I understand how critical that knowledge is, but it’s only part of the equation. Lately, I’ve noticed that focusing solely on the scientific side has stalled my progress as a coach. The bottleneck has been the applicability of information with my repertoire of “soft skills”, not a lack of information itself. After all, what’s the value of knowing what perfect sprint mechanics are if I can’t effectively communicate them?

Anecdotally, I’ve found that great coaching isn’t all that different from great storytelling—it’s not just about the details of what you say but how, when, and to who you say it to.

The verdict? If you want athletes to sprint faster, stop micromanaging their every move. Less is often more, especially when it comes to instructions and cues.

Instead, focus on painting vivid pictures with words—"explode off the ground" hits harder than "extend your knees." Athletes care about improving and enjoying the process. They’re not as emotionally tied to your ideal technical model as you might be. What matters most to them is how it feels and whether it leads to results—like seeing their name climb to the top of the testing charts.

The beauty of external focus? It takes the brakes off. Athletes stop overthinking, reduce cognitive load, and free up mental space for better execution. So next time you find yourself tempted to give another biomechanical breakdown, pause. Recognise who you are coaching to decide whether they need proximal (for less experienced) or distal cues (for more advanced), emotive language, analogies or just a bit of silence to let them feel the movement.

Let’s be clear—cues aren’t a magic fix for all coaching challenges, and they can’t compensate for poor programming. But they are a powerful tool in the coaching toolbox, and when used effectively, they can make a significant impact.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks for reading!

~ Murray

Recommended resources