Would I coach better after a nap—or just feel guilty for taking one?

Imagine a long competition day after a poor night of sleep. There is a break in the afternoon. I could rest. I could also open the laptop, adjust tomorrow's plan, reply to staff and spend twenty minutes looking for a document that is in the folder where I put it.

Some of that work may be necessary. Some of it may simply feel more respectable than closing the curtains. Busyness is visible. Recovery has terrible public relations.

A 2021 systematic review by Maher Souabni and colleagues examined daytime napping in physically active people and athletes. It included 18 studies: 14 rated strong quality and four moderate, with 326 participants in total. Most of the included studies reported improvements in at least some physical or cognitive outcomes after a nap opportunity. The reported benefits included short-term or endurance performance, sport-specific skills, reaction time, attention and short-term memory.[1]

There are important reasons not to turn that into a poster saying EVERYONE NAP NOW. The studies used different participants, previous sleep amounts, nap opportunities and performance tests. Two studies found no significant benefit, and one reported worse sprint performance after a nap. The authors also warned about evidence quality, risk of bias and the limited number of nap interventions.

The review found that longer opportunities—around 90 minutes—tended to produce better results in the included studies, particularly for athletes who were not getting enough sleep. An opportunity to nap is not the same as 90 minutes asleep. It is also not a universal prescription, a replacement for regular night-time sleep or proof that I will make a brilliant substitution after lying down. Coaches' decisions were not studied.

What the review gives me is a less glamorous question: when fatigue is predictable, have I planned any recovery at all?

For an athlete, that does not mean compulsory sleep. People respond differently, and timing has to fit the person and the schedule. A nap can also leave someone temporarily groggy, so waking up and immediately walking into the most demanding task may be a poor experiment. The sensible part is to test, observe and allow a buffer—not to announce one routine as the new law of the team.

The same applies in coach education. I can teach recovery as part of performance while quietly rewarding the coach who is always available, always answering and visibly tired. That is a mixed message with very good attendance.

Leadership includes deciding which work genuinely needs me now, what can wait and what another person can hold. If I create a timetable with no place for recovery, I cannot be surprised when fatigue turns ordinary problems into emergencies. Nor can I blame the people around me for making poor decisions inside the schedule I designed.

Rest is not automatically useful. A nap is not moral, heroic or lazy. It is one possible tool. The useful question is whether I am choosing it deliberately, testing its effect and leaving enough time to wake properly—or rejecting it because looking busy feels safer.