Previous studies demonstrate a disparity between coaches training plans and athletes training, with athletes often working hard on coach intended easy days, and unable to work hard on coach intended heavy days. PURPOSE: We compared training duration, intensity and cumulative training load between coach and swimmers, and whether differences were related to sex or performance ability. METHODS: NCAA Division III swimmers (13males, 15females), trained by the same coach, recorded training over 6 weeks during the middle of the season. For each practice the coach rated the intended training duration, intensity and Load using the Session RPE method. The athletes rated each training session independently, as well as reported any non-coach prescribed exercise. Athlete performance was ranked by national qualifiers (NQ) (n=6), conference point scorers (CPS) (n=12), conference participants (CP) (n=10). RESULTS: Although, for coach vs all swimmer comparisons, there was no significant difference in the mean training Load (442+314 vs 416+4-6, R2=0.38), duration (79+49 vs 77+66 min, R2=0.44) or RPE (4.1+2.8 vs 3.4+3.0, R2=0.44), the R2 values were rather low. There were no differences in the coach vs athlete matching of training patterns attributable to gender or swimming ability. Differences in the execution of training were attributable to missing training sessions secondary to illness or study, but were not different in relation to sex (males=17.2%, females=15.6%) or swimming ability (NQ=17.2%, CPS=15.6%, CP=17.7%) or to performing unscheduled recreational exercise not accounted for in the coaches plan, in relation to sex (males=13.6%, females=15.6%) or swimming ability (NQ=15.2%, CPS=16.5%, CP=12.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a successful competitive season (36%NQ + 43% CPS), the execution of the coaches training plan was generally unsatisfactory. These results suggest that strategies to better correlate athlete execution of the coaches training plan might augment performance.