Coach Development

An article by Stephen Pritchard    No Comments

Having blogged in the past about CPD, and had a bit of a moan, I have to say how valuable I found a discussion group I attended this week.  It was hosted by SASP, was not certified and as such went wherever we wanted it to go – helped by some skillful facilitation.

We discussed various thoughts around coaching prompted by a couple of group tasks and short youtube videos on “quality coaching”.  The main strand of discussion was around technical skills coaching vs learning through playing.  Matt at SASP blogged his thoughts here:http://saspcoaching.blogspot.co.uk/

I agree yet have an example of why I think the balance might vary depending upon the sport being coached.  The two I mainly work in I feel offer both sides of the story.

Cricket

Learning through playing is hugely important – particularly for batsmen (generic term covering male and female).  It is possible to succeed at the highest level with an un-orthodox technique – Brian Lara (11 593 test runs), Ricky Ponting (13 364), Kevin Pietersen (7 076), Shiv Chanderpaul (10 342), Alistair Cook (6 555), Graeme Smith (8 314) were/are all pretty good players with techniques some way from the “perfect” coaching manual model.  They all adhere to certain key principles around being balanced, watching the ball etc, but mostly they know their games and limitations (or lack of!).  This can only be achieved through playing and playing and playing. (Not forgetting mental toughness)

For bowlers I feel technique is more important.  Some great bowlers have been very unorthodox – Muttiah Muralitharan (800 test wickets) Lasith Malinga (101), Shaun Tait (5).  Murali’s unorthodoxy we can discount to a degree in this argument due to his genetically abnormal wrist flexibility and limited elbow extension.  The other two unorthodox guys here don’t have many test wickets despite being heralded as exceptional “talents” (for want of a better word).  Why?  Their unorthodox techniques put huge strain on their bodies and they suffered injuries limiting their ability to play and hence now can only play T20 cricket.  Had they had more correct techniques could they have achieved more, or would they have become run of the mill and achieved less?  Do we have a duty of care to ensure we give players the best chance to stay un-injured through correct techniques?  The leading test wicket takers were all bowlers with orthodox or classical actions.

(stats from www.espncricinfo.com, 27-09-12)

Badminton

Fewer stats here, just observations.  To be successful at the highest level there are accepted correct techniques.  There are no examples like those for cricket above of top level success through unorthodoxy (that I know of).  Therefore, I feel I have a duty to hone technique to give players the best chance of reaching their full potential.  However, if all top players are technically similar, what separates the good from the great?  This must be their decision making and ability to read the game and react accordingly.  This is where playing and playing and playing is important.

But…. I have worked with players on camps who are very successful junior county players due solely to their ability to read the game and despite a dodgy technique.  The time comes when technically stronger players catch up and begin to beat them as their playing experience develops and their better technique provides them the opportunity to play a wider range of shots.  Technical work is therefore essential.  My caveat is that a skillful coach could probably through clever questioning have brought players’ attention to their technical limitations and provided them with opportunities, still through match play, to find solutions to them.

Nerdy coaching conversation over.  Thanks for reading.