Non-intervention strategy

An article by Stephen Pritchard    No Comments

I haven’t blogged on Learning Nutrition in action for a while, but this week had a great moment worthy of sharing.

I you follow my posts you’ll know a bit about the junior badminton clubs I run.  At one I have a player who when involved in match play always brings about disagreements with the scores but usually only when playing with and against certain others.  This has been going on for as long as I can remember, and I have tried various methods and interventions to address it.  Firstly, I ensured that the player was able to score correctly by asking him to umpire games between younger players and keeping an eye on proceedings.  This was achieved so the idea that it was a lack of knowledge causing the problem was put to bed.  I have also taken part in doubles games with the player (and peers) concerned and challenged them on the scores at frequent points, with points penalties when they drifted off and didn’t concentrate.  This tactic worked but only for as long as I was involved in the game and keeping track of things myself.  So it struck me as being an issue with concentration.  I was aware that it was always the similar group who had the problem but could here the little coaching mentor on my shoulder whispering:

“Keeping them apart solves the problem but not the cause”

So, I next tried sanctions when they disagreed.  I’d simply take them off court and let others make use of the space freed up.  Over a period of weeks I stuck with this, but the issue kept arising.  Another failed attempt.

Last week though, I think I may have cracked it.  Whilst I was working with other players, the usual suspects had begun to disagree over the score in a game of singles.  One of my coaching team had been watching and told me which player was wrong – the usual instigator!  The players had reached a stand off where neither was willing to back down and they were simply stood on court both repeating what they believed to be the correct score.  Just as the other coach was about to intervene, I stopped her and asked that we let the drama play out.  It was near the end of the session, we didn’t have pressure on court space, and so the fact that they were stood there with heels dug in had no impact on anyone other than themselves.  They stood there for TEN minutes whilst other matches completed and players moved around.  We watched but without giving them attention.

I finished the session in the usual way, with a stretching activity and by asking how players got on in their matches.  The duelling cowboys told me that they didn’t play because they couldn’t agree on the score.  I simply said that it was a shame that they had not been able to make the most of their match playing time which is very limited.  All in a very understated aloof way.

That was it!  This week when we got to the point in the session where they played matches I paired up the same two players and said:

“I’m sure that after not managing to play last week you have come up with a way to avoid the problem this week”

On they went, and again watching without giving attention it was clear that they wanted to play and so were agreeing the score after every point.  They even disagreed once, and discussed their way to the correct solution.  I think my professional position here was one of smugness!  After a year I’ve finally cracked it!  On this one occasion.  Hopefully for the next time too.  My reflection leads me to think that the problem was a social one – wanting to be the best player in the peer group – and that constant interventions prevented the player in question from developing a strategy to overcome this stumbling block.  I’m hopeful that even if there are issues again in future, reference to this week will reinforce that our troubled player is able to deal with the situation.