Should coaching be allowed between points?
- Thread starter Cheung
- Start date
I find that too many people try to stall between points in tournament, even on the local level. With players like Lin Dan and Hu Yun (recently, against JOJ, I think), taking extra time between points to psychologically damage their opponents, I think it's wise to keep coaching between games and during intervals, and not between points. That being said, I feel like if coaching between points does not delay the game at all, it should be allowed. 
the question is very specific - just refers to between points. Hand signals and verbalisation are included as forms of coaching from the sidelines. We see in sport a variation from none at all (e.g. Track events, swimming) to continuous (e.g. Football).I find that too many people try to stall between points in tournament, even on the local level. With players like Lin Dan and Hu Yun (recently, against JOJ, I think), taking extra time between points to psychologically damage their opponents, I think it's wise to keep coaching between games and during intervals, and not between points. That being said, I feel like if coaching between points does not delay the game at all, it should be allowed.
For the question of coaching between games, that would need a separate poll.
Maklike Tier
Regular Member
Hang on, who's playing the game? The player or the coaches?
The game involves both a players mental and physical skills as they stand, not via having someone improve or modify those skills during the game. The game is a SHOWCASE for the skills that the player has acquired, external of the match at hand.
I guess it's easy to argue that skills are constantly in flux to it's arbitrary as to when those skills are modified or acquired, but I like the idea of The Game being a showcase of everything the player has and has learned up to that point in time.
IMHO, when you step onto the court, it should be you against your opponent. Nothing more, and nothing less.
The game involves both a players mental and physical skills as they stand, not via having someone improve or modify those skills during the game. The game is a SHOWCASE for the skills that the player has acquired, external of the match at hand.
I guess it's easy to argue that skills are constantly in flux to it's arbitrary as to when those skills are modified or acquired, but I like the idea of The Game being a showcase of everything the player has and has learned up to that point in time.
IMHO, when you step onto the court, it should be you against your opponent. Nothing more, and nothing less.
I totally agree with you. Inside the "skill" there are the ability to face pressure, to analyze the game, to adapt to new situation... The game with no coach reveals the players' character. And it give all countries more equal chances, as some countries are loaded with coach, and this tends to standarize the game.
I am not in favor of coaching advice during the course of the points/ games / during matches. All are pro's here and dedicated their entire life to this sport and also they train a lot with much dedication and hard work. So a player can and must think to adapt to the game of his opponent which would be interesting. Also most of the players had met earlier and they all know each other's game. Coaching advice/ suggestions must be given in pre-match preparations rather than during the match.
How a player adapts to the opponents attack / opponent's preparations at the court using his mind and tactics will reveal more character than just getting spoon fed by coaches during the matches as Badminton is also more of a mind game
How a player adapts to the opponents attack / opponent's preparations at the court using his mind and tactics will reveal more character than just getting spoon fed by coaches during the matches as Badminton is also more of a mind game
Last edited:
I am not in favor of coaching advice during the course of the points/ games / during matches. All are pro's here and dedicated their entire life to this sport and also they train a lot with much dedication and hard work. So a player can and must think to adapt to the game of his opponent which would be interesting. Also most of the players had met earlier and they all know each other's game. Coaching advice/ suggestions must be given in pre-match preparations rather than during the match.
How a player adapts to the opponents attack / opponent's preparations at the court using his mind and tactics will reveal more character than just getting spoon fed by coaches during the matches as Badminton is also more of a mind game
Mod - Please do delete the duplicate post found in 2014 Aus Open Thread. Thanks
How a player adapts to the opponents attack / opponent's preparations at the court using his mind and tactics will reveal more character than just getting spoon fed by coaches during the matches as Badminton is also more of a mind game
Mod - Please do delete the duplicate post found in 2014 Aus Open Thread. Thanks
I can safely say coaching in-between points has little or no effect on most players most of the time. At the most, coaches shout words of encouragement to the player(s), a reminder,and only occasionally give cursory tactical advice.
As for tactical advice/instruction, if it is to affirm what was told to the player(s) earlier at the game break or mid-game interval, fine, nothing changes. If the coach suddenly mouths something different, a mere word or two without details, what is the player(s) to make of it? Worse still, it may serve to confuse the player(s) and be counterproductive.
Usually, in the heat of the battle, nothing gets into the head(s) of the player(s). If the player(s) is/are leading or gaining points or at least not losing points, they just carry on the same strategy/tactic. If losing points or trailing badly, nothing the coach does can have much effect on the player(s). During play, the player(s) are practically left to their own devices, to think for themselves and make adjustments accordingly.
The only time when coaching can make any difference and achieve the intended effect to a certain extent is between games and during mid-game intervals where the coach can go into details and after an assessment of the match proceedings. Don't be surprised, many players half the time aren't really listening, it's in one ear and out the other.
LYB once said that BCL was too reliant on his coaches during matches. At the LOG'12 Lin Dan vs LCW showdown, LYB said he sat at the coaches' chair purely to lend LD moral support and, hopefully, put some pressure on his opponent by his presence. I supposed he is implying that a good,hardworking student with the right attitude and has done his homework well, doesn't really need much coaching during matches, except for the coach to give pointers, reminders or encouragement, and perhaps when facing an unfamiliar opponent or one who suddenly plays a different kind of game; that's when the coach watching at the courtside has the advantage of a spectator's view of things and,therefore, may see more clearly than the player involved, the better to give him useful advice.
But, at the junior level or for young,inexperienced players still at their formative or (early) development stage, needless to say, good,quality coaching is very necessary and important at all times and in all situations. It then depends on how much the junior players can absorb,understand and implement the advice/instructions/guidance.
In conclusion, I'm basically neutral as far as coaches giving advice in between points is concerned. If I have to vote, it's a "No" if only to avoid confusing the player or, worse still, make the player develop a crutch mentality.
As for tactical advice/instruction, if it is to affirm what was told to the player(s) earlier at the game break or mid-game interval, fine, nothing changes. If the coach suddenly mouths something different, a mere word or two without details, what is the player(s) to make of it? Worse still, it may serve to confuse the player(s) and be counterproductive.
Usually, in the heat of the battle, nothing gets into the head(s) of the player(s). If the player(s) is/are leading or gaining points or at least not losing points, they just carry on the same strategy/tactic. If losing points or trailing badly, nothing the coach does can have much effect on the player(s). During play, the player(s) are practically left to their own devices, to think for themselves and make adjustments accordingly.
The only time when coaching can make any difference and achieve the intended effect to a certain extent is between games and during mid-game intervals where the coach can go into details and after an assessment of the match proceedings. Don't be surprised, many players half the time aren't really listening, it's in one ear and out the other.
LYB once said that BCL was too reliant on his coaches during matches. At the LOG'12 Lin Dan vs LCW showdown, LYB said he sat at the coaches' chair purely to lend LD moral support and, hopefully, put some pressure on his opponent by his presence. I supposed he is implying that a good,hardworking student with the right attitude and has done his homework well, doesn't really need much coaching during matches, except for the coach to give pointers, reminders or encouragement, and perhaps when facing an unfamiliar opponent or one who suddenly plays a different kind of game; that's when the coach watching at the courtside has the advantage of a spectator's view of things and,therefore, may see more clearly than the player involved, the better to give him useful advice.
But, at the junior level or for young,inexperienced players still at their formative or (early) development stage, needless to say, good,quality coaching is very necessary and important at all times and in all situations. It then depends on how much the junior players can absorb,understand and implement the advice/instructions/guidance.
In conclusion, I'm basically neutral as far as coaches giving advice in between points is concerned. If I have to vote, it's a "No" if only to avoid confusing the player or, worse still, make the player develop a crutch mentality.
I think this kinda brings another question then: would you separate singles, doubles and mixed when considering coaching?
IMO, Singles being a 1v1 battle, I wouldn't mind if we forbade coaching completely, but TBH in Doubles and Mixed it's a huge part of the game, as it's a lot more tactical and relying on details.
Good coaching can help level up the game between two roughly equivalent pairs (to find 2 pairs exactly even is very hard, but when you do have them, they produce the most interesting games, even at a low level of play!) and i think everybody wins then, cause you just make badminton better to watch and play.
On a side note, i see a lot of people linking this to tennis, saying there is no interaction between coaches and players, but i've seen professional players talking to themselves on the court on second-rate tournaments with their coach sitting right behind them in the stands and providing advice (mental advice cause the guy is damn unstable^^). Just saying.
Plus, during team events such as the Davis Cup, coaching IS allowed during breaks...
Anyway, as long as coaching does not slow the game, can't see why you would get rid of it...
And as someone was saying, receving advice is one thing, being able to apply it is another^^
IMO, Singles being a 1v1 battle, I wouldn't mind if we forbade coaching completely, but TBH in Doubles and Mixed it's a huge part of the game, as it's a lot more tactical and relying on details.
Good coaching can help level up the game between two roughly equivalent pairs (to find 2 pairs exactly even is very hard, but when you do have them, they produce the most interesting games, even at a low level of play!) and i think everybody wins then, cause you just make badminton better to watch and play.
On a side note, i see a lot of people linking this to tennis, saying there is no interaction between coaches and players, but i've seen professional players talking to themselves on the court on second-rate tournaments with their coach sitting right behind them in the stands and providing advice (mental advice cause the guy is damn unstable^^). Just saying.
Plus, during team events such as the Davis Cup, coaching IS allowed during breaks...
Anyway, as long as coaching does not slow the game, can't see why you would get rid of it...
And as someone was saying, receving advice is one thing, being able to apply it is another^^
What's wrong with coaching? Keep it allowed, just as it is. The match is played by the player, yes, but the coach is an extra tool at the player's disposal. BTW coaching may be forbidden in tennis but it happens all the time anyway through hand-signals and what not. Players need coaches.
Also it's not like the player has to follow every step of advice the coach gives. It's still up to the player to decide which advice seems relevant and to try to implement this into the match. What I'm saying is just because a player is getting coaching, it's not like the player doesn't have to think for him/herself at all.
Also it's not like the player has to follow every step of advice the coach gives. It's still up to the player to decide which advice seems relevant and to try to implement this into the match. What I'm saying is just because a player is getting coaching, it's not like the player doesn't have to think for him/herself at all.