the coaches and players are talking all the time. I heard Wang Zheng Ming's coach say the shuttle was going out at the back. Wang left it and the shuttle landed in!
Usually the advice is on tactics.
Should coaching be allowed between points?
- Thread starter Cheung
- Start date
Usually the advice is on tactics.
|_Footwork_|
Regular Member
I think coaching between points should be allowed (as it is nowadays...).
I def think it helps a lot of players and therefore helps improving the quality of the games.
I def think it helps a lot of players and therefore helps improving the quality of the games.
LeonardWyckoff
New Member
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 great phentermine review 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.
Play must be continuous between one point and the next. When a point ends, the coach is permitted to give advice, but the advice can only be given during the natural time between rallies; usually, the time it takes to pick up the ball. ... It's okay if a coach says between points, "Go to the forehand".
Last edited:
speCulatius
Regular Member
I'm not sure if this is trolling or being serious.
I'm fine with people being against that, I don't know if I'm for or against it, but please choose a different reasons. Coaching is part of a competition to help athletes adjust and pay at their best. And... how do you want to control that anyway?
A "Good!" after a rally is coaching, even nodding, a smile, or a thumbs up is.... That's just natural to come out. If you allow any of that, where do you draw the line?
Not allowing coaches near the court?
They could sit/stand elsewhere.
Ban them from the location and limit their access to the training location?
That means no coaching even between games. I'm certain it would lead to worse games, much more one sided, because it's much harder to adjust without input from the outside. Athletes should focus on the game they play and having somebody suggesting/dictating the rest from the outside - while providing a ton of mental support - helps them do it.
I'm not a fan of coaching between points, but it just doesn't work to allow coaches to be able to have coaching at certain times and expect them to not do anything between rallies - or even penalize the player for that.
It needs to be controlled, certainly. I sometimes feel like it's a bit too much, too, but overall, I think it's not too bad.
Reducing coaching to the preparation before the game is just... I cannot think of a nice way to finish this sentence.
I think players should be able to be tactically aware and able to keep track of how they are winning and losing points.
Tennis coaches sit in the audience - no reason badminton coaches can't do the same. What I'm against is outside input during the "coaching" breaks - just have them be breaks, where the players can think about and/or discuss strategy and tactics between themselves.
visor
Regular Member
Having the coaching break at the interval is quite edifying for us spectators at home when we can hear the coach discussing with players and also having the commentators interpreting for us. It gives us a deeper insight into the tactics/strategies involved.
Sent from my SM-G988W using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G988W using Tapatalk
Last edited:
The most popular sport in the world has their coaches continuously shouting to their players from the edge of the pitch in the breaks during play - football.
As a player, what would you prefer? As a spectator, what would you prefer?
I agree that it is interesting for the spectator that coaching is allowed.
Should a match be player vs player, or player+coach vs player+coach?
Regardless of what opinion you hold, coaches are another variable that diminishes the control a player has over a match, like different shuttles, different playing halls, different audiences. It allows players who are less tactically or strategically aware to diminish the disadvantage in that part of their game. And coaches aren't perfect omniscient beings. What if your opponent has a much better coach than you do? This can be out of your control.
I think the result of the match should be determined 100% by the players. Who has the better technique, consistency, physical capacity, mental strength, and tactical and strategic awareness.
If a floor is slippery, it diminishes the importance of physical capacity, because both players are forced to move slower to avoid slipping. If coaches are allowed, it diminishes the importance of the players individual tactical and strategic awareness, because coaches can cover it to an extent. And just as floors shouldn't be slippery, coaches shouldn't have influence on the outcome of a match.
This is just my opinion. For some, having a coach during a game might help them reach a level of play they otherwise wouldn't. That to raise the level of badminton, whether individually or collectively, it's worth it to have coaching be allowed. I see the point, but I don't think it's worth it.
I agree that it is interesting for the spectator that coaching is allowed.
Should a match be player vs player, or player+coach vs player+coach?
Regardless of what opinion you hold, coaches are another variable that diminishes the control a player has over a match, like different shuttles, different playing halls, different audiences. It allows players who are less tactically or strategically aware to diminish the disadvantage in that part of their game. And coaches aren't perfect omniscient beings. What if your opponent has a much better coach than you do? This can be out of your control.
I think the result of the match should be determined 100% by the players. Who has the better technique, consistency, physical capacity, mental strength, and tactical and strategic awareness.
If a floor is slippery, it diminishes the importance of physical capacity, because both players are forced to move slower to avoid slipping. If coaches are allowed, it diminishes the importance of the players individual tactical and strategic awareness, because coaches can cover it to an extent. And just as floors shouldn't be slippery, coaches shouldn't have influence on the outcome of a match.
This is just my opinion. For some, having a coach during a game might help them reach a level of play they otherwise wouldn't. That to raise the level of badminton, whether individually or collectively, it's worth it to have coaching be allowed. I see the point, but I don't think it's worth it.
phihag
Regular Member
Here's where that analogy breaks down: It is widely understood that badminton on a slippery floor is worse (=not as entertaining to watch or play) as badminton on a great mat.
In contrast, coaching makes the game better: It leads to greater tactical depth and prevents matches where one side gets clobbered again and again with the same tactics.
The player's material, recovery programs, and physio, and a number of other things are also having an influence of the match. Nowadays, some doubles players get a refined analysis with their opponents' typical serves and returns, and the win percentage in each before the match. Why draw the line at having an on-court coach?
Even with the greatest coaching team against no coaches, a better player can win easily; we see uncoached players win all the time. Coaches can give a boost, but do not dominate the game in any way.
There's also the issue of enforcement: If having a coach is very valuable and coaching is outlawed, what prevents the coach from buying a first-row seat and yelling advice to the player? At smaller tournaments, the difference between front-row seat and coaching seat is a couple of centimeters.
If you ban coaches from the front row, the best strategy becomes to be seated in the second row, or have an unofficial coach with an earpiece sitting in the front row. Is that really an arms race we want in the sport?
The analogy doesn't break down, because it wasn't intended to argue that play with coaching is worse like playing with a slippery floor. The analogy holds up in the sense that both are variables outside the player's ability that affect the outcome of the match.
Because it's on-court. Everything else is preparation. Preparation makes the player a better player before the match, and therefore the result of the match is still determined by the player, regardless of what makes that player who they are as a player. On-court coaching attempts to improve the player as the match is ongoing by supplementing the player's knowledge and awareness with that of the coaches.
In chess, previous games are improved upon by using computer analysis which players will memorize to be better prepared during their future matches, but they aren't allowed to whip it out over the board to find the best move. They also can't take advice from any other players or coaches while the game is ongoing. Of course they can't, because they are supplementing their own knowledge and insight with the knowledge and insight of others, and so the result of the game has been falsified in a way that it shouldn't have been.
The only difference is that chess is completely intellectual whereas badminton only has a limited intellectual component. So yes, outside information will have less influence, but it is influence nonetheless. Influence that is outside player control and cannot be credited to the player.
A better player can win easily, if they are much better. If they are only slightly better, the coaching can make a difference for the lesser player. I think that shouldn't be a possibility. Whether it is decisive or not, it still has influence on the match. You can argue that that's fine, and I understand and even agree with the points you make, but I just don't think the benefits are worth compromising the player's influence on the game.
I fully agree with you there. My opinion is mostly from the perspective of a player, and not an enforcer. I would argue that the game exists for players and that in a perfect world all matches are played in an empty hall without anything to influence the match, but then I admit that for spectators and the badminton economy that enables badminton to exist at the level that it does requires audiences, and that enforcement is a factor to be considered.
speCulatius
Regular Member
The thing is, that the player only earns money, because he's part of the product sold. It's not about him, it's about what others want to see.
As somebody watching, I'm want the best players performing at their best. Why are the players who would win without coaching not winning now? Well, some are... others are just not good enough in other areas.
When watching, coaching improves the game I see at that moment and helps players develop for future matches. It adds more layers to what I see. I want to hear what the coaches say, not just during the intervals, but all the time. I want to see umpires draw a clear line when needed. I want to see the players and coaches react to that. I don't want it to make the break between rallies longer, but I want to get something out of those pauses.
As a coach, I want to coach, I want to throw in key words/phases that they know from previous training or what we've discussed at the interval. I feel guilty when I cannot be at the court. When I am at the court, it's impossible to not do that. A coach's job doesn't end when the match starts, unless the player decides that.
SSSSNT
Regular Member
Whether it should be allowed or not is irrelevant. Tennis disallows them. Boxing allows it. One is not more correct than the other.
It's all about what's the priority. IMO, the priorities should be on audience experience, because that's where the money is, and ultimately money is the main objective for professional players. If having someone yelling after every point affect audience experience negatively (and this is where market research companies comes in), then they should consider banning coaches shouting instructions.
It's all about what's the priority. IMO, the priorities should be on audience experience, because that's where the money is, and ultimately money is the main objective for professional players. If having someone yelling after every point affect audience experience negatively (and this is where market research companies comes in), then they should consider banning coaches shouting instructions.
visor
Regular Member
Imho the size of the playing area and the distance of the coach to the player will determine whether coaching is allowed or even practical/possible in being heard by the player.
Boxing and badminton? Possible and practical.
Tennis? Impractical
Basketball? Possible to the closer players.
Sent from my SM-G988W using Tapatalk
SSSSNT
Regular Member
If it's just about possibility and practicality, we can have tennis and badminton players wear an earpiece that connect them to the coach.
visor
Regular Member
Sure, and maybe can also have a plane spell out coaching directions in the sky for outdoor sports like tennis, soccer, football, etc so that the players can see...
Sent from my SM-G988W using Tapatalk
SSSSNT
Regular Member
I sense you disagree with players wearing earpiece? Why?Sure, and maybe can also have a plane spell out coaching directions in the sky for outdoor sports like tennis, soccer, football, etc so that the players can see...
Sent from my SM-G988W using Tapatalk