A question on a zoom call with a friend
Where should coaches place an importance?
Could this vary across age ranges and standards?
How much isolated technical coaching you do with your players
Are your sessions slanted towards improving technical aspects before tactical?
How much technical training?
I’ve split the questions
-
Why did the Coach ask this question?
-
Do coaches place an over importance on technical aspects?
-
Does the balance (of importance and time) vary across age ranges?
-
What guidelines are there to help?
-
Do coaches place an over importance on technical aspects?
-
Questions for coaches
Why did the Coach ask this question?
I thought back to the Zoom call and tried to remember what we were chatting about when this question came up.
We were talking about 2 topics at the same time:
“Which technical skills are important for beginners?”
“When and how do you introduce tactics?”.
Whichever topic it was, we both agreed that it’s very easy to fill sessions with technique practice.
We agreed that an overemphasis on technical type coaching may be deliberate, as coaches could feel that certain techniques needed to be “grooved” before tactics are introduced.
Then there was the possibility that some coaches may believe that “correct established” techniques were required before the “tactics” could be introduced. Whilst we understood these possibilities, we disagreed.
Then there was also the possibility that coaches felt more comfortable planning and doing sessions that aimed to improve “technique”. I wonder how confident coaches are at creating sessions that encourage and improve tactical concepts and ideas?
How confident are you at creating sessions that encourage and improve tactical concepts
Or, do you feel happier designing technical practices?
For clarity
The definition of technical work will vary from coach to coach. How it looks on the court will also vary.
Please be aware that you may read my words and picture a completely different scenario to the one that I’m suggesting.
The technical practices I’m visualising are
… single shuttles from a feeder : by racket or hand
… often not returned, or if they are not, then the ‘rally’ is very short
… little or no game-like decisions, players and feeder often know where the shuttle is going.
Do coaches place an over importance on technical aspects?
The short answer is – I’m not sure, but maybe
What do you think?
The only way to know is to ask coaches to consider what they do in their sessions
Their responses will likely include these – do you agree?
- That they are aware of the time (or % of time) they allocate to “technical work”, it’s in the majority and they are happy with that as “the job of the coach is to improve players technically”
- That they combine technique and tactics into one practice (do you think that this would be a common response?)
- They want to establish some core technical basics in novice players to prevent future technical errors/limitations, but soon after they are partly established they use a combination of technical + tactical in practice
- That technique is easier to coach than tactical
- That they have never considered exactly the time or % of the time they allocate
- That to become a World class player you must be technically perfect, so, therefore, they allocate a high percentage of time to technique
How many do you agree with?
Does the balance (of importance and time) vary across age ranges
I believe that there will be a shift in the coach’s mindset as the player standard changes
I want to propose different reasons why for each of these 3 player types.
This is an over-simplistic split, but hopefully, it will start a discussion
Please let me know if you agree.
Would you challenge these statements?
Working with beginner players
From the very first lesson to years 3 or 4, I believe that an emphasis should be placed on technical aspects. Especially those aspects that work to prevent immediate and future critical faults, and to create a foundation for more complex work later in development.
However, ‘how’ this is achieved in practice is crucial. The methodologies used are as important as the content.
Method and Content are important for some or all of these reasons:
- The first coach is often the most influential (especially technically) and any changes later could be difficult and prolonged.
- If players are not given guidance (via conditions/constraints, visual cues, verbal hints, etc.) there is a high probability that self-discovery will result in some inappropriate techniques forming.
- An element of technical competency (the amount is for discussion) is required before a game using simple but meaningful tactics can be expereinced.
- The coach should work hard to create game-like tasks that integrate one or more technical elements. The aim is to reduce the players' attention on technical elements, but more towards “game-play” and "outcome" elements.
Working with intermediate players
Once players are no longer beginners, the task of choosing and assessing what technical improvements are required becomes a coaching skill in itself.
There is a danger in continuing to use the same practices but only varying the duration (the number of shuttles). The design of the Badminton technical training practice is vital.
Practice design will include subtle variations that: change the player’s attention (within similar practices), alter ‘coach technical talk’, and increase the coach’s desire to relate practice to parts of the game.
- Avoid the temptation to continue using the same, simplified “beginner” type practices unless there are specific reasons.
- There are dangers in pursuing excellence in technique. Rather, aim for “in-game” challenges that are applicable to that standard.
- Mistakes/errors are not necessarily seen as negative. Have you read 6 Ways to take a different look at errors
- Create a desire to enjoy the “bumpy” challenging journey of progress and be aware of the practice performance (it’s all too easy to achieve)
- Use closed/block/isolated practice to create both player confidence, initial understanding and also for coaches to observe that there is some resemblance to the stroke/movement/skill required. Then quickly move to the next bullet point.
- Take a risk (if you see it as a risk) to progress practices (introduction of game-like elements) once the technique/skill is only partly established. Do this in the knowledge that the additional stresses (decisions, physicality, etc.) are likely to cause practice difficulties.
Working with expert players
How would you define ‘high performers’
Would you accept a definition of : ‘those who are motivated towards attaining excellence’ ?
If you are fortunate to be working with “expert” high-performing players, do you agree with these considerations for guiding your practice. Especially with regard to the use of technical isolated practices.
- Isolated technique practice is less physically demanding (although repetitious work can still be damaging) and practicing in a game-like way during every session is not recommended. The less physically stressful sessions can be used to develop or reinforce technical skills.
- Some players require the emotional confirmation that they are “putting in the hours” and as stated above, these less physically demanding sessions can contribute to the players’ emotional wellbeing.
- The “Fear of missing out” (FMO) caused by social pressure to participate in repetitious practices should not be dismissed.
- There are times when exploration of techniques is required and a temporary regression to using reduced variation, reduced gameplay is required.
- Play games, lots of games. Vary opponents, vary the conditions and constraints. Game-likeness can still be created within adapted isolated practices. Skilful practice design using subtle variations must become a cornerstone skill of coaches and players.
- Encourage skill development through game/match play, targeting many types: tactical, technical, physical, courtcraft, and self-control. Above all of these is the ability to make crucial decisions at important times.
Working with adults (recreational)
Here the client’s wishes or desires are normally the main aims for the coach. Development is expected, but very often this is measured by a performance outcome in practice.
Practice performance is expected at the end of the practice by coach and player; however, long-term learning is not always achieved.
This may still be acceptable and satisfactory to the player as the emotional benefit of practice success outweighs the deeper learning.
I’ve also come to understand that the “loss of expertise” at the start of the next session leads to a stronger desire to try and attain that technical competence previously achieved.
This method may be contradictory to that recommended when working with performance players. However, the individual desires and goals of the client are different.
- It is expected that a technical explanation and breakdown (often in detail) will be given by the coach.
- Questions should be expected and answered, even if the reply draws (too much) attention to technical internal cues and causes information overload.
- Adults will expect to reproduce (as best they can) the practices used by professional players as seen on social media. There is enjoyment in trying and failing.
- Very often it is easier to demonstrate development through technical accomplishment rather than in-game tactical expertise.
- Practice may involve with high levels of single shuttle work (with low physical demands) as they are more manageable for the player and coach – reduced physical demand, reduced decision making, and high practice performance opportunities (albeit with possible low retention).
What guidelines are there to help?
Have you found useful information
Email me, as I’d like to read more because, as of now, I can find very little. Advice to help define the balance between type and content.
There is certainly lots of information, videos, commentaries, etc. on what should/could be taught, some on how to teach/coach it.
However, what is there concerning how to balance technique training with other factors, or when to move practices on from purely technical elements?
The guidelines I follow
The following points are a quick summary of my thoughts and my own reminders when considering Badminton technical training and development.
Ok, I’ll be honest, I try to follow or at least refer to them, but of course, they will never fit every situation or player.
I also do not follow any hard rules with regard to the % of time allocated to technical coaching, it’s too variable and player-specific.
- As soon as technical skill is partly established (no matter ho its been coaches), introduce a tactical game-like element to the practice.
- Focus on outcomes and external cues rather than lots of small technical details, be aware of drawing attention to body parts moving in sequence, especially in power strokes and movements.
- Sometimes the player will benefit (emotionally) from a successful closed practice (with limited variation).
- To change an isolated technical practice into a more game-like often only requires the incorporation of a decision.
- Use “player start” practices (one shuttle with the players starting, not the feeder coach) to easily incorporate gameplay-like decisions and anticipatory movements.
- There is no “perfect/ideal” practice. Coaching is always a series of decisions and choices in the hope that you will achieve your desire/goal/aim. Reflection by coach and player is vital.
- Technical development cannot be truly measured in isolated practice.
How would you answer these questions?
I’m interested in what you think
This post only contains my ideas, thoughts, and opinions. I’d like to finish with a series of questions for you to consider; maybe one day you will write a reply.
I’m happy to post your thoughts about Badminton technical training here and credit you.
What was your initial thought when you read the questions?
Have your opinions changed or been challenged now that you are here reading this?
- What does technical competency look like in the 3 years, irrespective of how you coach technique.
- What level of technical proficiency is required before tactical ideas/concepts can be introduced?
- How can isolated technique practices be amended to incorporate tactical themes? What ideas do you follow?
- Is it possible that an overemphasis on technique could actually be hampering player development on court in matches?
Your task is to include essential technique practice in your sessions in a way that
allows an easy development into game-like practices with a tactical element
Would you have answered the question differently?
If you feel that I’ve missed any important points, it would be great to hear from you.
Please send me an email.
I promise to read all your comments
It would be great to hear from you contact@badmintonandy.com
![6 Ways to develop effective Badminton grips base info for edit - Duplicate - [#28008]](https://badmintonandy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Badminton-grips-landscape-1.jpg)
