How long did it take?

[mattyshinobi22]

one of the greatest coaches there has been frank callan advcocates the coaching to fit round the person rather than the opposite,
has the opposite can erode the natural talent of the player if he has it.

[magicman]

Ok, vmaxforsteve, it's posts like this that encourage players to persevere for years doing the wrong thing. Alex Higgins was great in his day but would have had to change his game if competing against modern day players or he'd have got no-where. The game is SO much stronger than it was then. George Best was brilliant but beer, late nights and more beer would have hampered his fitness, stamina etc in the modern game, which again is MILES better than it used to be. I think you're looking at the past with rose-tinted spectacles, and as for no modern Best or Higgins - ever heard of Ronnie O Sullivan? Lionel Messi? Both already better than Best or Higgins ever were.

[cazmac1]

Well put Magicman, I think you lost it at the end of your post vmaxforsteve. I understand what your trying to say about coaching but I don't agree. flair and natural talent are something that your born with and just as much it can't be taught the same follows it can't be coached out of you either. Ronnie has various coaches and it hasn't change his attacking style.

[tommygunner1309]

[QUOTE=tedisbill;551384

My thinking is; I'm not going to see a coach and then after half an hour be knocking in 40 breaks.

Feel free to tell me if you think I'm completely wrong here.[/QUOTE]


I am at present coaching an 11 year old. The first time we met we had a two hour session. He was already getting breaks consistently of 18 to 24. At the end of our two hour session, after correcting his stance, bridge hand and grip - he knocked in a 54 break on line-ups. The lad has a natural talent and is going to be a tasty player - but there is no way on this planet he would have knocked in a 54 break after two hours if his approach and address had stayed the same. Now you may think that I am indicating that I am a great coach. I can tell you I am not. There are a hell of a lot of good coaches out there - I include Del Hill, Terry G and Terry D, Nic Barrow etc etc - but I do know the basics of coaching and still have a lot to learn. But telling me that a coach will do you NO GOOD is horseswill - sorry mate but thats the facts

[nrage]

I think the reason people disagree about how useful a coach is, is based on personal experience, and it all depends on how effective their natural/initial technique was before they went. Combine that with the fact that some coaches will automatically adjust a player to the 'textbook' stance etc without first evaluating whether there are any flaws with their existing technique and it means some people have a 'bad' experience of coaching.

Now, send that same person to a very good coach and I believe it would have been a very different story. That said, the amount of 'improvement' people see after a single coaching session, or even a series of them will vary depending on their age (as we learn best when young), and previous experience (good and bad habits learned etc).

Someone who has most of it 'right' may come away without seeing much immediate improvement, especially if they're adjusting something or trying something new, and that's because snooker is all about consistency, and new things will almost always be less consistent.

The key thing being that some techniques are easier to reproduce consistently than others, but they will take some practice just to get them to the same level of consistency as the old technique. But, if the new technique is a good one, you should eventually reach a higher level of consistency, and this is the point of the change in the first place.

A beginner, like the example of the 11 year old above, on the other hand might improve a lot after just a few simple changes. This will be because their old technique was very hard to keep consistent, and the new technique was immediately easier and more consistent.

[tommygunner1309]

nrage

I would agree with everything you said. Terry Griffiths made a point to me that someone who plays for 3 or 4 hours a week should not have their whole setup changed quickly, or it would ruin the game they have.

To me, snooker is about delivering the cue in a straight and parallel line to obtain the desired effect. I break it down to as simple a routine as I can at the beginning. The stance, I am not too bothered about. As Frank Callan said I am more interested in what is happening above the table than below it. To me the main ingredients are a straight cue delivery and no upper body movement.

Of course, there is a heck of a lot more to be done than just that - but I feel that these are things that can be worked on in a methodical manner. Implementing too much at once will only cause confusion and may affect the clients game in a detrimental way.

In the case of the 11 year old - he obviously has a great natural talent for snooker. It was easy just to tweak a couple of things to get him to use his natural ablility to advantage. His bridge hand wasn't spread wide enough, and the thumb did not make the required V which led to a bit of a "wandering" cue. His stance was almost side on, rather than square, and his grip was too tight, causing the cue to scoop. Once I pointed these small changes out, he started to cue correctly, and was ecstatic with his 54.

I agree that teaching youngsters is far easier than older players. At 66 now, I find it difficult to change anything and if I do, get desperate at my lack of smooth cueing. I don't even have a pause on the backswing, but know that if I could learn to do that, I would get better results. Maybe it is worth trying.

[cazmac1]

All I can say is that I think if I had coaching when I was younger I would most probably got somewhere in the game. I say this because for years I was stuck on 40's and 50's and then one day I made a simple change to may stance and started knocking in 70's 80's and 90's. If someone had sorted this out years early I would have been very good by the time I was in my twenty's. I think when your young you have a superficial knowledge of the game. A good coach can speed up the learning curve and like so many have said get rid of bad habits before it to late.

[nrage]

I don't even have a pause on the backswing, but know that if I could learn to do that, I would get better results. Maybe it is worth trying.

I don't have one either.. but I'm not sure it is as important as a good front pause. I find that, of an evening, if things are going badly it is usually because I am not striking the white where I intend, or simply not focusing on the back of ball contact point. The solution, for me, is to really focus on the front pause, tip to white, and then really focus on the object ball contact point.

[vmax4steve]

Ok, vmaxforsteve, it's posts like this that encourage players to persevere for years doing the wrong thing. Alex Higgins was great in his day but would have had to change his game if competing against modern day players or he'd have got no-where. The game is SO much stronger than it was then. George Best was brilliant but beer, late nights and more beer would have hampered his fitness, stamina etc in the modern game, which again is MILES better than it used to be. I think you're looking at the past with rose-tinted spectacles, and as for no modern Best or Higgins - ever heard of Ronnie O Sullivan? Lionel Messi? Both already better than Best or Higgins ever were.

Do yourself a favour magicman and click onto youtube and subscribe to sunstrokers youtube channel to see some old english football.
cazmac1
with young lads being taken to football clubs aged five and being given to coaches just how is natural talent and flair supposed to come through.
Check out this video I found on youtube comparing Best to Ronaldo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOpoIpH-No0

To me this shows the difference between the coached and the uncoached, the real and the trickster. See how many players Ronaldo actually gets past compared to Best, and remember that not all of Best's games were televised whereas all of Ronaldo's are.

[magicman]

Best is regarded as one of the greatest players of all time - rightly so imo, but hardly the 'average' player of his time. Best wasn't uncoached either, as you seem to suggest. So it's not the difference between coached and uncoached at all is it? Secondly, I'm in my mid-forties and come from a football family so I've played and seen more football than most people. It's far better now than it ever was. Just as every discipline is. That's the nature of human evolution.

[ace man]

I started with snooker more seriously far too late at 33, but still wish I had coaching because I'm sick and tired of fixing bad habits myself. As far as snooker is concerned, I was born in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Lack of coaching is not the only problem. Even bigger problem for me is lack of quality opponents. Nobody around me plays at good level myself included, there's nobody to learn from. No players at all who can win a competitive frame in single visit, none. Hard to make progress like that, very hard to get fired up and motivated.
I envy you guys who have strong leagues.

[vmax4steve]

Best is regarded as one of the greatest players of all time - rightly so imo, but hardly the 'average' player of his time. Best wasn't uncoached either, as you seem to suggest. So it's not the difference between coached and uncoached at all is it? Secondly, I'm in my mid-forties and come from a football family so I've played and seen more football than most people. It's far better now than it ever was. Just as every discipline is. That's the nature of human evolution.

Totally wrong magicman, Best was never coached as a boy, learned his skills playing 50 a side in the school playground using a tennis ball. When he went to UTD the coaching staff were told to leave him alone and even Matt Busby never told him what to do. Read his book and find out the truth before posting opinions.
If you think that football was poor in the sixties and seventies then check out a video of the 1970 world cup final and compare it to the last one. !970, Brazil played the last open and free spirited world cup final ever and the game was an absolute classic. Spains victory in 2010 was based entirely on players with little natural ability other than to form triangles and play one two's because none of them has the skill to beat another player. That and the fact that the ball used was half the weight of the one used in the 1960's and was made of plastic makes the game an awful lot easier for little spanish men to take on the big boys, especially after thirty years of diving and cheating to get the referee on their side.
And evolution takes place over millions of years not forty, human beings are the same as they were thirty thousand years ago when they first settled in Europe, DNA testing on human remains of this period has proved this.
All modern sport has a glamour upon it that makes it look better than it is, that is mostly down to technology ie: the equipment used and the way that information can be accessed and learned from. It's not just down to coaching, coaching can only give you a Frank Lampard, it will never give you a George Best 'cos if it could we would surely have seen many more players equal to him and we haven't.

[magicman]

George Best had coaching like any youngster. Every player in every league gets coached by PE teachers, local Sunday league managers etc. Add to all that the coaching town team managers/coaches give you and if your good enough - county side managers and coaches. I played county level football as a kid and was on Luton's books for a while. I can't even remember how many coaches I had during that time because there were so many. Do you see just how ludicrous the statement is that Best never had any coaching?

Busby's or Best's book? Just because an ever-drunk once great footballer wrote something in an auto-biography doesn't make it gospel truth. Ditto for Busby when you're myth-making Old Trafford legends. After his kidney transplant, Best stated categorically he'd never drink again. Was that also the truth?

I'm also going to have to pop your bubble of delusion with regards to Spain and Barcelona - they play fantastic football and if you can't recognise that as such then I genuinely feel sorry for you. Iniesta can't beat a player? Xavi? Villa? Fabregas? You obviously mistakenly think you know more than you actually do about football. And surely the weight of the ball is irrelevant as long as both sides are using the same ball?

As for the "mostly down to technology" nonsense - I'm assuming Usain Bolts trainers make him run a full half second quicker than Carl Lewis as well eh? Michael Phelps swims quicker than the men of twenty years ago because, presumably, the technology in the water makes him better?

By the way, the evolution of birds and other animals has been documented over just a few decades, and if we all had to find the truth before posting opinions then some of us wouldn't be saying much at all.

[Manu147]

George Best had coaching like any youngster. Every player in every league gets coached by PE teachers, local Sunday league managers etc. Add to all that the coaching town team managers/coaches give you and if your good enough - county side managers and coaches. I played county level football as a kid and was on Luton's books for a while. I can't even remember how many coaches I had during that time because there were so many. Do you see just how ludicrous the statement is that Best never had any coaching?

Busby's or Best's book? Just because an ever-drunk once great footballer wrote something in an auto-biography doesn't make it gospel truth. Ditto for Busby when you're myth-making Old Trafford legends. After his kidney transplant, Best stated categorically he'd never drink again. Was that also the truth?

I'm also going to have to pop your bubble of delusion with regards to Spain and Barcelona - they play fantastic football and if you can't recognise that as such then I genuinely feel sorry for you. Iniesta can't beat a player? Xavi? Villa? Fabregas? You obviously mistakenly think you know more than you actually do about football. And surely the weight of the ball is irrelevant as long as both sides are using the same ball?

As for the "mostly down to technology" nonsense - I'm assuming Usain Bolts trainers make him run a full half second quicker than Carl Lewis as well eh? Michael Phelps swims quicker than the men of twenty years ago because, presumably, the technology in the water makes him better?

By the way, the evolution of birds and other animals has been documented over just a few decades, and if we all had to find the truth before posting opinions then some of us wouldn't be saying much at all.

Some sense at last!

[vmax4steve]

George Best had coaching like any youngster. Every player in every league gets coached by PE teachers, local Sunday league managers etc. Add to all that the coaching town team managers/coaches give you and if your good enough - county side managers and coaches. I played county level football as a kid and was on Luton's books for a while. I can't even remember how many coaches I had during that time because there were so many. Do you see just how ludicrous the statement is that Best never had any coaching?

Busby's or Best's book? Just because an ever-drunk once great footballer wrote something in an auto-biography doesn't make it gospel truth. Ditto for Busby when you're myth-making Old Trafford legends. After his kidney transplant, Best stated categorically he'd never drink again. Was that also the truth?

I'm also going to have to pop your bubble of delusion with regards to Spain and Barcelona - they play fantastic football and if you can't recognise that as such then I genuinely feel sorry for you. Iniesta can't beat a player? Xavi? Villa? Fabregas? You obviously mistakenly think you know more than you actually do about football. And surely the weight of the ball is irrelevant as long as both sides are using the same ball?

As for the "mostly down to technology" nonsense - I'm assuming Usain Bolts trainers make him run a full half second quicker than Carl Lewis as well eh? Michael Phelps swims quicker than the men of twenty years ago because, presumably, the technology in the water makes him better?

By the way, the evolution of birds and other animals has been documented over just a few decades, and if we all had to find the truth before posting opinions then some of us wouldn't be saying much at all.

I bow to your greater knowledge oh magicman, of course George Best recieved coaching, the kind that Brian Glover portrayed so well in the film Kes.
And of course George Best was a drunk and a liar, and Matt Busby was just another liar trying to inflate his own ego and create his own legend.
And Spain and Barcelona only play fair and never dive and con the referee when teams they play against start to give them problems, turning a contact sport into a non contact sport for nancy boys. The weight of the ball irrelevant eh, just how do you suppose that the German goalkeeper managed to place kick that plastic ball all of 100 metres for their opening goal against england in the 2010 world cup, and the fact that goalkeepers cannot hold it anymore, or that it changes direction several times in the air when hit hard over distance, or that once simple side foot shots can now be hit with power over a short distance with very little back lift, or that it is also easier to swerve with the inside of the foot, so much so that everyone can do it now. That's the difference between what players use now and what George Best and co had to use so of course it's not irrelevant, just like the fact that Nadal uses a carbon fibre racket compared to the wooden one that Rod Laver used, and that Ronnie O'Sullivan uses phenolic resin balls compared to the bonzoline balls that Joe Davis once used which were probably half as heavy again.
And athletic tracks are not made from materials that enable runners to set faster times, something that was never mentioned about the track at the Bejing olympic stadium, and those swim suits that reduce drag in the water, no one used those to set world records did they.
Technology puts a glamour on modern sport and games, and where speed and endurance is all that matters then of course it makes it better and makes it almost impossible to compare eras, but what you can compare is what it was like to watch, how entertaining it is/was and I for one would rather watch George Best running at a defence, watch Barry John with a rugby ball in his hands and Alex Higgins with a cue in his hand because they didn't do it for money, they entertained.

After watching last nights Dispatches programme on channel 4 I'm even more convinced about the sorry state of modern football. It used to be that a footballers power was all below the waist. Now I know why that has changed.

BTW the behaviour of some birds and animals can change over decades, those that have evolved the intelligence to do so, others just simply die out because they haven't.