Thoughts on coaching

[CoachGavin]

One note is that the coach may have a high break of say sixty or seventy but has not improved due to a disability rather than not having the knowledge. Im sure my game has suffered due to my health problems. Alternatively the coach just may not have realised his or her potential due to lack of play. Just something to keep in mind perhaps.

[Rane]

ha! I've thought of one ... Dr Steve Peters ... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_P...trist)#Snooker

according to that web page, he is credited with coaching Ronnie O'Sullivan to his World Championship win in 2012 ... the article doesn't say what Dr Peters high break is but somehow I doubt it's 100 ...

I was actually quite surprised that O´Sullivan never had seen a sportpsychologist before. There are a few other top players, that I think might have use of seeing one as well.

[pottr]

Like I said earlier, I believe you need both. Simply being a good player or a good coach will not suffice.

Yes, Alex and Jose were both drawing a living from the game of football long before they became mangers.

[Terry Davidson]

Just to add my 2 cents (pence) worth. First of all, I believe a good coach must have an intimate knowledge of the game plus be able to teach break-building and cueball control so therefore he should at least be able to string together the odd 60 or 70 at least. He should also be able to demonstrate poor technique and explain the reasons why poor technique is causing problems (wwhich for me is really easy to do since I've had all the faults).

Not every good player makes a good coach since it takes a special talent to impart knowledge and also the coach has to respect the student. On the other side of the coin not every coach will be a good player. Frank Callan was a county champ and took, (and was the only failure), on Jack Karhnem's B&SCC coaching course, however Frank Callan along with Frank Adamson are considered by many to be the elite of the coaching fraternity. I believe Frank Adamson is still coaching at the SWSA once in awhile but I don't know his snooker record.

I also note the references above to the '2-day' wonder coaches and I suppose that refers to the WPBSA initial course. Just to clarify, with Nic Barrow for Master Coach training it was 8 days of 8hrs each and also with the Terry/Wayne Griffiths Matchroom Senior Coach is was 5 days although Wayne took into account I was already a trained Master Coach. I haven't taken the WPBSA 2-day course as they now recognize Nic Barrow's training so now I'm a certified WPBSA Master Coach and I guess Examiner too (Nic has never been asked to contribute to the WPBSA training even though he is the IBSF Head Coach and Examiner).

I don't believe good coaches can be cranked out on an assembly line although I think the WPBSA is attempting to get as many coaches out there as they can and they now offer more advanced training (at significant bucks too!) but in my opinion it is still a lot less than either Nic or Terry offer for IBSF and EBSA coaching certification (at a more reasonable price too!). Sometimes a coach can become very good just through experience but it does take that special skill, much the same as a player can become very good without any coaching if he has the natural talent.

And also to clear the air...my high tournament break is 138 and my high practice break is 147 however they were achieved in the late 1980's. Since I've come back to the game (at the end of 2005) I've only achieved a high tournament break of 89 and a high practice break of 136, although centuries even in practice are hard to come by for me these days.

It also frustrates me that I cannot DO what I can TEACH which is a real p*** off! If I could do perfectly what I teach I'm certain I would be at top amateur level at least but I just can't get there and also don't have a lot of competitive time left in this body of mine, but that's how the cookie crumbles I guess

Terry

[vmax4steve]

I see the Alex Ferguson example has cropped up again - in snooker terms Alex Ferguson was a century break player i.e. he was good enough to have a career as a professional footballer, although by no means a Lionel Messi.

Using football managers is not a good example as these blokes are taking people who can already play and moulding them into a team, totally different scenario. Alex Ferguson taught Ronaldo nothing, all his skills were present before he even joined Man Utd.

I am with pottr on this one btw, I don't believe that anyone should be teaching anyone unless they can physically demonstrate it to be correct. Snooker is not quantum theory that only takes place within the mind of those with understanding, it is a physical co-ordinated action between hand and eye and brain.
But unlike pottr I would rather there was no coaching in any sport. Giving advice is fine to those who have basic faults, I have nothing against that, but moulding someone to play only in a certain way is a sure fire way to sounding the death knell in any sport. We need to have variety, differences we can identify with and identify by otherwise it's all the bloody same, like tennis has become (Federer excepted) and rugby union, jesus what a bore fest that is now compared to how it was as now everyone plays like the All Blacks always have.

The large majority of the viewing public in any sport are not participants themselves, and they have to be entertained otherwise they will switch off. Simply filming Ding walking through a park to the strains of a mystical piano will not bring forth any latent personality to the table when we watch him playing. Alex Higgins was an arsehole but we wanted to see him play because he was unpredictable and bordered on genius at times and was crap at others. But he had a big following, antihero perhaps but the peoples champion because he played the game at a fantastic standard with all the faults of the average club player, so we identified with him and not the robotic Steve Davis who did everything his teachers told him.

The tour is now full of players with the same cue action playing at the same speed and playing the same shots who have all signed the players contract and are no longer themselves anymore.

[itsnoteasy]

Anyone at any standard can spot faults(like when videos are posted on here, an absolute novice can spot whats wrong with them)as its just a matter of observation, but correcting the faults is a coaches job, which takes a good standard of play to demonstrate both the fault and the answer,a good coach will also put it across well, but at the end of the day you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear, so blame is a tricky subject if you dont get the improvement expected, maybe coaches should be more honest or abrupt with pupils, ask what they expect and then tell them the standard they will be able to coach them to.
I will always be a sows ear, but just love playing the game.

[throtts]

I think Terry sums it up. Even though he is a high breaker he still cannot give the magic ingredients over to his students, so natural given ability does come in to play, obviously. Paying out for coaching does not make you a 100 breaker, but guidance and hours of practice may do..

[CoachGavin]

I dont really believe too much in natural ability. It is really how much a player has played especially when they were young. Most 'naturals' on the professional circuit or even in the local leagues probably played a lot of snooker when they were younger. Its not like a player just picks up a cue and starts making centuries. As a coach I think if every student did as I asked then they would improve but many cant/dont or wont put in the necessary practice after the lesson. That is why it is difficult to say to a student how good they could be. I have one lad I coached and I have said to him that I think he could become a professional if he listens to my ideas and practices properly. However he is one of those people who doesnt trust coaches and thinks he is better off doing it his way as he knows best. I hope he does make it but my head says that because of his youth and the fact he does not really listen to people trying to help him that he will struggle. In the old days he would have been seen as a 'natural' like alex higgins but the game has developed since then and the standard is higher. I think snooker is now like other sports in that a player can only reach the top if they are professional about it. I think snooker will still have characters. Look at Mark allen and his views and drago punching himself round the face a couple of weeks ago. Also the players do fist pumps which was not common twenty years ago. I also think now that players are on twitter and facebook people get to know them better and get to follow them. This is important in attracting the younger generation. So sorry for the long post. Dont usually jabber on this much ! Apologies.

[RocketRoy1983]

People put too much pressure on themselves to achieve higher breaks. Everyone wants a century. Why? Because its a bragging right at the bar. I was obsessed with getting one, so much so, that it affected my form for 3 years.

Average players remain average because they don't master the basics on a consistent level ie the stance, delivery, timing etc...

This separates average from above average. In regards to coaches they should be listened to and ask as many questions as you can - after all that's what we're paid for. If you believe a coach should have century breaks before you'll listen to them then that's really an issue with your own thinking and one that I wouldn't wish to comment on. My HB is 101 yet another guy I coach/play with has a HB of 63 yet I'd consider him a better player AND coach.

Haters will hate and people will judge but let them. Just enjoy your OWN game and listen to everything that everyone says and use it to your own advantage in whatever way you can.

[vmax4steve]

If you believe a coach should have century breaks before you'll listen to them then that's really an issue with your own thinking and one that I wouldn't wish to comment on.

Then again RocketRoy,
what if you were to play someone in a local league match and you had to give him 50+ start because he was a poor player and you knocked in a 75 against him and missed the yellow to clear the colours and make that ton. If he noticed that you'd moved your head while attempting the yellow and told you so, you would thank him and take it on board, but if he told you that your stance was all wrong would you listen to him then ??

[nrage]

Then again RocketRoy,
what if you were to play someone in a local league match and you had to give him 50+ start because he was a poor player and you knocked in a 75 against him and missed the yellow to clear the colours and make that ton. If he noticed that you'd moved your head while attempting the yellow and told you so, you would thank him and take it on board, but if he told you that your stance was all wrong would you listen to him then ??

Listen, yes. Change, depends on the advice Whether someone can play, or not, has no bearing on what information or advice they have/know. If you're deciding not to listen to someone based on their playing ability you're using faulty logic and as Roy said it's more a problem with you and your thinking than them and their advice. If you listen and the advice is garbage so you ignore it, no harm done. If you listen and decide to try it, and then find it's garbage, no harm done and something learned. If you listen, decide to try it, and find it actually works.. bonus.

("you" used above is not you specifically, but rather "one" as in anyone <- actually using "one" sounds stupid)

[vmax4steve]

If you're deciding not to listen to someone based on their playing ability you're using faulty logic

If Alex Higgins had been a coach and told all his students not to move their heads when they played and then demonstrated by moving his head all the time and making a century break how many of his students would believe him.
On the other hand if you had a one to one with a coach and he told you the same and demonstrated it by missing 50% of the shots do you think that you would believe that keeping the head still was at all important.

This isn't faulty logic, it's logical that something practical is seen to work

[nrage]

If Alex Higgins had been a coach and told all his students not to move their heads when they played and then demonstrated by moving his head all the time and making a century break how many of his students would believe him. On the other hand if you had a one to one with a coach and he told you the same and demonstrated it by missing 50% of the shots do you think that you would believe that keeping the head still was at all important.

As I said in my last message you would...

1. Listen.
2. Try it yourself.
3. Decide whether to keep doing it or discard it as not useful.

AKA the scientific method, or validating another persons theory with an experiment designed to test that theory. Alternately you could attempt to find evidence elsewhere like observing good players or asking good players what they thought AKA collecting data.

A single piece of observational evidence like you describe is useful but not conclusive, assuming it's conclusive is the faulty logic.

This isn't faulty logic, it's logical that something practical is seen to work

If you see something work for one person once, does that imply it will work for all people all the time? No, that's the fault in the logic here. Likewise if you see something fail for one person does that imply it will fail for everyone? No, again this is faulty logic.

That's why it's a bad idea to dismiss an idea solely on the grounds that the guy mentioning it can't do it, especially if that guy is a beginner - because it's unlikely he is even doing what he wants/thinks he should be doing.

If you're a good consistent player then you can easily test new ideas because you have the advantage of being good and consistent so a single change will have a fairly clear effect. Pity the beginner who tries to do the same thing.

[Belloz22]

Hey all, might as well give me thoughts on coaching as i have had many coaching sessions over the years.....

Over the last 6 years i have seen 3 different coaches, all have which i have spent various times with, and various number of sessions, and in the long run i have found it not to work for me.

I have said it before, and il say it again, i believe when people go for coaching, there is an element of coaching bias, where players know they are being watched/asessed, so they try that little harder to do things properly etc....... then when the player leaves, he has received advice, but the advice isnt for the actual errors which would normal crop up.

I maintain any good coach will watch a player in their natural setting, watching them play a few frames where their natural errors etc will really come out.

Myself, i always found i played better in front of my coach, but rubbish outside of it................. and i will pay good money for the day a decent coach can help me, as i believe i have errors which many of my coaches have failed to pick up or notice.

Unfortunately, i still believe a coach is needed to find good technique, they know what they are looking for on a small level, and have the advice to correct it - however in my experience i have yet to find a coach that has improved me!!!

[steve clarke]

I wouldn't go for piano lessons to a bloke who couldn't play the piano himself - but he don't need to be Rubinstein!!