I'm in the middle of part 3 of the World Cup Practice posts but didn't feel like finishing it. Or perhaps more accurately got side-tracked, again. One thing I've been meaning to talk about are the logistics of a merger in the sense of how it might affect the actual competition irrespective of any format change. And then there's a couple of items that came up today.
The first isn't really new but my resolve to do something about it coalesced today. I am referring to the seemingly endless fount of email pressers the big event series spam you with as part of their "service" to their sponsors. I have objected to the volume in the past and nobody cared. (Which is fine.) But even as I ranted about it I let it continue resignedly accepting it as a personal sacrifice for the good the game sorta thing. Yeah, well, I'm done with that. Before I continue maybe I ought to make it plain that I am not a gearhead. Never have been. (If you are your tolerance of such mailers may accordingly differ from mine.) Never had more than a passing interest in the stuff of paintball so getting slammed with notices of those new barrels or that new shoe or whatever I couldn't care less and with the rising volume it has just become a nuisance. But the good folks at PALS have taken it beyond annoying and into stalker-ish territory. 18 email promotions in the last four days was the final straw. I couldn't easily unsubscribe so I relegated all PALS email to my Junk folder. And odds are they won't be the only ones. (I don't like direct mail either.)
In the last day or so somebody started a thread in the PSP forum over at the Nation ostensibly querying views on the Coaching Question. Referring, as usual, to sideline coaching, hollering, incoherent screaming, sign waving and the like. He did so by setting up the false dichotomy of more run throughs versus sideline coaching and equating run throughs as competitive paintball's version of the slam dunk. Once upon a time in basketball the dunk was exciting. When it didn't happen that often. Today, the way the pro game in particular is played, there may be a dozen dunks in a game. Whoop-de-doo. The more routine an action becomes the less interesting or special it becomes--not the other way 'round. Personally I'd rather see 48 minutes of good hoops than a highlight reel of outsized men jamming the rock through the hole at close range. But I get the analogy--even if it is flawed. The problem here is, that much like the OWS (and all the lookalike protests it has spawned) they may have identified a legit issue but their "fix" doesn't actually address that issue. A sideline coach never stopped a well-executed take down. Period. End of story. Now if the real issue is getting the take down and living to tell the tale that's a different issue--but even that isn't because sideline coaching makes it impossible or even nearly so. Time to move on.
Separate from the will-a-merger-change-the-format chatter is the question of what the Pro division looks like in the aftermath and how the merger might impact the other divisions. In recent years the Pro field in the PSP has been the exclusive province of the Pro teams until Sunday and even then the pro refs are exclusive to pro matches. In the PSP not only does the format contribute to a best outcome but so does the quality of the officiating. (It's not perfect but it's a damn sight closer than anything the NPPL has ever put on their center court--with one exception.) A continuation of the basic practices will either limit the number of pro teams or force an expansion of the pro reffing cadre and its supervision. And that is not a minor consideration. There has also been some talk of bringing back the Semi-Pro Division. Part of the problem is that NPPL has 10 pro teams that do not already participate in the PSP and the showing of (Pro 7-man competitive) Portland Uprising recently has to be viewed as a cautionary tale by the rest. So, A) there isn't room under the current system for everyone, and B) it isn't unreasonable to assume that some number of the potential new guys aren't going to be competitive--at least initially. Toss into the mix that only 11 of the current participants in the NPPL have "owner" status (and that may not mean 11 teams) and the plot thickens some more. One would have to assume that "owners" have a leg up but even then there are a few teams that currently have rostered players who also play on other teams and there's no telling exactly how that could shake out--although that is almost certainly part of the reason there are board members dead set against a merger. Whatever happens it isn't going to be as easy as simply deciding to do it. Part of whatever happens will be predicated on what already is.
Showing posts with label coaching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coaching. Show all posts
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
In Game Coaching, part 2
The practice of in game coaching requires three related efforts. At least it does the way I do it. (Keeping in mind I'm of the school of thought that believes in doing everything you can and controlling everything you can in order to best position yourself and your team for success. In practice--not practice practice--I mean as part of the process of preparing to compete--that also covers some ground that is more abstract (team chemistry and mental preparation for starters) than the practical routines I'm going to discuss today. Of the three related efforts two of them, scouting and game-planning occur separately from the actual in game play calling, etc.
We'll begin with scouting. Scouting is simply observing your opponent(s) with the object of looking for routines & patterns, ways of playing and player assignments that will give you information you can hopefully use to counter their strengths and attack their weaknesses. In competitive paintball, even at the highest levels, it isn't that complex a proposition. Or it shouldn't be if you are well schooled in the fundamental tactics of competitive paintball. (I may be assuming facts not in evidence here.) One pro team used to check mark field diagrams by the bunkers taken as primaries OTB. By the end of a match it revealed primary frequency. I use a somewhat more complicated system. I shorthand each breakout (using our team bunker codes plus some additional codes of my own devising) to indicate shooting lanes, delays and sequences to taking secondary positions. I also keep track of points played on penalties for the same basic info. It's also worthwhile to look for player patterns. If player X is in does he only go to one of two bunkers OTB? If you discover patterns like this it can be very useful.
Additionally there is no reason scouting should only be the responsibility of a coach or coaches. Players can assume different roles in the scouting process and it may prove beneficial for them to watch matches with specific duties to fulfill that can later be discussed by the whole team.
Over time you will discover that teams (and players) have tendencies and once you have accumulated an extensive scouting file on a given team it is possible to predict how a team will generally play a given layout simply because you have worked to learn their habits and routines.
Game-planning is considerably more difficult. (But, on the other hand, it isn't an essential--it's just what I happen to do.) Using the info collected from scouting both past matches and matches played on the current layout--when possible--the game-plan is designed to gain advantages over your opponent. There are a couple of ways of approaching the game plan. One is to use the information to try and counter what you expect your opponent to do. Like picking lanes that allow you to focus one or more guns on a primary you expect your opponent to take more often than not. Or take primaries that allow you to control lanes to deny your opponent his secondary in an effort to keep your opponent's attack from developing. I am not a fan of this approach as it tends to be reactive. I prefer a game plan designed to take the play to an opponent and then continue to attempt to keep that opponent off balance. In either case each game plan is predicated on predicting your opponent's breakouts and attacks in advance. This is the tactical game that exists in Xball and Race 2. I script (usually) 8 breakouts in a sequence designed to exploit what I expect from our opponent. In addition I make notes on adjustments to be made if certain situations arise and alternative play calls for those situations. I also script our line-ups in advance but again, they have to be flexible and conditional. Sometimes changes are made based on how players are playing, what the score is, if we're killing a penalty or the opponent is, a wide variety of options that a coach needs to be prepared to deal with.
Ideally, when it's finally time to play the match I've done enough preparatory work that we're able to deal with any and every situation that may arise. There are no surprises, no scrambling and nothing unexpected happening. The play calling process (for me) is watching the opponent's breakouts, secondary rotations and personnel so I know if we can stay on script or need to make an adjustment. As each point finishes I call out the next line-up and we usually have a minute or more to relay each player's role in the next breakout including shooting lane adjustments, secondary options, timing issues and reminders about everything from communication to the occasional special instruction. There you have it. That's the way I approach the role of in game coach. (I'm not recommending it but I hope it offers some useful insights for those interested in this aspect of the game. ) It may seem initially to be kinda overwhelming but it's like anything else--you practice and get better.
One caveat seems in order. A coach can do everything right--or even a lot of things wrong--and still lose matches you probably should have won or win matches you probably should have lost because the game always comes down to the players; their ability to execute a game plan, their talent for the game and their ability to perform in pressure situations.
Next time we'll talk about ways to prepare a team to compete.
We'll begin with scouting. Scouting is simply observing your opponent(s) with the object of looking for routines & patterns, ways of playing and player assignments that will give you information you can hopefully use to counter their strengths and attack their weaknesses. In competitive paintball, even at the highest levels, it isn't that complex a proposition. Or it shouldn't be if you are well schooled in the fundamental tactics of competitive paintball. (I may be assuming facts not in evidence here.) One pro team used to check mark field diagrams by the bunkers taken as primaries OTB. By the end of a match it revealed primary frequency. I use a somewhat more complicated system. I shorthand each breakout (using our team bunker codes plus some additional codes of my own devising) to indicate shooting lanes, delays and sequences to taking secondary positions. I also keep track of points played on penalties for the same basic info. It's also worthwhile to look for player patterns. If player X is in does he only go to one of two bunkers OTB? If you discover patterns like this it can be very useful.
Additionally there is no reason scouting should only be the responsibility of a coach or coaches. Players can assume different roles in the scouting process and it may prove beneficial for them to watch matches with specific duties to fulfill that can later be discussed by the whole team.
Over time you will discover that teams (and players) have tendencies and once you have accumulated an extensive scouting file on a given team it is possible to predict how a team will generally play a given layout simply because you have worked to learn their habits and routines.
Game-planning is considerably more difficult. (But, on the other hand, it isn't an essential--it's just what I happen to do.) Using the info collected from scouting both past matches and matches played on the current layout--when possible--the game-plan is designed to gain advantages over your opponent. There are a couple of ways of approaching the game plan. One is to use the information to try and counter what you expect your opponent to do. Like picking lanes that allow you to focus one or more guns on a primary you expect your opponent to take more often than not. Or take primaries that allow you to control lanes to deny your opponent his secondary in an effort to keep your opponent's attack from developing. I am not a fan of this approach as it tends to be reactive. I prefer a game plan designed to take the play to an opponent and then continue to attempt to keep that opponent off balance. In either case each game plan is predicated on predicting your opponent's breakouts and attacks in advance. This is the tactical game that exists in Xball and Race 2. I script (usually) 8 breakouts in a sequence designed to exploit what I expect from our opponent. In addition I make notes on adjustments to be made if certain situations arise and alternative play calls for those situations. I also script our line-ups in advance but again, they have to be flexible and conditional. Sometimes changes are made based on how players are playing, what the score is, if we're killing a penalty or the opponent is, a wide variety of options that a coach needs to be prepared to deal with.
Ideally, when it's finally time to play the match I've done enough preparatory work that we're able to deal with any and every situation that may arise. There are no surprises, no scrambling and nothing unexpected happening. The play calling process (for me) is watching the opponent's breakouts, secondary rotations and personnel so I know if we can stay on script or need to make an adjustment. As each point finishes I call out the next line-up and we usually have a minute or more to relay each player's role in the next breakout including shooting lane adjustments, secondary options, timing issues and reminders about everything from communication to the occasional special instruction. There you have it. That's the way I approach the role of in game coach. (I'm not recommending it but I hope it offers some useful insights for those interested in this aspect of the game. ) It may seem initially to be kinda overwhelming but it's like anything else--you practice and get better.
One caveat seems in order. A coach can do everything right--or even a lot of things wrong--and still lose matches you probably should have won or win matches you probably should have lost because the game always comes down to the players; their ability to execute a game plan, their talent for the game and their ability to perform in pressure situations.
Next time we'll talk about ways to prepare a team to compete.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Baca's Mailbag: In Game Coaching
An interesting question was tossed over the transom this week. Here it is: I know all coaches have their different styles and some are more skilled than others but it would be great to hear your thoughts on how best to coach teams during games.
The short answer is--there is no best. The longer answer is we need to lay a foundation by defining what we mean by coaching to even begin talking about the coach's role. We also need to recognize that at this stage of competitive paintball's development coaching, like other aspects of the game, is still changing and becoming. So I'ma do what I do best and drag this out over two or three posts.
Today being a coach in paintball can mean anything and everything from yelling from the sideline to being the only guy on the team old enough to rent a car to filling a role close to what we think of when we look at other, established sports. For purposes of discussing coaching let's assume we mean someone who performs the traditional role of coach. So what does a coach do?
Job number 1 is teaching, developing talent & preparing the team to compete. Okay, that's actually three things, isn't it? The thing is all of those elements are essential to building a successful team and none of them occur during a match. So we'll save further discussion of those roles until next time--or maybe the time after.
So let's talk about the pit. Unfortunately there is no way to give our question a fair and reasonably complete response without including some things that have to happen outside the pit & prior to the actual in match time frame. The following isn't necessarily integral to being a coach but it does fall into the category of stuff somebody needs to be responsible for. The organization of the pit. Assigning duties to any pit staff you have. Checking the paint in a timely manner--make sure the team is shooting the best paint possible each and every match. Reminding the players to have working guns. Chrono those guns. Put batteries in everything that needs it. (Are you getting the idea?) Basically be responsible for the check list of items that are, or should be, part of the pre-game preparations.
More generally the first order of business is order. Followed closely by routine. It is important that extraneous stuff doesn't interfere with playing the game. Whatever can be controlled and/or prepared for needs to be handled and it needs to be done the same way every time as consistently as possible. Order and routine serve a number of functions. The process becomes habitual and as a team you're less likely to forget stuff or fail to be ready when it matters. The routine also becomes part of the pre-game ritual of preparing to compete. And whatever individual players do pre-match it's also important there are team routines pre-match as well. It can be as simple as when you pick up your paint, stretch or warm-up, fill pods, gear up or whatever. (In practice this doesn't require regimented perfection. Each team will be different. The important part is to set the stage for an orderly, organized, efficient and calm pit.) Control what you can control so that during matches everyone can focus on playing the game and doing their individual jobs whatever they may be without distraction. (Order & routine can be particularly effective for teams that are busy doing most of their own pit crewing along with playing as it tends to improve efficiency and moderate the emotional highs & lows that can influence the outcome.)
Finally, for whatever it's worth, here's how I like things done ... and how I do my job during a match. (Btw, I have the luxury of a team manager/sideline coach and a pit manager who handle a lot of the pre-match basics along with maintaining our pit routine which frees me up to focus on my primary in match duties.) I like our pit set up so that our players can go thru a prescribed routine of come off the field, get air, at the same time staff with a towel is cleaning the player up if needed. The player then moves to get paint, gets checked, can grab a drink or whatever. At which point they are ready to get back on the field--after I give them their next breakout. (We can also turn players around quickly for back-to-back points as needed, too.)
Most of my attention and efforts are focused on setting the lines point-to-point, calling our breakouts, making adjustments and supplying the players with any useful info I'm picking up as I watch the other team's breakouts and play.
Tomorrow I'll go deeper into the process of calling a match and preparing to call matches by scouting your opponents and game-planning.
The short answer is--there is no best. The longer answer is we need to lay a foundation by defining what we mean by coaching to even begin talking about the coach's role. We also need to recognize that at this stage of competitive paintball's development coaching, like other aspects of the game, is still changing and becoming. So I'ma do what I do best and drag this out over two or three posts.
Today being a coach in paintball can mean anything and everything from yelling from the sideline to being the only guy on the team old enough to rent a car to filling a role close to what we think of when we look at other, established sports. For purposes of discussing coaching let's assume we mean someone who performs the traditional role of coach. So what does a coach do?
Job number 1 is teaching, developing talent & preparing the team to compete. Okay, that's actually three things, isn't it? The thing is all of those elements are essential to building a successful team and none of them occur during a match. So we'll save further discussion of those roles until next time--or maybe the time after.
So let's talk about the pit. Unfortunately there is no way to give our question a fair and reasonably complete response without including some things that have to happen outside the pit & prior to the actual in match time frame. The following isn't necessarily integral to being a coach but it does fall into the category of stuff somebody needs to be responsible for. The organization of the pit. Assigning duties to any pit staff you have. Checking the paint in a timely manner--make sure the team is shooting the best paint possible each and every match. Reminding the players to have working guns. Chrono those guns. Put batteries in everything that needs it. (Are you getting the idea?) Basically be responsible for the check list of items that are, or should be, part of the pre-game preparations.
More generally the first order of business is order. Followed closely by routine. It is important that extraneous stuff doesn't interfere with playing the game. Whatever can be controlled and/or prepared for needs to be handled and it needs to be done the same way every time as consistently as possible. Order and routine serve a number of functions. The process becomes habitual and as a team you're less likely to forget stuff or fail to be ready when it matters. The routine also becomes part of the pre-game ritual of preparing to compete. And whatever individual players do pre-match it's also important there are team routines pre-match as well. It can be as simple as when you pick up your paint, stretch or warm-up, fill pods, gear up or whatever. (In practice this doesn't require regimented perfection. Each team will be different. The important part is to set the stage for an orderly, organized, efficient and calm pit.) Control what you can control so that during matches everyone can focus on playing the game and doing their individual jobs whatever they may be without distraction. (Order & routine can be particularly effective for teams that are busy doing most of their own pit crewing along with playing as it tends to improve efficiency and moderate the emotional highs & lows that can influence the outcome.)
Finally, for whatever it's worth, here's how I like things done ... and how I do my job during a match. (Btw, I have the luxury of a team manager/sideline coach and a pit manager who handle a lot of the pre-match basics along with maintaining our pit routine which frees me up to focus on my primary in match duties.) I like our pit set up so that our players can go thru a prescribed routine of come off the field, get air, at the same time staff with a towel is cleaning the player up if needed. The player then moves to get paint, gets checked, can grab a drink or whatever. At which point they are ready to get back on the field--after I give them their next breakout. (We can also turn players around quickly for back-to-back points as needed, too.)
Most of my attention and efforts are focused on setting the lines point-to-point, calling our breakouts, making adjustments and supplying the players with any useful info I'm picking up as I watch the other team's breakouts and play.
Tomorrow I'll go deeper into the process of calling a match and preparing to call matches by scouting your opponents and game-planning.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Baca's Mailbag: Lessons from Galveston?
Don wants to know--at least he wanted to know last week--if the Galveston pro game videos might be useful as film study for either the pro teams or divisional teams. (At the time he asked I hadn't watched any of the videos. I have now seen a fairly large representative sample.) The answer is an equivocating maybe. More definitively, and equally disappointing, there really isn't enough of the right kind of material to serve as useful film study.
But before I get into the details I have a request: Hey, Matty, how 'bout mixing up your booth partners in order to get reps from all the teams involved? There's nothing wrong with Matty & His All-Star Friends but maybe a little love for the rest of us? (Assuming the league is going to continue with the event videos.) I know, it's out there ... but it might work. Just saying.
But before I get into the details I have a request: Hey, Matty, how 'bout mixing up your booth partners in order to get reps from all the teams involved? There's nothing wrong with Matty & His All-Star Friends but maybe a little love for the rest of us? (Assuming the league is going to continue with the event videos.) I know, it's out there ... but it might work. Just saying.
The matches, or as I prefer to call them, the kinetic motive activities too often focused on elements of the action, even on the breakouts where a single team was featured or the split screen and camera angles couldn't keep all ten players in sight. The elevated camera view that encompassed most of the field was the most useful angle for film study. With film study I'm focusing on one of two s. Either I'm confirming my guys were attempting the play called and analyzing their execution and following thru to success or failure or I'm observing an opponent for patterns that may occur over the length of a match or things like tendencies exhibited by specific players. The patterns reflect either intentional or unintentional actions or routines that may be predicted beyond the patterns that are a nearly universal element of playing the format. For example, you don't need film study to know that if an opponent loses a corner player they are likely to try and re-fill the spot quickly. But film study (or live study for that matter) can tell you that #34 always goes to a particular prop OTB or that Team X shows a strong tendency to fill a particular prop on the delay or as a secondary move. Unfortunately, the way the match videos are edited they don't provide enough consistent info to make those sorts of determinations.
What the Galveston videos may provide is some how-to (or even some how-not-to) info for developing players on playing specific positions on the field. There is quite a lot of snake play in the videos as well as lots of shots of individuals playing particular props that might be useful to some players.
For any teams interested in film study let me suggest you focus the majority of your efforts on filming and analyzing your own team first. Knowledge of an opponent may provide useful information but the advantages gained are seldom the difference between winning and losing--though they can be. Breaking your own team down will deliver larger rewards, faster. The first priority is a team's ability to go out and execute their game plan. And while it's nearly impossible in practice to keep track of every detail and every player the capability of going back and reviewing film over and over can reveal weaknesses and mistakes that are easily missed otherwise but just as easily addressed when you become aware of them.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Lazy Slacker Re-post of the Week
This week's re-post is quite timely on a couple of levels. It's from November 2008 and it was the second part of a two part posting called, Robots versus Ninjas. The old (and silly) robots vs. ninjas argument has cropped up again with the PSP's proposed change of no pit-side coaching and the post closes by framing the original debate--such as it was--within the bigger picture. A little something I like to call perspective, which always seems to be in short supply.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Are Your Team Priorities In Order?
It would be nice to think no one reading this needs to worry about this post but I know it isn't true. (And you will too. Even if it doesn't apply to you you will immediately recognize other teams with this problem.) Most of the time everyone involved in a struggling team knows something isn't working but they can't figure out what it is. For the lucky ones it's as simple as having their priorities out of whack. And as we's still in the preseason there's time for those folks to get their house in order.
Before things get too serious I want to tell y'all a story. Back when I was wet behind the ears I was playing 10-man tourney ball in the woods. From an individual skills point of view our team had solid players. We worked hard on our field-walking, both analyzing the fields and deciding how to attack whichever end of the field we started on (as even the best woods fields were often horribly unbalanced) and we would walk through our breakouts (an aggressive run would frequently go further than the length of any modern field) know our primaries, the likely paths of our opponents, our shooting lanes and on and on. But when the games were played we often got stuck in the mid-game and couldn't close games out. In hindsight it's easy to see that our plan(s) held us back because we focused all our efforts on fulfilling the plan but the plan wasn't the goal. The goal was to win.
In the modern game that particular problem still occurs but there are lots of others that can also get in the way of success--and just about all of them are important ingredients in building a successful, winning team. For example, one of the first lessons taught is staying alive. But what happens if too much emphasis is placed on staying alive? It's easy for players to become extremely defensive as they focus too much of their effort and attention on staying alive. It becomes a hindrance to successful competition--even though it is an necessary skill. And it can be enormously frustrating sometimes to try and figure out what's wrong because everything being taught and demanded is correct.
Perhaps the most common failure is to call yourselves a team but act like a bunch of individuals. It is particularly difficult to overcome because so much of the development involved in building a team is at the player level. (This topic probably merits its own post.) The foundation of a team begins with accountability and shared responsibility. As a practical example, let's say Joe can't make snake off the break and Bob keeps getting bunkered out of the Dorito 50. To make it Joe's and Bob's fault is contrary to effective team building. If Bob keeps getting bunkered where is Bob's support? If no one is responsible for protecting Bob it's not his fault, particularly if his job is to work the cross field angles working for eliminations. And if Joe is struggling to make the snake what can the team do to make him more effective? To expect Joe to act independently of his teammates is not how a team functions.
The balancing act required is accomplished by having your priorities in order. Here's a simple order that might help put things into their proper perspective. Technique--Skills--Players--Team--Tactics--Winning. Now I do not mean to suggest that plans or plays are more important than your players--only that the tactics employed function best on a team level. Nor do I intend to suggest winning is more important than personal relationships for example--only that the first priority of successful competitive paintball is to win and that is the page everyone involved in the team ought to understand and be on. Teach technique to improve skills to make better players who function as a unit for the shared goal of winning paintball. When any aspect of the process is out of order or under or over valued it reduces the prospects for success.
Before things get too serious I want to tell y'all a story. Back when I was wet behind the ears I was playing 10-man tourney ball in the woods. From an individual skills point of view our team had solid players. We worked hard on our field-walking, both analyzing the fields and deciding how to attack whichever end of the field we started on (as even the best woods fields were often horribly unbalanced) and we would walk through our breakouts (an aggressive run would frequently go further than the length of any modern field) know our primaries, the likely paths of our opponents, our shooting lanes and on and on. But when the games were played we often got stuck in the mid-game and couldn't close games out. In hindsight it's easy to see that our plan(s) held us back because we focused all our efforts on fulfilling the plan but the plan wasn't the goal. The goal was to win.
In the modern game that particular problem still occurs but there are lots of others that can also get in the way of success--and just about all of them are important ingredients in building a successful, winning team. For example, one of the first lessons taught is staying alive. But what happens if too much emphasis is placed on staying alive? It's easy for players to become extremely defensive as they focus too much of their effort and attention on staying alive. It becomes a hindrance to successful competition--even though it is an necessary skill. And it can be enormously frustrating sometimes to try and figure out what's wrong because everything being taught and demanded is correct.
Perhaps the most common failure is to call yourselves a team but act like a bunch of individuals. It is particularly difficult to overcome because so much of the development involved in building a team is at the player level. (This topic probably merits its own post.) The foundation of a team begins with accountability and shared responsibility. As a practical example, let's say Joe can't make snake off the break and Bob keeps getting bunkered out of the Dorito 50. To make it Joe's and Bob's fault is contrary to effective team building. If Bob keeps getting bunkered where is Bob's support? If no one is responsible for protecting Bob it's not his fault, particularly if his job is to work the cross field angles working for eliminations. And if Joe is struggling to make the snake what can the team do to make him more effective? To expect Joe to act independently of his teammates is not how a team functions.
The balancing act required is accomplished by having your priorities in order. Here's a simple order that might help put things into their proper perspective. Technique--Skills--Players--Team--Tactics--Winning. Now I do not mean to suggest that plans or plays are more important than your players--only that the tactics employed function best on a team level. Nor do I intend to suggest winning is more important than personal relationships for example--only that the first priority of successful competitive paintball is to win and that is the page everyone involved in the team ought to understand and be on. Teach technique to improve skills to make better players who function as a unit for the shared goal of winning paintball. When any aspect of the process is out of order or under or over valued it reduces the prospects for success.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Coaching the Coaches
VFTD is pleased to announce another brilliant idea. I know what you're asking yourself: How does VFTD know it's a brilliant idea? You mean other than it was my idea so it must, ipso facto, be brilliant? Okay. Fine. Because it addresses an issue that impacts every level of competitive paintball--particularly in the used-to-be-called-xball format--from D5 to pro. And I know this from informed observation and years of experience. Heck, there isn't even a uniform definition of the role within competitive paintball.
What? Yeah, that might help. No worries, just the voices in my head reminding me to tell you the subject of today's post is coaching.
Sometime during the off-season last year--late 08 or early 09--I wrote a post wondering if there was a market for team-based clinics aimed at upper division teams looking to improve and continue to move up. (At some point most teams, like most players, hit a wall where they stop improving.) The idea was that player clinics address individual skills and development but that nobody had (has) done much within paintball to address team issues in achieving excellence. [This is normally where I'd put a link to the original post but I couldn't find it. Okay, I couldn't find it after ten minutes of looking and got bored ... so I blew it off.] It seemed to me one way to accelerate the process was to propose a team clinic concept that, if done well, could help teams over the hump or speed up the development process. I also suggested that I would--in a moment of altruistic generosity and devotion to the betterment of Paintball--volunteer to perform this duty if called upon (for a modest retainer & travel expenses.) As you might imagine, the response from a far-sighted and thoughtful paintball community was--the sound of crickets chirping. Fair enough. It's still a good idea. It's also a cost effective option for any truly serious team but whatever.
What? Yeah, that might help. No worries, just the voices in my head reminding me to tell you the subject of today's post is coaching.
Sometime during the off-season last year--late 08 or early 09--I wrote a post wondering if there was a market for team-based clinics aimed at upper division teams looking to improve and continue to move up. (At some point most teams, like most players, hit a wall where they stop improving.) The idea was that player clinics address individual skills and development but that nobody had (has) done much within paintball to address team issues in achieving excellence. [This is normally where I'd put a link to the original post but I couldn't find it. Okay, I couldn't find it after ten minutes of looking and got bored ... so I blew it off.] It seemed to me one way to accelerate the process was to propose a team clinic concept that, if done well, could help teams over the hump or speed up the development process. I also suggested that I would--in a moment of altruistic generosity and devotion to the betterment of Paintball--volunteer to perform this duty if called upon (for a modest retainer & travel expenses.) As you might imagine, the response from a far-sighted and thoughtful paintball community was--the sound of crickets chirping. Fair enough. It's still a good idea. It's also a cost effective option for any truly serious team but whatever.
Similarly, I think a coaches clinic could be very helpful for any coach taking on the role and even those who have been doing it for a while but see room for improvement or are looking for new ideas and methods. All this, btw, is predicated on a definition of "coach" in line with traditional sports definitions--not just the official sideline designated screamer. Although we could begin with the how & why of what the designated screamer screams. (One thing I'm not deficient in is opinions. And I'm almost as good at making up reasons that sound reasonable for those opinions.) A *real* competitive paintball coach needs to be able to teach, train and develop players both individually and within a team framework. And on game day (or match days if you prefer) be prepared with game plans, scouting and evaluation procedures as well as real time play calling and tactical adjustments. [In reality a lot of these functions go unperformed or are handled by different people or by committee. Or the players. In any case--and in most cases--there are organizational deficits and room for improvement whether one person or five are handling the required roles.] Given that definition the purpose of the clinic would be to address all these areas in terms of organizational methodology, practical tips and concrete ways of dealing with routine concerns and perhaps a little game theory for the adventurous.
Now (hopefully) that sounds swell but in reality it's a lot harder to find simply because this aspect of the game is developing in the same way rules, formats etc. are changing and developing. So is coaching. What it means and how it's accomplished. The objective of a coaches clinic would be to take a shortcut that offers coaches the benefits of learning from somebody else's mistakes and successes. Like with the team-clinic idea it's aim is to accelerate the growing process and provide the necessary tools for improvement.
I'm thinking organizing a coaches clinic around World Cup would probably be as close to ideal as it's gonna get so right off I'm a day (or more) late. Hey, couldn't be helped. Next time I'll try to have more conveniently timed ideas. So if the PSP wanted to play a role or even take over and run with this idea I certainly wouldn't object. At any rate I've got nearly a year to work it out and see if anybody is interested.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Monday Poll
For the rare few actually paying attention, yes, I pulled last week's poll early. What really happened however is that last week when I set it up I neglected to take into account I was posting it late. What can I say? You get a little older and it takes more than 24 hours to get the Vegas out of your system. Anyway, it wasn't a high interest poll for reasons I'll get into in the review below.
This week's topic is easy, highly speculative, probably partisan and so simple a squid could do it while sleepwalking. Which teams will be playing semi-pro in the PSP next season? Lots of talk and not much substance out there right now. Just the way we like it so now is the time to test your ability to prognosticate (sounds better than blind, dumb luck guess, doesn't it?) and/or your insider knowledge with a Monday Poll. You can pick as many teams as you like from the list--so you get to cast more than one vote (if you're from Chicago that'll seem normal)--and if you pick 'Other' please include who you had in mind in the comments. I feel compelled to remind you that many teams, particularly in the higher divisions, when arbitrarily propelled upward by the PSP tend to fall apart. (Okay, it isn't arbitrary but it might as well be since the primary purpose isn't about merit or excellence or earning it.) And that the notion currently floating around that some NPPL Pro teams are considering joining the used-to-be-called-xball fun makes competitive but not business sense (to me) but who cares? I say run with it while the running is good. The list is ridiculously long but if it only included the obvious it wouldn't be much fun, would it? There are some CPL teams and some NPPL teams not already playing in the PSP. And of the lower division PSP teams only Fierce and CEP players will be reclassified from D1 to semi-pro but who knows who else might jump in. Oh, and I've included last year's regulars too. Will they be staying, bumping up or fading away? You decide.
Monday Poll in Review
I'd like to say this poll ruffled a few feathers 'cus I'd come off as edgy and dangerous (and maybe even cool) but so much for wishful thinking. A look at the total number of votes is a clear indicator the poll didn't attract much attention. I think there's probably two principle reasons why. Many aren't that interested in the NPPL 3.0 (the league formerly known as the USPL) and most are hesitant (even anonymously) to offer an opinion on technology that frequently isn't all that well understood. Even by serious ballers. I'll leave it to you to decide which had a greater impact.
Of those that did vote on the idea of a league certified gun board the results were 31% generally positive and 64% generally negative. Of particular interest in the negative votes was the fact that the potential for added cost to the player wasn't a significant factor as it garnered only 8% of the votes. For those of you scoring at home that's 2 to 1 who broadly don't see a league certified board as a step in the right direction. But while it's all well and good to test which way the wind is blowing (it must be 'cus everybody in DC does it all the time, right?) public opinion doesn't tell us anything about the actual merits.
So is a league certified board a good idea or isn't it? Before that can be answered we need to know the intended purpose. If , for example, the notion is to standardize gun performance as a further measure for leveling the playing field that's one thing. If the idea is seen as a method to improve enforcement of the rules that's something else again. In either case the predicate is the highly dubious (if not outright delusional) notion that modern electropneumatic markers can be regulated (and policed) for "real" semi-automatic functionality as the state of the art currently stands. Or if, at some point in time, tamper resistant technology can effectively monitor the operating technology in such a way that the benefit outweighs the cost and complexity involved. Regardless the primary objective is preserving so-called semi-auto play and that is the crux of the problems all the versions of the NPPL have had with consistent rules enforcement and/or the perception of fair play when it comes to gun performance.
This week's topic is easy, highly speculative, probably partisan and so simple a squid could do it while sleepwalking. Which teams will be playing semi-pro in the PSP next season? Lots of talk and not much substance out there right now. Just the way we like it so now is the time to test your ability to prognosticate (sounds better than blind, dumb luck guess, doesn't it?) and/or your insider knowledge with a Monday Poll. You can pick as many teams as you like from the list--so you get to cast more than one vote (if you're from Chicago that'll seem normal)--and if you pick 'Other' please include who you had in mind in the comments. I feel compelled to remind you that many teams, particularly in the higher divisions, when arbitrarily propelled upward by the PSP tend to fall apart. (Okay, it isn't arbitrary but it might as well be since the primary purpose isn't about merit or excellence or earning it.) And that the notion currently floating around that some NPPL Pro teams are considering joining the used-to-be-called-xball fun makes competitive but not business sense (to me) but who cares? I say run with it while the running is good. The list is ridiculously long but if it only included the obvious it wouldn't be much fun, would it? There are some CPL teams and some NPPL teams not already playing in the PSP. And of the lower division PSP teams only Fierce and CEP players will be reclassified from D1 to semi-pro but who knows who else might jump in. Oh, and I've included last year's regulars too. Will they be staying, bumping up or fading away? You decide.
Monday Poll in Review
I'd like to say this poll ruffled a few feathers 'cus I'd come off as edgy and dangerous (and maybe even cool) but so much for wishful thinking. A look at the total number of votes is a clear indicator the poll didn't attract much attention. I think there's probably two principle reasons why. Many aren't that interested in the NPPL 3.0 (the league formerly known as the USPL) and most are hesitant (even anonymously) to offer an opinion on technology that frequently isn't all that well understood. Even by serious ballers. I'll leave it to you to decide which had a greater impact.
Of those that did vote on the idea of a league certified gun board the results were 31% generally positive and 64% generally negative. Of particular interest in the negative votes was the fact that the potential for added cost to the player wasn't a significant factor as it garnered only 8% of the votes. For those of you scoring at home that's 2 to 1 who broadly don't see a league certified board as a step in the right direction. But while it's all well and good to test which way the wind is blowing (it must be 'cus everybody in DC does it all the time, right?) public opinion doesn't tell us anything about the actual merits.
So is a league certified board a good idea or isn't it? Before that can be answered we need to know the intended purpose. If , for example, the notion is to standardize gun performance as a further measure for leveling the playing field that's one thing. If the idea is seen as a method to improve enforcement of the rules that's something else again. In either case the predicate is the highly dubious (if not outright delusional) notion that modern electropneumatic markers can be regulated (and policed) for "real" semi-automatic functionality as the state of the art currently stands. Or if, at some point in time, tamper resistant technology can effectively monitor the operating technology in such a way that the benefit outweighs the cost and complexity involved. Regardless the primary objective is preserving so-called semi-auto play and that is the crux of the problems all the versions of the NPPL have had with consistent rules enforcement and/or the perception of fair play when it comes to gun performance.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Robots versus Ninjas
Time flies when you're blogging and so this post is about two weeks late, give or take, but now that it's here, who cares, right? For a quick refresher on the topic go here. Now that you're up to speed it's full throttle robots v. ninjas. The argument aimed by the ninjas (proponents of 7-man) against the robots (xball players) is both ironic and misguided. The core of it is that coaching turns the xball player into a robot simply following commands and if that wasn't bad enough these same coaches kill the ninja style of play by making game-breaking run-thrus almost impossible. At least the kind where the player making the move also survives. This view has a lot of advocates not least a chunk of the Middle Skool pros–those guys whose careers span most of the out-of-the-woods era of competitive paintball and perhaps even a few Old Skoolers. Doesn't however make them right.
Coaching is communication. And communication is a basic tennant of competitive paintball going deep into the forests of yesteryear. No one objects to a back player rolling his gun and telling his insert to make the move they worked out before the game started. Yet when a coach tells a player to go–bumping a gap in the snake or the like it's the ruination of the game. The plain truth is the xball player still must have the full complement of individual skills in order to be successful. All that those within the sound of the coach's voice get extra is information about the unfolding point. And more and more the notion of a coach "operating" a player, any player, like his robot is failing the practical test–it doesn't work very well and most of the time that's not the focus of the coaching going on–which is simply to provide more info in a changing environment. (The obvious "secret" to neutralizing coaching is rate of change; how fast things keep happening.) Even so, coaching can and does alter some things and it's a fair debate to question just how much. That said, coaching never eliminated anybody or stopped a single run-thru.
The real argument is over the nebulous skill called timing. Timing being that sense a player either develops or doesn't of when to do things though it's usually associated with making moves, judging the opportune moment and going for it. Hence the objection to robot-like players and "ruined" run-thrus. Of course the critical element that made (makes) timing valuable is LACK of information.
The irony in the whole argument is that xball has altered all of competitive paintball in ways those making the argument have apparently failed to recognize.
You gotta crawl before you can walk or run. Remember the example in the original post of how crawling has changed? 15 years ago crawling was the ninja style of paintball. And what changed it? The game environment.
How long has 7-man been a major format in the U.S.? Less than a decade or about the same amount of time as xball has been around. Is 7-man a more natural progression from the prior generation's 10-man than xball is? I think that's a fair statement but neither format is played the way 10-man was in the past. 10-man was a gun dominant game. Yes, the same basic rules applied and peeps worked for angles, moved up field etc. but the guns controlled the rhythm of the games and the first teams to push the pace were changing the way the game was played. I'd start the transition with Image followed by Dynasty but you might want to throw in turn-of-the-century Shock and old Lanche, too. (I've often wondered if the early electronic cheats weren't motivated by a desire to reestablish the old order of the game. Okay, too philosophical and not to the point.)
Regardless Dynasty epitomized the new game of speed and movement and xball formalized it with a tiny unforgiving field of play that demands skills sharpened to a knife's edge.
For those of you who've been around long enough the differences in the 7 minute 7-man game of today from even the last incarnation of 10-man is pretty stark and the style of play and broad skill sets demanded of players today owe far more to xball and teams like Dynasty than they do to the historic game.
There are no robots or ninjas, only ways to play the game that demand a different balance of skills. [Which reminds me, one of the better ways to introduce rookies to tourney ball would be on larger scale fields.]
I've little doubt this debate will continue but the important part of all this isn't who is right or wrong in the robots versus ninjas debate. The lesson is that so far in paintball's brief history very little prior consideration has been given to the consequences of the changes being made. Or the corallary that future changes will, whether intended or not, mold and shape the game in new and different ways. And, lastly, that any contemplated change should be rigorously examined for its likely consequences before being instituted.
Coaching is communication. And communication is a basic tennant of competitive paintball going deep into the forests of yesteryear. No one objects to a back player rolling his gun and telling his insert to make the move they worked out before the game started. Yet when a coach tells a player to go–bumping a gap in the snake or the like it's the ruination of the game. The plain truth is the xball player still must have the full complement of individual skills in order to be successful. All that those within the sound of the coach's voice get extra is information about the unfolding point. And more and more the notion of a coach "operating" a player, any player, like his robot is failing the practical test–it doesn't work very well and most of the time that's not the focus of the coaching going on–which is simply to provide more info in a changing environment. (The obvious "secret" to neutralizing coaching is rate of change; how fast things keep happening.) Even so, coaching can and does alter some things and it's a fair debate to question just how much. That said, coaching never eliminated anybody or stopped a single run-thru.
The real argument is over the nebulous skill called timing. Timing being that sense a player either develops or doesn't of when to do things though it's usually associated with making moves, judging the opportune moment and going for it. Hence the objection to robot-like players and "ruined" run-thrus. Of course the critical element that made (makes) timing valuable is LACK of information.
The irony in the whole argument is that xball has altered all of competitive paintball in ways those making the argument have apparently failed to recognize.
You gotta crawl before you can walk or run. Remember the example in the original post of how crawling has changed? 15 years ago crawling was the ninja style of paintball. And what changed it? The game environment.
How long has 7-man been a major format in the U.S.? Less than a decade or about the same amount of time as xball has been around. Is 7-man a more natural progression from the prior generation's 10-man than xball is? I think that's a fair statement but neither format is played the way 10-man was in the past. 10-man was a gun dominant game. Yes, the same basic rules applied and peeps worked for angles, moved up field etc. but the guns controlled the rhythm of the games and the first teams to push the pace were changing the way the game was played. I'd start the transition with Image followed by Dynasty but you might want to throw in turn-of-the-century Shock and old Lanche, too. (I've often wondered if the early electronic cheats weren't motivated by a desire to reestablish the old order of the game. Okay, too philosophical and not to the point.)
Regardless Dynasty epitomized the new game of speed and movement and xball formalized it with a tiny unforgiving field of play that demands skills sharpened to a knife's edge.
For those of you who've been around long enough the differences in the 7 minute 7-man game of today from even the last incarnation of 10-man is pretty stark and the style of play and broad skill sets demanded of players today owe far more to xball and teams like Dynasty than they do to the historic game.
There are no robots or ninjas, only ways to play the game that demand a different balance of skills. [Which reminds me, one of the better ways to introduce rookies to tourney ball would be on larger scale fields.]
I've little doubt this debate will continue but the important part of all this isn't who is right or wrong in the robots versus ninjas debate. The lesson is that so far in paintball's brief history very little prior consideration has been given to the consequences of the changes being made. Or the corallary that future changes will, whether intended or not, mold and shape the game in new and different ways. And, lastly, that any contemplated change should be rigorously examined for its likely consequences before being instituted.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Cross Polination
Over at PB Nation. A View reader made an effort to start an intelligent conversation in the PSP forum beginning with his take on some of the stuff he's seen here at the View. It more or less degenerated into a debate over the merits of sideline coaching with the typical 20/80 ratio of reasonable comments to brain dead gibberish. Let that be a lesson to all y'all.
While I applaud the effort and certainly don't mind the collateral promotion one of the reasons for starting this blog in particular was to offer a forum where intelligent conversation and debate is actually welcomed and not shouted down by the mob. (Doesn't mean there won't be any disagreement--there ought to be disagreements but ones conducted in a productive manner.) I know perfectly well why some you are reticent to post but this blog won't and can't fulfill its intended purpose if'n y'all are skeered to post even as anonymous.
While I applaud the effort and certainly don't mind the collateral promotion one of the reasons for starting this blog in particular was to offer a forum where intelligent conversation and debate is actually welcomed and not shouted down by the mob. (Doesn't mean there won't be any disagreement--there ought to be disagreements but ones conducted in a productive manner.) I know perfectly well why some you are reticent to post but this blog won't and can't fulfill its intended purpose if'n y'all are skeered to post even as anonymous.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
