Demolidor: Errrrr, thanks.... I think.... Think maybe you could throw some more light on it, maybe a bit of translation? I was really kinda hoping some of you guys from EU would join in this discussion, give us some more info....
In UK we have to follow INternational Coaching guidelines which Badminton England has opted in to. So far we have levels 1-3 of coaches but I don't believe we have any level 4 qualified coaches because the course hasn't been written yet. We are also asked to complete other courses such as First Aid etc which do not fall within the syllabus. I am a qualified Mentor for coaches. Whilst I qualified last year, I still haven't been assisnged a single coach to work with in my locality which demonstrrates the lack lustre way in which we recruit coaches. The difficulty we have is getting the quality of player interested in coaching. There are a lot of coaches with very basic racquet skills who can just about pass doing a demonstration for beginners. However, we seem to have so few coaches who could go on a court with advanced players and demonstrate to that level. Also, there are very few coaches who can correctly break down technqiue and spot the weak areas in order to re-build them. In UK I believe we have a very small percentage of players who have any interest in coaching. It's a poorly paid profession and therefore does not attract. Also, many players do not wish for the commitment required to train a player long term. There also seems to be a very small percentage of good coaches who get into International standard coaching. They tend to be ex-international players but that doesn't mean they are the best coaches. Badminton England does not encourage any coach to progress. Apart from knowing your name and coaches number they know nothing about you. They do not have a program to develop unless you go to them and then they will take you to the next level and forget about you. Badminton England should assess it's registered coaches and then develop a program to work with better coaches who wish to improve to help them achieve the grade. I can't see this happening - they're not organised enough or have the funding. Paul www.badminton-coach.co.uk
I agree with Paul here. Answering the original questions, for England: We don't have one. We do supposedly have this "mentoring system", but I've yet to actually see it in action. It sounded like a great idea, but has gone off with a fizzle rather than a bang. There are some courses, workshops, and conferences. However, it's been my experience that these opportunities for continuous professional development are sparse. There is no formal grading system, other than the level of coaching qualification. This is often meaningless. "Level 2" is the first level of fully independent coaching (i.e. you're not just an assistant). It's also by far the most common. For example, a coach local to me is level 2, but has been coaching county juniors for decades and won an award from Badminton England for his contribution to the sport. You have to attend an accredited course and pass an assessment. Nowadays these courses are under the umbrella of UKCC. You are also heavily "encouraged" to join the coaching register, which is Badminton England's insurance scheme. This gets you some official ID. No (no dedicated coaches' training centre, anyway).
Do you mean just mental conditioning? Or strategizing? That would include planning approach for an entire tournament or a season, for a specific player, or for a team. Is this what you had in mind?
No, I was referring to the level 3 coach after passing, does the course also cover him how to survive out there in the real world
That is what structured training and accreditation courses for coaches are designed for. A coach would not be able to progres from say, Level 1 to Level 2 and so on without having qualified and having demonstrated his knowledge, capability, and maturity. Isn't that what we are talking about???
From what I understand about our level 3 training, it's purely based around "administration" rather than learning about the art of coaching and coach development through knowledge. There isn't a mechanism in UK for coaches to develop to international standard. Bearing in mind the number of coaches wishing to achieve this will be minimal, but there should still be a system. So, if you're wondering why England has such a poor standard of player on the world circuit today, you now know that we have an extremely poor system for coach development, coach recruitment, coach encouragement. There is no money in coaching in UK. Therefore there is very little attraction for good players to become involved and committed. What we're left with, in real terms is a very special breed of disciplined amateurs with a small percentage wanting to develop to a high standard. Paul www.badminton-coach.co.uk
That's a very sad thing indeed I always thought badminton England has a good system with a lot of plans even though we all know there are only a handful of good players Maybe until badminton coaching can be 'turned' into a professional skill job I have always been inspired by jack Downey's works and his teachings should not be considered just badminton coaching, it's grooming youngster slowly at a younger age to be a well rounded person. To me, he is a professional not just a baddy coach So far, there isn't any centre for coaches maybe these coaches should form one And cobalt as the head, coordinator, administrator ...
As a coach myself I can tell you all out there how it is to be one accept those coaches themselves This is what you must have! - the 'extraordinary' passion for badminton ... - willing to accept any amount in your paycheck .... - an expert to control your temper so you can really understand them, the kids/players and the people you work with... - willing to learn more and even more, it just never ends ... - have tons of patience both for yourself, the kids/players and the people you work with... - love them enough to go for the extra mile to take care of them... - be their parentS (both mum and dad) ... - be their teacher teaching them what they have missed in school... - be their best friend when they are in trouble... - as their mentor, consultant ........ - the best of health, free from heart problem or you could die on the court ..... Oh gosh! Did I missed out something? And why the hell I choose this job
Because you have all of the above! Looks like the coach's job is really demanding! But I think full-time coaching in Singapore is quite well-rewarded. The Schools will probably be your paymasters as badminton is one of the more popular games here. But as in most cases the coach must produce results!
Badminton England NOT really showing the way? To Paul and Gollum, That is so very depressing! I guess the truth must hurt you guys even more than us on the outside looking in... I wonder, does it have anything to do with the preponderance of resources (media revenues, TRPs, merchandising, sponsorships etc etc) going to football and cricket? Must be! OTOH, that is really no excuse for not having a proper, structured system in place, after all these years. Consider: Badminton was probably invented by the British (open to argument by many, but for the moment let's accept this... ) and the All-England has been hallowed ground for generations of the greatest players. And Badminton England has not been able to put together a proper self-respecting coaching curriculum, advanced learning and development programme, and enforce it yet? I mean, you could purchase all the information you want from professionals and outfits specializing in this stuff, for probably a few guineas! Of course, implementation and enforcement is another thing altogether... According to the 10-year vision of Badminton England, http://www.badmintonengland.co.uk/text.asp?section=551§ionTitle=A+Decade+of+Delivery here is what Adrian Christy allegedly explains: and more: Why would a country serious about a sport not want to create it's own pool of top-class, competent and result-oriented coaches?
Maybe because badminton in the UK suffers the same fate as other "sideline" or less popular sports that can't command good money, unlike soccer for example.
I could argue that a good administrator needs a good fund-raiser as well; someone who knows how to create the market and bring in the money. And yet, leave the operations to the people who matter in terms of results. I could cite many good and successful examples as well. But that would be as they say, another topic for another day. But not implementing a coaching curriculum and enforcing it, feels to me like just plain negligence or indifference. Of course, that also raises the possibility of many people pulling in different directions. Something many national associations know about, unfortunately. But that is something the SBA doesn't seem to suffer! Can you tell us why, Loh?
Yes, Singapore pays well for coaches As a matter of fact, over here we used to have a Chinese coach from China but went over there with a pay, almost double
Actually there is not much of a difference between Singapore and those described here IMHO. The SBA has over the years been relatively successful in securing funds from both the government via SSC and commercial sponsors as it has been helmed by high-ranking politicians for a long period. But the funds went primarily to the training and development of the national squads and engaging mainly foreign coaches to do the job. So the training of coaches is rather low on their priority list, even lagging behind technical officials like umpires and line judges. Furthermore, being small Singapore has been given a small quota by BWF to upgrade and promote their officials. That's why the SBA limits coach training to level 2 for many years now. It is the SSC which serves as the backbone for training coaches up to the highest level that the respective NSAs are able to certify their coaches on the technical course. And the SSC is responsible for maintaining the NROC register. So it really depends on how active the NSAs are in wanting to develop their coaches and officials. They must also have the resources to do so. So I think the SBA is not much different from most of it's foreign counterparts.
I have much to say on this matter, but have not read the last two pages of this thread properly yet (after what Paul and Gollum wrote) so I hope you can forgive me if I say anything that has already been said. With regard to the coaching levels in the UK: Level 1 - this is the basics of how to coach, as well as the fundamentals of what to coach. The focus of this level is being able to produce a single lesson plan for a session lasting around 15-20 minutes. Hence, why this is only an assistant coach qualification. This level is mainly technical. Level 2 - much more focus on player safety, and the preparation of multiple lesson plans, spanning a few one hour lessons. They finish off the "what to coach", which is no more advanced than level 1 so I don't know why it is separated, and focus quite a lot on the movement side of technique. This is the first time coaches are introduced to "tactical" elements of coaching, to try to build a low level understanding of tactical uses for shots. Its very very basic. There is a lot of theory covered here that isn't really touched in level 1, including the rules of badminton (haha), some theory regarding mental training, a detailed instruction regarding "long term athlete development" which is an inter sport knowledge base, as well as physical/anatomical/safety related stuff. Level 3: as Paul said earlier, Level 3 is meant to be almost purely administrative, and centres around the running to performance centres. As I understand it, there are less than 20 fully qualified Level 3 coaches in the country, as the man who taught me my Level 1 and 2 is amongst the first group of people to study the level 3 course - it was still being developed. You have to be accepted onto that course, whereas 1 and 2 are much more open. Where Levels 1 and 2 are run over a few weekends with some homework involved, the level 3 course runs over several years (as I understand it) and focusses on planning the progress of elite performers over monthly/yearly timescales. I have not heard the term "coach mentoring" before - and I have come through the two levels of coaching offered in the UK. I went through these coaching courses, firstly because I wanted to know the "correct" way to play badminton, with a secondary interest in being a coach. I do love the sport, and I love to help people, but the title of "coach" was not really what I was after - just the knowledge. I am recently a Level 2 Coach. As a level 1 "assistant" coach, you are expected to work with a level 2 coach to help gain more coaching "skills" - can I assume this is the coach mentoring Paul mentions? I know many level 1 coaches that I wouldn't want anywhere near people who want to learn some good badminton. I did my side work (not much but some) with Peter Knowles, a former top class player, who coaches near where I live. He has a great eye for detail and really good way of explaining things. I learnt alot about what was important, especially with regard to footwork, from working a few sessions with him. I also worked with Tracy Hallam, once again a former top class womens singles player. Although her coaching methods were not that well defined in my view (she is very new to coaching), when you asked specific questions she was fantastic. Her coaching style focussed around physical conditioning and multi-shuttle drills to develop tactical awareness. The key focus was the tactics - but this is probably because the audience was technically reasonably well developed. I also learned a lot from watching other coaches. I am very fortunate now that I get to work with some fantastic coaches, including Tracy Hallam and Paul Stewart, about which I am extremely grateful because it helps me continue in my development. I am always looking for new materials and new ideas, to help further my understanding. However, I have a long way to go before I would consider myself a reasonable coach. I would like to quickly mention the "east" versus "west" coaching stuff. again, forgive if I haven't read something yet. I feel that, even though the "what to coach" is fairly standard - techniques, tactics, footwork principles etc, the "how to coach" is completely different. The first observation I will make was highlighted in a documentary about the experiences of one of Peter Rasmussens coaches, who was a Chinese coach that moved to Denmark. He described how tough it was to coach in denmark, because the maximum time he could use for a coaching session (at an elite level) was around 2 hours, with most not exceeding 1 hour. This was compared to the 6-8 hour sessions he used in China. This requires a completely different focus - a focus on QUALITY of a coaching session. Denmark have an extremely high coaching QUALITY, and China is also obviously very high quality, but elsewhere this MAY not be the case. I know there are exceptions, and much of the quality will have to do with the participants themselves and their willingness to push themselves, so I don't want to mull over this point too much. However, there is a clear difference between China and, for example England. In England, badminton is a HOBBY until you reach the very top of the sport - even then, and I am talking people in the top 20, they have to train at the same time as maintain a job. Therefore a coaching session CANNOT take up the entire day. In china, this is certainly NOT the case. The top players of the china squad are expected to devote themselves to rigorous training. They are expected to train ALL day every day, and I know this is true in a lot of the top asian countries. I honestly feel if English players were subjected to the asian style, or even danish style, training regimes, they would probably complain. There have been many high profile coaches in the english set up over the last few years, including Rexy Mainaky and Lee Jae Bok. They didn't last, and I don't know why, but I would expect it may be to do with the training expectations of those coaches. Recently, the great Danish player Kenneth Jonassen is here to lead the coaching. I hope he can revolutionise the way things are done here (he seems to be doing a good job with Rajiv Ouseph). It disappoints me though, to think that, as great a player as he was, he is still a retired player. I can't help but feel that he may, on occasion in practice, still trash our players every now and then, and that doesn't seem right. I also know of regular English coaches who have been invited to Milton Keanes (the national badminton centre) for their exceptional track records, and who have been asked to leave again, because they disagreed with the way things were. I don't know too many details, but I believe Tracy Hallam was rejected from the national centre (the best womens singles player we have had in decades) was not exactly made to feel welcome and has subsequently been less associated with the current international squad. I don't understand why you would shun the experience of a commonwealth games gold medalist, but i would be interested to hear why. I think I have rambled enough for now? Cheers Matt
Level 2 is important Level 1 age group 12 & below to emphasize skills & related 65-70%, physical 30-35% Level 2 age 13-15 - skill, tactical & mental 55-60%, physical 40-45% 16 & above - skill, tactical & mental 45-50%, physical 45-50% Level 3 16 & above - skill, tactical & mental 45-50%, physical 45-50% Courses in level 2 must be sufficient so that the coaches are ready to take on the respective aged group.
