03-29-2011, 02:42 AM #545
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- 3 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
Eddy Choong speaks his mind about Malaysian Badminton
Here is the link;
Yes, I have great respect for Eddy Choong. He is very fond of Misbun, because Misbun was one of his trainees.
And I have to agree with EC when he mentioned that the administration (BAM) is interfering with coaches (in fact bullying them).
03-29-2011, 02:51 AM #546
So they do the only thing that can guarantee their continuity: pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Create irrelevant systems of control. Spread the blame. Hide behind the paper. Generate inertia. And in a moment of absolute insanity, claim a progressive attitude! And more in the same vein, with one prime objective: fulfill the survival instinct.
Sounds like a committee to me...
Speaking of which, I'd like to know if all the CTC members will resign if they have not been able to get MAS players into the top 10 rankings within a year. And will they apologize to the country for having possibly set back Malaysian badminton by one full generation?
03-29-2011, 02:59 AM #547
03-29-2011, 03:54 AM #548
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- 3 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
A player must know why he won or lost
IMHO, it's a form of bullying; when Misbun and/or other coaches are required to write reports (to be submitted to the CTC).
If BAM coaches and CTC are on an equal-level playing field, and if I were a MAS player not doing well, I would request CTC to write reports explaining what they have done wrong (that caused my coach and me not performing well at a tournament).
03-29-2011, 03:59 AM #549
If I think its not entirely my fault, there is nothing to stop me by saying for eg. that the bosses have made me play too many tournaments.
Where does it say that when something goes wrong only the coach and player is at fault, excuses have come from beyond such as culture,
annoying fans etc. etc.The idea is to narrow down a problem objectively if it exists so that remedial action can be taken, if not nothing can be done.
Somehow all this autonomy reminds me of Gadaffi in Libya.
Last edited by Bbn; 03-29-2011 at 04:05 AM.
03-29-2011, 04:22 AM #550
I think it is high time someone should spend time and effort to explain the context of what Eddy Choong was complaining about
in his interview about administrators and coaches.
Eddy was referring to the 70s,80s and early 90s when BAM was run on continuity and loyalty, the people in charge were mainly
ex-players and loyal supporters with several factions.Those holding admin jobs were probably interested in their pockets rather than badminton
and made life very difficult for the then dedicated coaches who wanted to upgrade badminton, Eddy being one of them.
Eddy dissociated himself from them and in the 70s,80s Malaysia was down in the dumps , but Misbun also fell out with the BAM and opted to train under Eddy.Even the English badminton team visited Penang to train under Eddy and the result of that was Ray Stevens improved so much he nearly beat Hartono in 1980.
This went on and in the late 80s there was a Project 88 or sth to bring up badminton, followed by importing China coaches.
Management was still about the same consisting of ex-players who even assumed control of the BWF.
After 1998 Malaysian sports underwent a revolution in the establishment of the NSC and the BJSS and the management of the BAM
was undertaken by a mix of professional managers and players and coaches.This produced players like Wong Choon Han, Ong Ewe Hock.
Cheah Soon Kit/Soo Beng Kiang, Yong Hock Kin, Choong Tan Fook/Lee Wan Wah with no notable ladies except Julia Wong.
The current CTC acting as reviewer and not as adviser is only several months old and has seen LCW win the AE, Koo & Tan runner-up,
promising doubles, and promising juniors under Hendrawan and good ladies like Sonia, Tee etc.etc.
My memory is getting hazy and there are few records, maybe the people who have followed Malaysian badminton through the decades can fill in the gaps.
03-29-2011, 08:13 AM #551
03-30-2011, 02:20 AM #552
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- 3 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
03-30-2011, 05:25 AM #553
It is merely a question of implementation.Management may want something to be done,
the people assigned to perform the task have the choice to carry using tact, heavy handed techniques,whatever,
it is up to the individual. Sometimes people carrying out their tasks become overzealous and may not see or understand the purpose of
a task, they enforce it blindly, for eg. if you are asked to carry out a survey of your charges , you may choose to carry it out like the Gestapo
or Kempitai, or if you are a more polished person, you may carry out an informal interview or chat or discuss over coffee or tea.
Ultimately it is to gather info for the purpose of solving a problem, how it is carried out and whether it is successful depends on the mentality
of the enforcers or the people being surveyed, of course if both are sensible they cooperate and try to solve the problem together.
Nothing can be solved if there is pre-judgement that someone is guilty before proven innocent, or some assumption that the system is stupid, to make it work
both parties have to understand the purpose of the exercise and not to get personal and work together as a team and give the system a chance to be tried out.
It will not work if :
1) The implementers on their part do not carry it out in the proper spirit tactfully
2) The persons being studied are uncooperative and refuse to give the system a chance.
In short it all depends on the people participating and the nature of the activity, in the case of the MACC
it can be quite heavy handed.
It is all a part of people management and presents itself in various forms.I am sure you have your fare share of idiotic bosses
or charges who deserve the sack.
Last edited by Bbn; 03-30-2011 at 05:28 AM.
03-30-2011, 10:06 AM #554
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Kuching, Malaysia, Malaysia
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
03-30-2011, 01:20 PM #555
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- 1 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
After having played 4 straight games in 1 hour and then coming home to read the forum here, while munching only a karipap and drinking 100plus, the following comes to my mind:
1. We BCers are the most mature lot, much more than the Malaysian Badminton's administration. We see things so much more clearly, and even wisely if I may add.
2. Watching badminton and playing badminton is 2 different things. I don't think more power should be given to the spectators, but rather the coaches, for administration, direction and growth of the country's love for badminton. Do you see anyone undermining Li YongBo? Sure he has to answer to someone but at least not to so many 'Donald Trumps' lookalikes like our country at home.
3. Someone had once said China's population is so much larger than Malaysia and yet there is only 1 Lin Dan or of this kind of quality. And to that I think Malaysia is very lucky to have a player like LCW who is not only dedicated, but has great sportsmanship as well. And because of this, I hereby absolutely believe that talent scouting is very crucial and of utmost importants. Some people are just inborn with such talent for playing badminton and while LCW has a few more good years to go, I believe there is some young kid out there who has not been discovered yet. Pray that the growth and administration of badminton in Malaysia will allow such talents to be discovered ( and it will be discovered by a coach or someone with a keen eye for badminton skills, not those Mr Trumps sitting at those armchairs). If only these can happen, then I think Malaysian badminton will have someone representing their country to root for in years to come, after LCW has retire. Otherwise, all we can do is reminiscence of the yesteryears when things were great. Ah the good old days of a champion from our country, Malaysia.
03-30-2011, 09:12 PM #556
Its going back to stakeholders. Badminton administration is what it is because it is financed by the government and government funds,monitored by the NSC and financed by GLCs EON and Maybank.It is definitely an improvement over Eddy Choong's days where coaches had more power but always faced interference over matters like team selection and choice of players and where money conveniently disappeared.
Nowadays coaches have to work with others, trainers,nutritionists,psychologists etc.etc. and have to understand the role of all these ancillary staff and have to keep and open mind and practise continuous learning and keep up with change.
It would be nice to give more power to coaches but it may simply be an idealism, in practice today everyone has to work with a host of others
unlike the good old days. I think the practice of appointing a Performance Director and Performance coach is practised in many countries ,
England and Denmark I believe are examples.It is commensurate with many big organisations with many varied players to implement a Quality System with the intention of achieving and measuring targets, how it is implemented can be made flexible.
Given this kind of culture permeating BAM many can adjust and work with it and try to make the system work,just like many other government funded outfits who must have a QS to ensure accountability and transparency otherwise the MACC will be watching.
Just like in many places, working in a large outfit like BAM may require accepting change and adjustment,just like in many other places.
The alternative would be just leaving and becoming a shop-keeper where one can become one's own boss and set one's own rules.
I believe most countries with sizable Badminton organisations will have various versions of a QS.Are there any badminton nations or models where the sports is run loosely and successfully by coaches
Last edited by Bbn; 03-30-2011 at 09:23 PM.
03-30-2011, 09:51 PM #557
On this ideal about coaches given a free hand,
probably true if the person is of the calibre of Morten Frost or Park Joo Bong
who are intelligent,legends and well schooled and can work with others
and thinks of everyone else,whether doubles or singles.
I have heard of recent cases of strange characters :
1) A coach who only wants to train players from Penang, others from outside Penang to him are not worthy to be trained.
2) A Chief coach who knows only doubles, and ignores the needs of the singles department
3) A coach who spends most of his time gambling and getting drunk.
Probably many of you can think of many other examples, then you may decide whether coaches in general should be given a free hand
and not answerable to their PEERS (not non-technical administrators).Their activities need to be coordinated so that there will be a team and for this a system has to be put in place,otherwise coaches will be fighting over players,facilities resources etc.
03-31-2011, 12:47 AM #558
The Performance Director or High Performance Coach is probably a nicer name for chief Coach, they are ex-players
and sitting in a committee monitor and sets target for players and coaches and also coordinates the activities of various coaches and other departments. Badminton projects are run on budgets and targets and monitored externally.
It would be very expensive with each coach to have their own support facilities, overheads and facilities have to be shared to achieve synergy and high such resources are to be allocated is decided by a coordinator, otherwise there will be war fighting over who gets what.No matter what one thinks, budget will always be a constraint.
Tan Kim Her and Rexy seem to know what it is all about.The CTC with Director and Coach is doing what LYB is doing, the reason being so many heads is probably because of the lack of a single capable individual. In the past there was a Chief Coach specialising in doubles, all the best players were hijacked into doubles, that's why today there is a void after LCW. That would not have happened if there was a Chief or body who could coordinate and look into everybody's needs.
Not to forget as far as Men's Singles go, BAM is looking for a balanced pool and not depending on 1 player,otherwise the LCW succession problem will go on and on.
Having said all these Msia is still ranked as the 3rd force after China and Korea.
The system is place only 3 months or so and used elsewhere but few people even give it a chance.Just as people sniggered whenMS was appointed coach in 2003 (only to be replaced by Li Mao in 05 and o6 ) but he has at least given some credibility after 7 years.
Last edited by Bbn; 03-31-2011 at 12:57 AM.
03-31-2011, 01:23 AM #559
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Malaysia BOLEH...!!!
- 1 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
Tomorrow is the D day... are we all excited about it? BOLEH?
03-31-2011, 02:48 AM #560
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- los angeles
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
I am sorry, I am not adept at quoting someone’s post and replying to it, so I will just do it the hard way by putting their post or partial post in brackets so you know whose words I may be addressing. I know there is the “Reply With Quote” convenience button but I can’t seem to work it right. My reference to a poster whose nickname on the board is vague as to gender as “he” is not male chauvinism but for convenience only.
[Bbn’s post #542 - “... many in the badminton fraternity who believe that Eddy’s views ... belong to a past era.”]
If anyone believes that EC’s views belong to a past era, then I would strongly disagree. Yes, everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions, but I dare say they are wrong. I am not back here to try to change their minds but merely to explain why I feel so strongly that EC’s views cannot be casually discounted. EC may be old, but he is no dinosaur.
In just that one video clip I cited, it shows clearly that despite being a player of a past era, EC is very much in tune with the progress of the sport and the technological advancements that can help in training and coaching. He is also quite well-read about many sports, not just badminton and has had contact with many world champions. As I see it, he is keenly aware that modern technology and methods should work hand in hand with old fashioned expertise, acumen and experience. He just does not think that folks should rely so much on technology that they forget good old-fashioned hard work and common sense when developing a player into a true world-class player. He speaks about videos and computers, etc. and stresses that one still needs a skilled person to interpret what the video shows. He reminds us that the Chinese scout and observe other players so as to really understand their opponents. Viewing tapes is helpful, but there is no substitute for actual observation of players in action. Perhaps this is why Misbun Sidek is often seen writing on his note pad during games.
EC talks about the Australian example and the expensive technological tools they use but still have not become a major force in badminton. This just means that technology is helpful but the contributions of a good coach unfettered by administrative restraints can make the difference between building a mediocre player and a truly world-class athlete. As I see it, besides LCW, everyone else in the Malaysian singles lineup is either mediocre or less than mediocre (I do not include Wong Choong Hann who is past his prime and whom I applaud for still playing competitive badminton and whom I believe is still better than any other player in Malaysia besides LCW). It is a darn shame and a testimonial to the incompetency of BAM that it has failed to nurture Malaysian junior champions into world-class beaters time and time again. And time and time again, BAM likes to put the blame on others like the coaches or players.
[Bbn’s post #543 - “... player must know why he won or lost... If you cannot write the report at least it can be done orally.”]
I do not know what Bbn’s point is over here but I assume that he is in support of BAM’s policies including the requirement of reports by the coaches, since the context in which he quotes EC and his subsequent posts appear to support BAM when he says that everyone has to report to someone. If this is Bbn’s point (and I apologize to Bbn if I have misunderstood his post), then I think he has misunderstood EC’s words when EC is quoted by Bbn to have said that a player must know why he won or lost.
I believe EC was referring more to a coach developing a player in such a manner that the player acquires the ability to analyze his own match and be able to determine why he was victorious or vanquished. And I believe how a player develops the ability to know why he won or lost is through experience and knowledge passed on by a good and competent coach. No computer can do that. Reviewing a tape of a match will not help if that same good and competent coach is not there to interpret what the tape reveals. You need someone who is an expert in the game to properly review and interpret the tape. As the coach and player go through this exercise time and time again over the course of months and years of their player-coach relationship, the player will in turn develop the ability to independently analyze his game and understand why he won or lost. But I believe there is no need for any report, written or oral, to anyone else. So long as the player and the coach understand each other and their progress together, that is good enough.
To be fair, I do not know what kind of reports BAM wants the coaches to write, but I cannot see any viable circumstance where a written report would be necessary, except perhaps an expense report. As far as I am concerned, I think the request for reports is just another way for BAM to continue its meddlesome ways and to second-guess the coach. If you hired the coach, it should mean you trust and believe in the coach and his knowledge and methods, whatever they may be. If you want the coach to keep reporting to you in writing, you might as well just read coaching books, pick and choose what you like and then compile it all into your own coaching manual and then hire a monkey to implement the coaching program using the so-called coaching manual.
I believe EC does not shun modern training methods, equipment, technology, etc., but merely advises those who will listen that one cannot place too much emphasis on technology but should understand that good, old fashioned hard work and coaching is still crucial. And I agree with him.
BAM is perhaps too reliant on technology, tools and other methods and has relegated coaches down a few rungs. Why else would they disrespect the coaches they hire and discount the coaches’ opinions and keep interfering with the coaches’ work? Several coaches have already publicly voiced their displeasure about the meddlesome administration/management while coaching in Malaysia.
Perhaps BAM is too anxious in their chase for the country’s first Olympic gold medal. They want the first gold medal to come from badminton so they can get the recognition and bask in the glory. There are other sports that could potentially win gold in London and cycling comes to mind. If everything falls into place perfectly for Azizul Hasni Awang on race days and with some good luck, he just might pull it off. We sometimes talk about a player wanting to win so much that he ends up losing because perhaps he did not have the maturity to keep everything in proper balance and perspective during the match. This may be a case of the national association wanting to win the Olympic gold so much that they fail to keep things in balance and fail to maintain the proper perspective in all the preparations leading up to the tournament. In its eagerness for glory, I fear BAM is over-controlling things and that may be laying the groundwork for a huge disappointment for us badminton fans and fans of LCW next summer in London. Report-writing, committee here, committee there - this all just shows a lack of faith and confidence in the coaches and players on BAM’s part.
But I have faith in LCW, his discipline and his hard work and I hope he succeeds in his quest for gold at the big “O” despite all the meddling by the national association. If LCW wins the gold at next year’s Olympics, I will give credit to LCW and MS and none to BAM (not that BAM will care) even if MS does not return as LCW’s coach. Of course, credit will also be given to TSB or whoever the coach may be then. I cannot give credit to BAM because LCW has developed into such an extraordinary athlete under MS’s guidance despite BAM’s many shortcomings that he would likely succeed anywhere he plays or anywhere he goes and no matter whose banner he plays under. If BAM was any good at what it does at all, then the state of Malaysian badminton would not be in the current dire situation where there is absolutely no one in the horizon capable of stepping into the Datuk’s shoes when he retires, let alone pose a serious challenge at world-class tournaments. For a sports organization to be deemed successful at what it does, it has to show better results than just bask in the moment in the glory brought to it by a rare and extraordinary talent.
[Bbn’s post #544 - “... the CTC which all coaches report to are made up of many coaches too. MS is one of them...”]
I am aware of that but the CTC was something the BAM administration came up with. The coaches had no choice but to go along even though some coaches appeared to lend their support. My belief is that if they felt they were free to voice their true opinions, they would have told the administrators to take a hike.
[chris-ccc’s post #545 -“Here is the link”]
Chris, thanks for putting up the link for the video clip of EC so more can see it. Whether the viewers support his position or not is not as important as making his voice heard since the Malaysian media apparently shy away from publicizing his views.
[cobalt’s post #546 - “... I’d like to know if all the CTC members will resign if they have not been able to get MAS players into the top 10 rankings within a year. And will they apologize to the country for having possibly set back Malaysian badminton by one full generation?”]
I get your sentiment here, cobalt, but I think it is not the entire CTC that needs to take some responsibility (not necessarily all) because the CTC comprises of coaches too. I believe it is BAM’s administration that should bear the brunt of the blame. After all, it is its policies and its honchos’ management skills or lack thereof that has caused Malaysia’s young players’ progress to stagnate or their full potential never realized. Yes, of course BAM likes to blame the coaches and players for failures and steal the limelight and glory for successes. It is exactly this kind of mentality that fosters disunity and discontentment in the organization. If you’re going to claim credit for successes, then you must also accept responsibility for failures.
[Bbn’s post #547 - “Here are Eddy’s latest views and comments.”]
Thank you Bbn for pointing us to another clip of EC’s comments. In this clip, EC once again shows he is not out of touch with the game and technological advancements and his views make complete sense. He acknowledges the fast-changing technologies that can provide information with the push of a button. But you still need humans with the requisite experience to use the information. Accessing knowledge and information is no problem in today’s society. Anyone can do it. What is critical is how one uses the information. If you read it wrong, interpret it wrong or apply it wrongly, then you are just as good as being without the information and knowledge.
I believe many of those who say EC’s views are of a past era and discount his opinions are merely using his age against him because deep down they know he is right but they do not or cannot admit it. They do not admit it or cannot admit it for I believe, a selfish reason- self-preservation. It does not take a genius to see that EC knows that because he speaks his mind with no holds barred, his views are unpopular with many, especially the established folks in Malaysian society. In the clip I cited in my earlier post and which chris-ccc was kind enough to put the link here at BC in his post #545, EC indicated that the VIPs were selected to head the administrations of sports organizations. VIPs who know nothing about coaching, etc. He says that with all due respect to the Tuankus and the Yang Berhormats, he doesn’t care. Clearly, EC’s frankness has offended many in Malaysian high society. But sometimes, the truth hurts. And others who may not be top administrators in national sports bodies are probably just “yes-men” who kiss ass for self-preservation, hence the continued ridicule of EC’s views and comments as being of a past era and not applicable. You cannot deny this when even the press are afraid to publish EC’s views and comments.
[Bbn’s post #550- explanation of EC’s comments; and “... current CTC acting as reviewer... is only several months old and has seen LCW win the AE, Koo and Tan runner-up...”]
I do not think EC’s comments were directed to the 70's, 80's and 90's only. They are as relevant today as they were then. After all, the two clips we have in this thread are fairly recent, around early or mid-2010 and late 2010. I believe I know Malaysia and Malaysians pretty well too and how they select leaders for national organizations is exactly as EC describes, i.e. VIPs and business leaders even if there are others more qualified to run them in terms of experience, knowledge and expertise in the particular field or sports. Such other more qualified persons are not selected to head the organization because their title is only “Mr.”, not “Tuanku” or “Datuk” or “Yang Berhormat”. Yes, there may be some notable former players in a particular sports national body, but they will ordinarily not hold high positions. That trend remains. And that is part of the problem.
As to the CTC being only a recent addition and it has seen LCW victorious at the AE and Koo/Tan emerge runner-up, are you saying that the CTC has done a good job leading Malaysia to the singles victory and runner-up position in the AE? Because if you are, I am going to staunchly disagree with you. LCW’s victory and Koo/Tan’s strong showing at this year’s edition of the AE had nothing to do with the CTC. LCW won the AE last year too. More importantly, LCW’s victory had everything to do with the coaching he had under MS the past few years. Just because MS was not present at the tournament doesn’t mean all his coaching came to nought and that LCW’s success was attributable to something or someone else.
Bottom line is that BAM’s administration’s meddling with the coaching staff is just their way of getting their hands into every cookie jar in BAM. That way, they can claim credit for success if success happens. What EC says about administration and coaching having to be separate is the correct approach and as long as BAM fails to see this, Malaysian badminton will never be a major force again in the world badminton scene. Sure, once in a long while, its players will enjoy some measure of success (like Hafiz Hashim winning the 2003 AE) but it will not be sustained success. Several other countries have caught up with or surpassed Malaysia’s former dominance in the sport.
A national sports organization like BAM, in my not too humble opinion, is supposed to promote and strive for advancement of its sport in the country. Its responsibility is to provide the infra-structure and environment for the growth of the sport not just in quantity (more people to play the sport) but also in quality (development of players’ skills, etc.). For it to accomplish its purpose, it will have to do marketing, administer, fund-raise, get sponsors, procure services of competent coaches and other sports personnel, deal with the media, deal with broadcasting rights, develop good incentive schemes, do proper accounting and budgeting, etc. Once it has appointed coaches, let the coaches do their jobs without interference. A good leader recognizes his or her own limitations. A business leader must recognize he or she lacks credentials in coaching directly or indirectly, especially if he or she has not accomplished anything significant in the sport.
If a business leader or other corporate type person heads the organization or holds another high position there, utilize his or her skills and experience to help the organization in some of the other areas I mentioned above, but do not stick your nose in where it does not belong. Management and administrators have plenty to do without getting into the coaches’ way.
If BAM does its job properly and successfully, we should see it nurturing our young players and helping them to attain their maximum potential and continue their winning ways after their successes in the junior tournaments. Currently and for the past few years, our juniors make a big splash in the international scene in major junior tournaments, but after they move to the “big boys and girls” club, they hardly make a ripple. Eventually, they fade into obscurity. Will Malaysian badminton?
03-31-2011, 03:25 AM #561
No, I am more excited about when general elections will be and how I can exploit sports to my advantage, boleh?
By sonnymak in forum Malaysia Professional PlayersReplies: 106: 04-05-2012, 02:05 AM
By B3nny H4nn4 in forum MalaysiaReplies: 404: 12-22-2011, 10:22 AM
By izzudin in forum Malaysia Professional PlayersReplies: 13: 01-01-2009, 10:17 AM
By Anil Kishore in forum MalaysiaReplies: 33: 09-24-2008, 12:14 AM
By marshall in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 16: 10-27-2002, 07:26 PM