Some don't really need a coach . When players have already decided/determined to carry out their own plans (of actions), they don't really need a coach. As for me, as a coach, I have found some trainees like that - and I keep telling them; "Why come to me for coaching when you don't want to learn from me?". .
That depends. Different students, different objectives, different learning styles, different coaches. I have mentioned about the student needing to be open minded. But it also comes from trust in the coach. I suspect the harder ones to coach are those who already have experienced the game and play in leagues/competitions. For this group, although they have the insight into their own performance, changing a style of play (e.g. footwork, technique), may require big changes in their fundamental way of standing, body positioning, preparation. Simply speaking, it becomes very difficult to change and of course, their game will suffer temporarily. Whether they want to go that far is another matter. They may just say "It's just too hard". I know of one such person - very fast, generates good power, has some unorthodox techniques which work. However, the racquet preparation at mid court and net play is weak. Against regular good league players he can get away with it. Once the gameplay goes up to very good level, it limits his ability to cope. Does he change (and accept short term detriment), can he accept change or does the coach just do feeding to help him practice his poor technique with better consistency?
sometimes i think of badminton players as artists, like divers and gymnasts. Their moves look beautiful. Do the best artists/musicians have coaches?
The more ingrained a bad habit is, the tougher it is to change it. That's why it is best to have a coach from the get go.
A very experienced teacher friend of mine says you can't teach anybody anything they couldn't teach themselves. Business people go on courses for all kinds of reasons: they are insecure, they don't know what they don't know. Their company feels it should put on training and so they must attend. A training course is easier than doing real work. It is an opportunity to stay at a hotel or conference centre, have a few laughs with colleagues, have a few drinks, maybe sleep with the secretary or the boss. Students who get private tuition: they are lazy and want somebody else to make some of the effort, and they can afford to pay for that. Or they are unable to keep up with the work and hope that the tutor will carry them though.
Except most of the time, those people who could have taught themselves do not have the knowledge of where or how to start, and are lacking experience on the quickest way to achieve something. That is why people pay for coaching or attend seminars - they are paying for the expertise and experience that someone else has. And in this way, they may achieve their goals much quicker than before. In my opinion, students who get private tuition are EITHER the lazy ones who can't be bothered to motivate themselves, OR they are the exceptionally hard working ones who will look for advice and help from any source possible, because they are driven to achieve as much as possible and maximise their own potential by accelerating the learning process. The generalisations that you are applying to those who chose to pay for tuition of any kind is a little too general. So, whilst what your friend said is true to a point - you can probably achieve yourself anything that a teacher could have helped you with (in most cases) - what you seem to have completely missed is that in most cases people are NOT successful because they lack the skills and experience to succeed. Whilst they could acquire these skills and experience over the course of a lifetime, it may seem like a better use of their time to accept help and experience from those who can help. I.e. tutors/coaches/lecturers. Please do not brand all people who pay to go to school, for example, as lazy. Because actually, those are very often the ones trying extremely hard.
Two big differences a good coach could make are: 1. Feedback - If you learn yourself, it's almost like a one way street. You can compare this to hiring a coach who has poor communication skill. You simply can't know if you're learning things correctly. As it turns out in life, people do often time misinterpret information. In a private lesson, you coach's feedback is also instantaneous; you don't have to wait till 1000 repetition later, review your recording (which you'd need to do to gain feedback for yourself), only to find out your practice is not even close to the model you're after. 2. Prioritization - If you pick and choose what to learn, you'd be using your own "layman" viewpoint. You may find it impressive to learn trick shots first, learn smashes, learn backhand clear. Meanwhile, shots and footwork you need large percentage of time are neglected. Given enough time and determination, eventually, and hopefully, you'd learn everything there's to learn. But if you hire a qualified coach, he should know what you'd need the most, and thus guide you to practice/improve that first, or teach you those skills first. Given the same short period of time, a player under a coach's guidance should show better improvement in game performance than one without. Finally, private coaching enables the instructions tailor to your individual needs, rather than that of a general class of players at possibly varied skill levels and needs. Here I'm referring to those who already take training, but in group setting. Of course, the drawback of private classes is expense.
That is a question for another thread. In fact, a question of two parts. A) how to find a coach? B) is the coach the right coach for the learner?
Recently I increased my children's training from once a week to twice a week as they still like the game. Seen a big improvement in skill. It's important to note, the rate of improvement is different at different times for individuals.
Two times a week badminton in total or two times private training plus xx times other training/games?
Two time a week in total. One group and one private where I get another coach and I am the assistant. Being a parent coach can have disadvantages so I'd rather get somebody else. I occasionally add extra things on other days - such as footwork and movement. Just wary about being too much of the 'tiger parent' syndrome.
May I ask how old they are? 2 times a week isn't that much and far away from tiger-syndrome. Anyway, I truly believe the initiative has to come from the kids, be it once a week or 5 times a week...
The youngest is five and has the most potential. Doesn't mind playing anytime. Where I live, there are many competing interests such as school, music, group activities etc. Not much time for badminton. Early Secondary School is different now. One of the homeworks was to discuss the ethics of using experimental medicines in Ebola.
Well, for obv reasons, in most parts of the world, schooling offers more opportunities than badminton! At least in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia,... Probably almost everywhere. In the non-school-time, I truly believe one should let the children decide what they like to do. And let's be honest: You never have more time than in your childhood! As a child, I was into sports every day and learned an instrument and had time with my friends... I think twice a week is hardly sufficient to become a exceptional player. If that's a goal. (still, I'm not talking about Lin Dan-exceptional. More like exceptional on a national level...)
Well, it's you're job as a father to show the kids that there's more in life than gaming. A hard job though!!
