eRa: I am almost willing to GUARANTEE that the only result BAM will get from the coaching committee and all their backtracking and positioning and protesting and justifying and speechifying is, in a single word: mediocrity.
I think that is the bottom line, probably it is to have a big group of mediocre players like China men's singles today (cyborgs), then when they reach a certain level to go a few levels higher. To them it would be having a team rather than depending on 1,2 players as at present. Probably that's what they think.
Hehehe, not really a change lah, in terms of doubles dept, they already working together all the while. Now it makes it seem more....divisive, TKH in charge of back up, Rexy elit. But still if the coaches can work around it, which I think they did,no problem. Ya lah, better LCW & Misbun go independent, hire some sparring partners, at least can choose better quality ones
to Era on post 479: Those words you tried to clarify were not Nadmi's words but my personal guesses on how corporate people think. They probably dont want old greats like Eddy etc maybe they think they are of the old school and cannot accept new ideas and bend to the will of others and will create havoc. If you ask the people managing organisations all this TCC committee thinking is quite logical.Committees are run like the Parliament and they are not necessarily rubber stamps. But they (experts) will also tell you that operations and processes can have some flexibility, but I think sometimes it is not fair to condemn it just when it is starting when it hasn't been given a chance to work. The best time to make adjustments is to let it run and act on feedback. All MS has to do is just to concentrate on LCW and let the TCC have their trial run.
The difference is just too massive to contemplate: you know that the political muscle and the total commitment at all levels that is evident in China and the CBA will not be so easily replicated in a democratic environment. To rule by committee is like inviting a catastrophe. IMO the big mistake is to try and create a "corporate" culture or enviroment in a "discipline" where an organic approach is very much required. Talent, creativity, daring and bravery will not easily thrive in a corporate environment. I think that's a part of what Misbun was trying to get across to those bean-counters. But they are only doing the only thing they have known to do all along. The CTC has made this huge platform of "change." But change just for change's sake can sometimes bring worse results than the status quo. For a change to be correctly and carefully brought about requires a lot of information gathering, analysis, testing, and inclusion of many probabilities and variables. But it seems that almost by magic, the CTC woke up one day after the Thomas Cup and drew up a blueprint for change -- overnight!!!!
1994 surely cannot be a near miss. Definitely the replacement for Elyas was really hated for what I still cannot understand.
I think you hit the key word an ORGANIC approach. But I think it was sth like that in the past and they think this corporatisation is an improvement, eradicating corruption,nepotism whatever in the MACHINE at the expense of a leaner and more agile organisation that can react quickly to changes and challenges. But all this is theory.
I think that badminton has historically shown that the corporate approach will fail. The personal approach, with age-old values that are designed to bring out the best in a person/player is the only one that has proved to work time and time again. Love, nurturing; a firm hand; the ability to guide and instruct; the guru-disciple relationship; all of this creates an environment where talent can flower and become awesome. Even the "best player on Earth" only became that after he found the firm guiding hand. Committes OTOH are often only concerned with the justification of their own existence. And if they fail, be sure they will have identified the scapegoat well in advance.
True, other than the culture of badminton (likened to Brazilian Football) you also have to consider the sheer size of the set up. Historically set-ups were not as big as they are ,that's why they were flatter,now they are massive and need to be run like a ship or machine. Or take it even further, operate like microsoft, just have a few administrators and out-source, just organise and let private coaches and players supply the bodies. Would you say football outfits loosely run are better than those run like a huge ship? Dont you think CBA is more like a machine?
But they are more expensive to operate, with a personal touch you need 1 to 1 coaching. with a machine one you can have say 1 to 10 (just a figure of speech).Think in terms of productivity and the need to maximise public funds.
Misbun's reply in the Star was that his instincts tell him that R has most potential (hard to measure). That is the problem with corporate people they are not organic and act on instinct,they like to measure things.
Corporatisation has the main objective of maximising productivity and creating more value on less funds. Most expenditure and resources must be justified by some form of measurement, not instinct, try talking to your Financial Controller. By the way Cobalt do you play badminton by instinct or maybe run your business or the country by instinct? Then you dont need to go to school. But I'm sure you can play the guitar by instinct.
That must surely work in Canada. Do you think Gopichand thinks like that too? If you search Star articles when MS was interviewed before the meeting on Monday MS also used the word instinct to support his decisions.
I don't quite agree on the word "instinct". I look at it from the helicopter view and the ROI. Like it or not, BAM is a business entity (operating costs involved to produce "results"), so BAM can't run the biz based on "instinct". Honestly, without BAM, do U think LCW will be where he is today? Nobody should discredit Misbun, Li Mao or Frost throughout LCW's career, and the same goes to BAM. I've NOT seen Ramdan in actions, but has he won anything yet at the junior level? He is 18yrs old, and if I'm not mistaken, Taufik entered All England Final at the age of 18 or 19. So where is Ramdan now if he is so talented?
Wow, too many ideas for a guy like me! CBA may be run like a well oiled machine, but there is again, a good balance of individual freedom as well as responsibility. But I dont believe BAM needs to be run like Microsoft; just the thing they are falling into the trap of. You cannot just borrow an entire (corporate) culture and transpose it on another entity and expect it to provide results. You will get chaos. You need to go back to the basics. What is the primary objective? What are the primary and most important resources? What is the health of the cells? (Cells in my definition would be the cellular level of the entire badminton organisation in Malaysia: schools, villages, local clubs, colleges, universities, town halls, community centres etc) Do the cells feed the next level up with the most exciting potential at 2 or 3 basic age groups? Do the cells receive meaningful support from the next level up? And so on.
There is no "business" if there is no talent. In badminton, at least. And either it is a "business" or it is "national interest." It cannot be both. That would be like "talking from both side of the mouth."
ramdan beat 2007 wc runner up at age 19 and taufik is farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr talented than ramdan cant compare at all
they dont operate in "cells' that is too futuristic for Malaysians, rather as work units in a HIERARCHY. Look at Msia Squash, smallish with the World champion and several world class players. All supported by parents. But they can never succeed in team events, no depth and breadth. it may be true one moves on really slow in the Msian Machine, but at least there will be depth and breadth unlike Squash. That's why some parents do not want their children in the BAM. The BAM could be guilty of putting old wines in new bottles (re-badging) and the TCC still operating within an old framework and not thinking out of the box. Given all the challenges from the external environment ,mindset,culture, size,demands on public and government what is better and has it been given a chance to be proven wrong?
