Good Player : Good Coach?

A good coach need not be a brilliant player provided he can teach. But he must be able to play well enough to demonstrate correctly, to feed accurately, and to produce any desired tactical situation. He must know tactics and laws alike inside out. He must have a pleasant voice that will carry in even noisy halls, unlimited patience; enthusiasm, a friendly and approachable fellow and a sense of humour. He must have drive and organizing ability. Most importantly, he must have an original and analytical mind, with an appreciation of some geometry.
I have seen very good players turned lousy coaches, their students not having improved after years of coaching.

 

Actually, I think that there are quite a few great teachers that are lousy players. It's just that if you're a lousy player, you probably won't even be given the chance to coach. Unlike if you're a successful player, even if you stink at teaching, you'll more than likely pick up a lot of students.

 

Sorry, but...

Sorry, but I have to disagree on this one and can base it with figures. In football (or soccer, depends on where you come from), which is by far the biggest sport in the world, around 90% of the top coaches were top players. In volleyball and basketball -number two and three - the percentage is 75%. In the best badminton countries - which is worldwide a top five sport (bigger than tennis, apart from the money aspect unfortunately) the percentage is also around 85%. Even in tennis, the percentage is still 65%, which might not be overwhelming, but still a majority. Although I partially agree with your arguments (the reasons why not every top player becomes a top coach), they are mostly true in lesser developed sports where talent alone is sufficient to reach the top. In most well-developed sports nowadays talent, hard work and a thorough understanding of the sport isnecessary to make it. I'll see if I can still find the corresponding research somewhere and then post/mail them to you.

 

Mourinho holds a degree in PE and played for a short time as a professional player in a 2nd division Portuguese team. One thing that might have helped him was that his father was a professional football coach. Since young he would help his father 'spy' the adversaries and would give his comments/opinions on how to defeat them. You also have to consider the years when he worked as assistant coach to Bobby Robson and van Gaal in Sporting Lisbon, FC Porto and Barcelona. These years gave him the insights and being a bright individual he grasped the concepts and developed into his own phillosophy. Great for him that things worked well.

Tang, I assume Tang Xianfu, was an excellent player - to me the greatest. He not only is an encyclopedia of badminton, he is also excels in dealing with people. He is very observant, intelligent, sharp in his comments and also a great organizer. With these qualities it wouldn't be surprising that he became a successful coach.

But going to your comment again. Another coach not being successful as a player - Sven Goran Eriksson, the current England national football team coach.

 

I don't think that good coach and good good player are too relevant. I mean sure, it helps to know the fundamental part of badminton at the beginning stages. But in higher levels of play, I strongly believe that the best coaches are ones that are good analysts; meaning that they can acknowledge the play's strengths and weaknesses and use that information strategically.

 

I can only speak from my experience as a decent soccer player and now a kids' soccer coach (4 years). I truly believe being a good player has helped tremendously but at my level of coaching, being a good teacher is paramount. I guess what I'm trying to say is the age and level of your students are huge determing factors, as is the goal of coach, in their success. I have found that gaining the respect of the kids on my team translates into better learning and quicker adoption of how I want them to play the game. To gain that respect the kids have to believe what the coach is talking about; in other words, walk the walk and talk the talk. I read in a sports magazine for kids a few months ago they did a survey and found that one of the things kids (who are pretty smart) wanted most in a coach was sporting ability. In other words, if the coach was a good player in that sport, they would respect him/her more. Hmmm... interesting.

When I first started coaching I wasn't particularly good (good player:bad coach). But I felt I could lend my playing experience and picked up a few teaching skills along the way. Well, like I said this is my 4th year now and I have not been chased away by the parents or the association, so either they're desperate to keep me or I must be doing something right (good player:moderate coach). The other thing with kids - I believe a previous post had mentioned this - is that they not only learn how to play the sport but gain enough out of it to apply it socially and become a better person.

 

I have already pointed out that the statistics show that there is a distinct relation between having been a successful player and becoming a successful coach. Of course there are exceptions (as there are to any rule), but in 9 out of 10 cases a top coach has been a top player. And actually, the number could be higher if we recognise that what is locally or nationally or internationally regarded as a top player differs. In badminton a Chinese number fifty would not be considered a top player in his own country, but would be in most other countries. He might have all the skills and experience, apart from those involved in international competition. A Dutch number four would be of lower standard in some skills, but have international experience. Nationally - or even internationally to some extent - he would be considered a top player, while the better Chinese would not. My message is that the coach must have experienced top level sports aspects that he can convey to pupils that have to learn about these. Of course teaching or coaching skills are necessary, but these are useless when there is nothing to convey. A top player has acquired the technical and analytical skills needed to perform at top level; he only needs to teach these to others. A low level player did not have these skills during his career, or he would performed a lot better. To acquire these later on is not impossible, but harder than when you started out with them. From my experience - in badminton and soccer - this is a main difference between the top countries and the weaker countries. In badminton I have seen long retired Chinese coaches that could still play 1st division in any other country or even make the national team, while in Holland talents are ruined by well-motivated but ignorant amateurs. A friend who is a professional soccer player (playing for Ajax Amsterdam) told me that the biggest talent pool is Africa, but where they mostly insist on African coaches, development is zero.
Like I said, there are exceptions to the rule as there are to any. But on the other hand Mourinho and Eriksson were no internationals, but both played professionally in their countries' 2nd division. This is not enough to qualify as football (or soccer if you will) legends, but still better than 90% of PROFESSIONAL players in lower divisions or weaker countries, not even mentioning millions of others that daily practice the sport.
It might be that for some of you I am stretching the qualification of good, but I don't think that good automatically indicates the stuff of legend. But I strongly oppose the notion that any club player with analytical insight can become a good coach; this has caused the decline of Dutch badminton, a country whose best players come from China, Indonesia, but fails to produce players of its own.

 

a good player was hardworking,dedicated and smart in developing technique and skills. What is the diffrences between good player and best player? They have all the good player criterias but one the good player dint have. Self confident, best player affraid of nobody. There is no other player in their eyes. Lets me ask, how many player in badminton world have the courage to says that he have no one to be affraid of in the games.

 

Best player

Self confident is the key to produce best player, it sound simple but that is the truth. Look at lin dan, Hendrawan, Rexy/Ricky,Taufik and last i think still too early to says Tan Boon Hiong. They have so much self confident inside them. Good player can be produce via good coach and good training, but not the best player. Lee Chong Wei of Malaysia is a good player, i think he lack of self confident.

 

Man... ressurected from the dead after 2 years? Hahahaha, was interested to see what has been written as I am a coach myself. Here's what I can add:

To be a good coach you need:
1) To be a good teacher, knowing how to explain efficiently.
2) Basic understanding of the game in multiple varieties and be able to explain the pros and cons. e.g. there are many varieties of footwork and strokes.
3) A good analytical skill to further develop your understanding of tactical play and be able to determine what went on in a rally, the tactical or strategical mistakes and the correct alternatives. This really plays an important part in determining whether you can be a decent player and yet a VERY GOOD COACH or a decent coach
4) The motivation to never give up on your trainee or even shun them negatively unless they are totally disobedient to you no matter how good you have been to them.
5) In my opinion, the most important thing a coach need to have to be good, the ability to instill discipline into their trainees while earning their respect at the same time. This is hard, because sometimes you have to shout and really break them before they break themselves. And that can turn them away from you.

 

good coach

a coach has to be a good player with the experince if he want his students to go far . he has to be able to play well .but coaching is mostly drills,games,agility,and footwork but sometimes if the coach aint sooo good most of his good students wont respect him .ive see some teachers in the mssd who dont know how to play and its the same story with his students.

 

My coaches were very good players, internationally.


And not very good coaches. Well, great for younger kids. But as far as long-term development goes... not much support.

 

Sometimes players have become so bored of the game, that they don't bother teaching the complicated stuff like tactic and strategy and proper selection of shots for various situations. Most would just be satisfied teaching their trainees the basic stuff making sure they can play and that's it.

 

In Canada, there is a belief in the pro hockey world that a player who's not necessarily that gifted but has had to work hard to improve himself tends to end up being a better coach. He would have had to listen intently to his coach and perform drills repeatedly, and even perhaps do extra ones. The player pretty much absorbs every page of his coach's manual which gives him the extra edge when he turns to coaching.

By the same token, this could be translated to badminton. What's been said about students having less respect for his coach is also true. I think a coach has to reach a respectable playing level not just for his reputation, but so that he can relay his experience to his students. As a soccer coach myself (sorry to keep jumping sports), I try to recall my own playing experience to help my players deal with situations during a match. Add a desire teach and the ability to communicate and you have the makings of a good coach.

 

international coaches

coaches who are known internationally are good because they can share their knoledge with you like when i train with some of the sidek brothers i get to learn alot because they hv the experince

 

If the coach achieved great success during his time, we will automatically have more confidence in his coaching..