Praised But Never Preached

[Hildy 0]

A older relative of mine was a good tennis player. She had a natural feel for the game and used a doubled-handed backhand to get extra power.

 

This was frowned on by coaches who told her that one hand should be used to play both forehand and backhand shots. She was also instructed - yes, instructed - not to play a baseline game. The idea was to serve and volley: always. No other way was coached.

 

Then a younger generation came through, possibly from the USA, and they threw away the coaching manuals They doubled up on backhand and played hard and powerfully from the baseline.

 

Coaches and purists frowned on this, but they were wrong: completely and utterly wrong.

 

We all went to see our players well coached but it's possible to set a player's career path back if coaching or management is flawed.

 

When Charlie Adam left Rangers, he was widely expected to vanish without a trace by the Rangers support and yet it was perfectly clear that he possessed an abundance of talent.

 

And that talent was allowed to flourish at Blackpool. He has gone on to make a great career for himself at the top of the English game and probably has more money in the bank than Rangers.

 

Occasionally players slip through the net, but Charlie Adam wasn't one of them. His talent was glaring but our coaching staff didn't know how to get the best out of him.

 

As a result, the Rangers support wrote him off. Few believed that he'd shine the way he has in the English Premiership. He was even voted one of the top five players in the division by fellow professionals, and yet we thought he was useless.

 

Just now, we have a young player who has a good instinct and a nice touch: Tom Walsh. He's been played out wide but apparently this is not his favoured position.

 

Let's hope that his career develops in a good way - with Rangers.

[Rousseau 10,812]

A older relative of mine was a good tennis player. She had a natural feel for the game and used a doubled-handed backhand to get extra power.

 

This was frowned on by coaches who told her that one hand should be used to play both forehand and backhand shots. She was also instructed - yes, instructed - not to play a baseline game. The idea was to serve and volley: always. No other way was coached.

 

Then a younger generation came through, possibly from the USA, and they threw away the coaching manuals They doubled up on backhand and played hard and powerfully from the baseline.

 

Coaches and purists frowned on this, but they were wrong: completely and utterly wrong.

 

We all went to see our players well coached but it's possible to set a player's career path back if coaching or management is flawed.

 

When Charlie Adam left Rangers, he was widely expected to vanish without a trace by the Rangers support and yet it was perfectly clear that he possessed an abundance of talent.

 

And that talent was allowed to flourish at Blackpool. He has gone on to make a great career for himself at the top of the English game and probably has more money in the bank than Rangers.

 

Occasionally players slip through the net, but Charlie Adam wasn't one of them. His talent was glaring but our coaching staff didn't know how to get the best out of him.

 

As a result, the Rangers support wrote him off. Few believed that he'd shine the way he has in the English Premiership. He was even voted one of the top five players in the division by fellow professionals, and yet we thought he was useless.

 

Just now, we have a young player who has a good instinct and a nice touch: Tom Walsh. He's been played out wide but apparently this is not his favoured position.

 

Let's hope that his career develops in a good way - with Rangers.

 

That's a great analogy. Coaching is important, but, I agree, sometimes 'purists' teach things that are not beneficial to the individual. I think players should be taught different things, but ultimately they have to play and develop in line with their natural ability -- it may not 'look' right, but it's better than trying to force a player into something there not. This is dependent on the coach having an open mind.

 

The tennis technique dictated on players is similar to a cricket technique: they're told to play a certain way. However, in other countries a players idiosyncrasies are encouraged rather than eliminated.

 

We also need a first-team coach that's able to appreciate where on the pitch a player can play his best football.

 

I did state that players are 'shoehorned' into a position and expected to do things that are expected of that role, when that is not always the case. A player should play a role that suits his game. Philip Lahm plays in midfield -- at times -- for Guardiola because he wants an intelligent passer and mover with an appreciation for wider roles in that position, rather than his normal Full-back slot.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Rousseau

[Zappa 0]

That's your article now on the main site Rousseau. Thanks again!

 

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/379-praised-but-never-preached

[Rousseau 10,812]

AARRGGHHHH!!!!

 

....it's 'Macleod', not 'McLeod'! Why have I never noticed!

[Frankie 8,652]

Not sure if you've noticed on social media mate but Rab Boyle has recommended the following for you:

 

@GersnetOnline I'd encourage the writer to watch the interview with Craig Mulholland that we have on @RangersTV - may change their view?

[Rousseau 10,812]

Not sure if you've noticed on social media mate but Rab Boyle has recommended the following for you:

 

@GersnetOnline I'd encourage the writer to watch the interview with Craig Mulholland that we have on @RangersTV - may change their view?

 

I had a look last night. It's encouraging.

 

However, my point was based on when they reach the first-team. They are often shoehorned into a pre-defined position, rather than looking at their individual qualities and how they can be used. I have never had too much of an issue with the youth set-up, because we do seem to be producing decent young players. My problem is the 'integration' as John McIntosh (spelling?) put it. It's the first-team management that are not using the players correctly -- IMO.

[Zappa 0]

AARRGGHHHH!!!!

 

....it's 'Macleod', not 'McLeod'! Why have I never noticed!

 

I normally edit such typos/mistakes, but completely missed that. I wouldn't worry about it though because a lot of people get it wrong, the most common being 'MacLeod' instead of 'Macleod'.

[Frankie 8,652]

Meant to post that Fraser's Mum Sandra enjoyed the article and favourited it on social media on Tuesday...

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I normally edit such typos/mistakes, but completely missed that. I wouldn't worry about it though because a lot of people get it wrong, the most common being 'MacLeod' instead of 'Macleod'.

 

Or spoof folks with alleged points deductions for miss-spelling in the Prediction League.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Baseball must take the prize for the most coaches I think.

 

Apart from the Manager who spends most of the time in the dugout except when he's arguing with the umpires; there is a bench coach/assistant manager; pitching coach, bullpen coach who seems to little other than make sure the relievers warm up properly,;hitting coach (obvious) and 1st and 3rd base coaches, the latter of whom does carry a lot of responsibility in stopping or sending hitters home. So that's at least six not counting athletic and conditioning coaches, bullpen and practice catchers.

 

How about we start with offensive and defensive coaches as in American Football and throw in a MF coach for good measure