Alexis on Greg Chappell on Phil Hughes

More insight on skill models, this time from Greg Chappell’s observations on Phil Hughes. “Textbook” skill model does seem irrelevant at the highest level. After all, if everyone did things exactly the same way, how can you get an advantage? innovation has always played a big part in successes at the Olympics, Japan with the quick attacks and float serves (1964 they didn’t win but got the silver), Poland with the backrow attack (1976), The Brazillians with the jump serve (1984, they didn’t win, but they got the silver with the USSR boycott), The US with the two passer reception system. I’m sure all these things were “outside of the box” when they first appeared.

And we should listen to Greg Chappell when he talks about skill model. For no better reason than the fact he won a 1-day international match by getting his brother to apply the strangest of bowling skill models on the last ball – an underarm delivery! To this day, no one doubts that it was effective!

* * *

I read this story about Phil Hughes in the Australian yesterday:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25168449-28737,00.html

Greg Chappell makes a great point which is very relevant to this conversation: “There’s no right way or wrong way. Have a look at the scoreboard and tell me that he’s played badly.”

“He doesn’t comply with the coaching manual but the coaching manual should have been burned before it was even published because it’s been the greatest impediment to exploring batting in its fullness that’s ever been perpetrated on the game of cricket,” Chappell retorts.

“The sad thing is the better players have not necessarily fitted the coaching manual. To focus on replicating the perfect cover drive actually misses the point of what batting’s all about.”

Christian Stapff on Skill Models

Some stuff that came out of the Volleyball Symposium (held conveniently on the same weekend as SA’s state’s school’s cup last year) in Canberra where Hugh McCutcheon spoke. forearm passing doesn’t seem to get any simpler. it’s the like the IKEA of passing skill models. right foot always in front, arms swing from left side of body to right. hard to argue with the guy witha gold medal.

I happened to attend Volleyball Symposium in Canberra.
Hugh McCutcheon was indeed a wonderful and masterful clinician.

He prefaced his comments by saying that there is more than one way to execute, and he added that most of the skill model follows these rules:
keep it simple
reduce any unnecessary motion
\do what is provn to work

To that end, the US men’s program( the US womens have used different approaches) uses the following for sere receve:
right foot slightly forward
arms straight and resting a little on knees–this should help with preserving energy( i.e. reducing the load) for all other explosive movement
controlled arm movement passing the ball from the left side of the body.

the research indicated that passing from the left was more successful regardless of the handedness of the passer.

I am going to make some additional points:
1. having the head( balance mechanism still prior to passing will help in tracking the ball
2.passing the ball from the left allows the passer a look at the trajectory, which should help( of course this applies to passing from the right side too
3. passing always from the same side means double the practice time. would you throw the ball left-handed if you are right handed?
4. i suspect this makes sense as the setter is position at pos 3/2 and most serves would be more easily passed form the left toward the setter

Finally, the platform must always be straght…

Alexis Lebedew on Skill Models

More great thoughts on skill model from Alexis Lebedew. He’s definitely right that the way elite players do things is irrelevant to how to teach a beginner the same skills. There’s an inevitability that the players you coach at a developing level will go through technical reinventions as they move on. The authorship of a player is clearly a malleable concept.

I agree with the skill issues in development. I think part of the issue is what we hope to get from Skill Models.

Most (if not all) literature about skill learning/teaching talks about making any Keys/Cues simple, and making as few of them as possible. Both to cut down on overcoaching and also make it easier for the athlete to remember. I’ve seen some success using the idea of: What can you absolutely NOT do as a developing athlete if you want to be sucessful at the elite level (without taking 2-8 years to change a technique). Once you look at things from this perspective some things become clearer.

For example with blocking – I’ve seen some coaches of developing athletes use only 2 cues: get your hands over the net as far as you can and as early as you can, and land where you took off from. Now, do the best blockers in the world do this? Sometimes, somewhat. But what the best in the world do is often irrelevant for developing players (and coaches). On the other hand, if a player can do those two things before going to the ‘next level’, then they can progress quickly. For Setting I’ve seen the following cues work effectively: follow through in the direction you want the ball to do, and see the ball through your hands as it comes down.

Remember – skill models are not what are used to master skills. They are to learn and teach skills.