So you think you know about Paintball ?

[Robbo]

Spike - you'd be surprised as to how many people try and take credit for things they never did, or never won :/

To my knowledge, there was only one guy who'd gotten close to what we'd developed in our snap-shot and that was Sergey, the owner of the Russian Legion.
We had met up in London and got to talking about the snap-shot we used because a few months earlier, we had played the Russian Legion for the first time in Vegas 2003, and we ended up beating them ...

Sergey was quite surprised [not in a disrespectful way] and had noticed we'd won several of the game's snap-shooting duels .... I asked him to show me their technique and it was similar to what we used but he'd not realised one of the most important features of our snap-shooting .... I told him about the omission, and I'm not suggesting he went away and adopted anything I had done but he's a wise man, he wouldn't have ignored something that could have potentially helped his team.

PS As for what Ollie said?
He's damned right but I would add something, it's true to say that different people do things differently but as I mentioned earlier, if you look at the way boxers throw basic shots, they're all the same or at least very similar. Snap-shooting in paintball is much like a one-two combination punch, and so in that sense, although all boxers are different, they don't all do different shots ... and we don't have to either !

 

[Spikerz]

Agreed Robbo, the thing that makes Ollie so damned dangerous and has for years, his unpredictability. One of the first to just bomb down the center of the field, the first to dive under the car wash bunker, crawl forward and shoot ankles on the other team's half.

I know it drives Greenspan insane, which adds to the hilarity of their relationship.

 

[Kevin Winter]

Simple answer - yes - you could easily get a team to hold their own and compete.

One of the most interesting things I've ever done is play with or against top end players. I spent a day a few times working with Clint on a clinic. We were running a simple drill - one end running/gunning the corner and the other staying in back center to lane them out. Somebody moaned that it was impossible and Clint grabbed a marker and ran the drill several times from each end. I was in back center for one and he put three balls straight into my goggles/hopper whilst running at full sprint(when I was convinced I was behind it), then did the same again to three or four more lads, before switching to the back center and shooting the runner every time. We also had Wheeler on our team for a winter event and he was the same - every first shot bang on target.

Whilst I think field/game awareness are what makes the truly exceptional players (your Langs, Federovs etc) stand out from the rest of the top level players, what makes a top level player different from the lower leagues are those basic, fundamental skills. If you're able to dial in your first shot right on the money every single time and keeping yourself behind the bunker as much as possible so you don't get shot, then you'll at least be able to compete and win points, if not matches. That, if you can stop the players wanting to run points all day, can be drilled into people easily enough if the time is put in by players under a decent coach.

Finding the commitment from the right players, and the paint and field fees, that's the rub.

 

[Missy-Q]

No. Can't be done in 1 year anymore.
back in the day it could be achieved by throwing money at it. Money for players, money for coaches, etc.
Now there are other people already throwing money at their established teams, so the 'advantage' is not there to be gained.

3 years, of continual investment and re-shuffling, and it could be done, but it would be expensive as all hell, and would require a benefactor the likes of Bart (Impact) or Sarge (Heat) with deep pockets, a couple of kids who can actually play, and a patient disposition. Good luck finding that guy...

 

[Robbo]

Kevin, I don't think it would be an 'easy' enterprise as you suggest because you have to focus the players attention on aspects of the game and techniques that may well prove a difficult process to manage/coach.
The two players you mention, Clint and Justin are class acts and they've both been around for quite some time and have played at the top level of our game over here in Europe and the US.
Those two guys have taken a long time acquiring the skill-sets they possess; it's wrong to assume that this theoretical new team will churn out players in the first year who are as skilled as Clint and Justin, that's an insane proposition.

But what you can do is produce a team of players whose average skill-sets, come the end of their first training year, will be sufficient to compete at the top.
That's my proposition in a nutshell ..
However, I could be spectacularly wrong but all I can call upon is the experience I've had, and the knowledge I've acquired in terms of motivating players, male or female.
But, it's not all about training techniques [forget tactics, that's all bollox for the most part] but what is important is the attitude you can instil in the players you're looking to train up.
The psychology driving this bus is well understood but it essentially comes down to [wo]man-management ... if you don't get inside the player's heads from the beginning then it's a lost cause.
The next hardest task is maintaining that attitude throughout the training period.

And this attitude the players need to adopt is absolutely key to the endeavour and that's why the selection process is critical.
The longer I've been involved in different sports, the more I've been convinced of a very real need to gain the player's confidence with the coach, and just as importantly, with the other players.
Achieve that, and the next step on the ladder is made possible.
And as long as the coach knows his stuff and can oversee its adoption by the players during training.
But when I say 'knows his stuff', that's a pretty loose and ambiguous statement; What 'stuff' am I talking about here?
I'd like to hear from you guys what you think a serious coach should possess because if you go to the Ainsley's CPPS and ask 20 random players what they think a coach should know and do, you'll get 20 different answers.

Why the hell would this happen?
Surely they can't all be right, in fact, there's more chance they could all be wrong or least have an incomplete list of abilities or skills.
I think we need to tighten up on what really is needed for a successful coach so that when we go ask 20 different ballers, we get a majority of common answers.
Education first, implementation second, management third !!

It ain't rocket science guys but at the same time it's not so obvious.

 

[Robbo]

Missy, I think money moves everything along that much easier but remember here, the year will be all about just focussing on training alone, no events!!
I'm not saying everything I did with Nexus was right, it wasn't but I do know the guys were screaming to play during that first year but I kept them from doing so for about 6 months I seem to remember.
However, it's obvious the major expense will be paint - I don't know what price paint is now for teams but I don't think this enterprise is impossible but I can see your point and maybe it's a difference of perspective whereby I see the box half full of paint and you see it half empty.

Perhaps other contributors to this thread can give me a better idea of how much paint costs these days [wholesale/dealer price] and if we then decide upon how many times you train every month, we can work out the year's paint expense.

 

[Kevin Winter]

Kevin, I don't think it would be an 'easy' enterprise as you suggest because you have to focus the players attention on aspects of the game and techniques that may well prove a difficult process to manage/coach.
The two players you mention, Clint and Justin are class acts and they've both been around for quite some time and have played at the top level of our game over here in Europe and the US.
Those two guys have taken a long time acquiring the skill-sets they possess; it's wrong to assume that this theoretical new team will churn out players in the first year who are as skilled as Clint and Justin, that's an insane proposition.

But what you can do is produce a team of players whose average skill-sets, come the end of their first training year, will be sufficient to compete at the top.
That's my proposition in a nutshell ..
However, I could be spectacularly wrong but all I can call upon is the experience I've had, and the knowledge I've acquired in terms of motivating players, male or female.
But, it's not all about training techniques [forget tactics, that's all bollox for the most part] but what is important is the attitude you can instil in the players you're looking to train up.
The psychology driving this bus is well understood but it essentially comes down to [wo]man-management ... if you don't get inside the player's heads from the beginning then it's a lost cause.
The next hardest task is maintaining that attitude throughout the training period.

And this attitude the players need to adopt is absolutely key to the endeavour and that's why the selection process is critical.
The longer I've been involved in different sports, the more I've been convinced of a very real need to gain the player's confidence with the coach, and just as importantly, with the other players.
Achieve that, and the next step on the ladder is made possible.
And as long as the coach knows his stuff and can oversee its adoption by the players during training.
But when I say 'knows his stuff', that's a pretty loose and ambiguous statement; What 'stuff' am I talking about here?
I'd like to hear from you guys what you think a serious coach should possess because if you go to the Ainsley's CPPS and ask 20 random players what they think a coach should know and do, you'll get 20 different answers.

Why the hell would this happen?
Surely they can't all be right, in fact, there's more chance they could all be wrong or least have an incomplete list of abilities or skills.
I think we need to tighten up on what really is needed for a successful coach so that when we go ask 20 different ballers, we get a majority of common answers.
Education first, implementation second, management third !!

It ain't rocket science guys but at the same time it's not so obvious.

Rushed my reply a little these Robbo, as I was due in a meeting - it's not quite how I meant it to come across...the part I've highlighted exactly sums up what I was trying to get across.

You definitely couldn't make a Clint or a Jason in a year - what I meant to say was that many players seem to think that top players are top players because of some inherent magic or "Xfactor" and forget all the hard work and practise that goes into it. Whenever I have played a level or two above where I should be, the bits that make the difference or not that someone didn't manage a mad 3pck run through, but that we missed our off the break shots, lost snap battles and died off our spots.

You'll often here the excuse "they're too good for us/better than us" - what is often meant is "they worked harder than us"...

In other words, the first step to becoming a successful player/team is having a sound set of basic skills. You can certainly drill a set of players to the point where they have a sound snap shot, decent break shots, accurate running and gunning etc. That at least should stop them being totally outplayed by other teams and allow them to at least compete - ie not go down to mercy ruling loses, take points off other teams and looks the part.

With a damn good coach who can organise plays and knows exactly what is required skills wise, then they may well be able to do a little more than that.

The phycology stuff is interesting; as I teacher, I know how much developing the self confidence, resilience and instilling good relationships is. You can't drill that stuff, but a good leader should almost do it without thinking... simple example, on Wheelers guest session with us, he came off one point and told me what a sound job I'd done off the break - it left me buzzing and playing much better in the next point.

 

[Robbo]

Kevin, there's not much I can argue with re your last post because I agree with the vast majority of what you've said.
One of the hurdles that confronts players is, a lot of people like to think they know a lot when the reality is far removed.
These people do this because they think it elevates their status somehow but how the hell are younger, less-experienced players supposed to know who talks sh!t?
And that doesn't just apply to the young and inexperienced because I've seen pro and semi-pro players influenced by a coach who sounds good.
I know everybody is entitled to an opinion but as Mr Orwell once observed, 'Some people are more entitled than others' ..
So what the hell is a young and inexperienced player to do?
One of the clues for authenticity comes down to results ... what's been achieved?
You can have the greatest coach in the world but if he's got a bunch of three-legged water-buffalos turning out to play then the results ain't gonna be coming too fast.
On the other hand, you can have a coach who's absolutely clueless but has a team of players who get results every now and then, and so the point here is, it's not an easy job to work out who's good at what ...
Let's assume this hypothetical new team has managed to select players who have potential - but what about the coach here?

I think the first thing the players would need to know about the coach is the blueprint the coach is working from.
He has to have a set of goals that are reasonable, accessible and attainable, and there also needs to be some form of accountability for those goals as the training progresses.
Well, that all sounds fine and dandy but what goals are we talking about here?

If you are a sprinter, then your running time is how you will be held accountable - you can assess improvement based upon previous times.
The same can be said for swimming, jumping, throwing or pretty much any sport that pits you against a clock .. or weight ... or distance.
In itself, paintball players just cannot be assessed with the same degree of precision as a sprinter or swimmer would be.

Sure, you can train for faster break-out times or bunker moves but running is not one of the primary skills that players should put too much of a focus upon.
We can however assess improvements in accuracy of shot from different distances, from different positions like kneeling, standing or running etc - these are assessable, and any improvements could be easily logged.

Next thing I'd be looking at is, how do players get eliminated - under what circumstances?
With your fat ass sat behind a bunker for one .... Running between bunkers like a penguin is another prime candidate.
What about kill ratios, percentage of one type elimination to another ... what's the most common?
If you can collect and collate this type data then you can tailor training accordingly.
These are just a few things that in my opinion need to be considered if you're ever gonna attempt to play this game seriously.
There's a lot more besides the things I've just mentioned and all you have to do is to mentally disassemble our sport into its component parts - once you've done that, you then need to arrange your training days focussing upon the most important aspects of play.
As to what is the most important?
Well, this is where your data collation comes in because armed with that, you can then correctly prioritise your training.
This may sound somewhat pretentious but if it's good enough for other sports then I don't see why we can't adopt a similar more serious approach.
If you guys/girls out there have been playing/training these past few years then please ask yourself this, how many of the coaches/captains you've worked with have approached playing in the way I'm advocating?
Now ask yourself this please, how many of the players/coaches you've been involved with in the past few years have claimed they 'want to play seriously' ... they 'want to improve' blah, blah, blah ......
The words are there, and maybe the initial intention is there but there's no resilience of intent, no determination or commitment and nobody I've met or heard about [in the UK] has made any inroads into identifying and collating data that concerns key elements of our sport such as kill ratios, elimination circumstances, accuracy of shot, different positional shooting and so on and so on .... all it takes is a little effort to identify, then to collate and then to train ... as I said before and I'll say it again, it's not rocket-science, it just takes a little application and an appropriate level of commitment from the players ... if you wanna get serious, if you wanna improve then at least try to do it right and you'd be surprised just how steep your improvement curve will be ... you got fuhk-all to lose people, and lots to gain.

 

[Stan]

Fundamentally all this comes down to whether the individual sees paintball as a sport or as a hobby. How many people who play in the UK can actually say they take part in paintball the sport? How many can actually claim that they train like a sportsman?

There are a number of people in this thread who clearly have a background in proper sport and coaching in those sports... I knew very, very little about paintball and how much people trained when i was playing. I know even less now. I see numerous mentions of people "training" at Bricketwood or elsewhere... What does a paintball training session look like nowadays? What does the weekly programme look like? What does the monthly, annual, etc, etc programme look like? What's the long term programme for technical development / skill acquisition?

Paintball (with the exception of the US) is not really a sport. It's a hobby. It's not going to get on mainstream TV and fundamentally it's frickin expensive. All of these are really depressing coz i think it's awesome. On the flip side though... it does mean that if you organise a group of individuals along solid sporting lines and behave like a competitive sports team in the true, elitist sense, it should be possible to make huge gains against your hobby-playing opposition in a really, really short space of time. (Which kind of links back in with the original question!)

Robbo - 2 questions for you if you're happy to share:
1) by doing the clinics and sharing some of the facets of the Nexus training model, did the team give away too much of a competitive advantage to the extant it had an impact on results?
2) what was your timetable for a standard training day/weekend?

 

[Robbo]

1) I don't think so because the seminars/training days were generally done for amateur and novice teams and so we never played against them.
However, I'm sure some other pro teams might have picked up on it but unless they were told the finer points it could never have been as effective no matter how similar they may have felt their rendition was.

2) All of our training weekends followed much the same format. In the morning I would ask them to practice specific elements of play. And in the afternoon we played 5v5 dog-ball, I've no idea why we called it that but it may have had something to do with the way these games were played, the players had worked so hard on the drills and so by the time I let them off the leash, it was like watching a couple of dogs tearing into each other but essentially we would have a five v five with the emphasis being on whatever discipline we'd been training in the morning.
Sunday involved us playing five v five but on these occasions I would set the games up such that one team had to achieve a specific goal no matter what.
I would try to think of a situation that would happen in a game, things like a three on one end game, or variations on a theme.
Lots of times their quest failed but gradually they would improve their performance and got to a point where they'd succeed more times than not.
We did actually play occasional games against the site team and for those games I'd do exactly the same as the morning where once again I gave them specific goals they had to achieve.
The other team just tried to win the game beat us playing a conventional game.
An integral part of that training was to isolate particular skills and then arrange the circumstances so the team's focus was on a particular skill rather than just trying to win.
Did it work?
As I mentioned, we're in a results based sport and we did fine .... my players back then were fantastic because we were all on the same page and then after that I fuhk'd it all up but that's another story.

PS Stan - you were right to draw the distinction between players who just want to play and have fun, and those who might wish to make it a more serious endeavour with the former far outnumbering the latter.
Maybe I'm trying to convince myself that we might have ten like-minded individuals who were willing to commit but maybe tournament paintball should admit/concede we're just playing for fun and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that ...