Question ...

[wesselj]

When you talk about tactics, are we talking about game plans and explicit tactics defined before each game or does it also include implicit tactics performed in-game? A stupid run-through may be a strategic blunder, deciding not to get involved in an un-necessary gun-fight or moving to a more defendable bunker when the **** hits the fan are in-game tactical decision that may not have been specified in the initial game-plan. They are nontheless tactical.

If tactics was not important what is the benefit of extensive scrimmaging on the actual field prior to events? Technique itself would surely be equally easy to aquire on a generic field.

Would a good NXL team beat an all-star team with supposedly superior technical skill? The only advantage the normal team would have over the super-stars is better team work. Is team work technique or is it translated to improved tactical play?

I believe tactics can be an equalizer where better preparation or more experience may allow a technically very good player compete with a technically excelent player.

Regards,
Jørgen

 

[Robbo]

I think this may well be the point it's best to set out exactly what I mean by tactics and techniques, it sounds a bit pretentious to talk of definitions and so I'd rather deal with what I'd call 'working descriptions'.

First off, you could of course choose to ignore my ideas on the subject but you'd be wrong to, that sounds unbelievably arrogant but please bear with me coz I will back this sh!t up.

On the original Nexus, we had 100% home grown talent, all of whom had potential, with some of them having raw potential, and that came in the form of the amateur and novice players I had on board.
As most of you know, Ledz, Jack Wood and Junior were the only pros.
My point is this, during that first year, we had many debates and discussions about points i was trying to make or ideas I was trying to get them to understand and carry out.
Amidst this motley crew, we had Jack Woods, Bowen, Mark Toye and Nicky Truter, all of whom were graduates in various degrees, these were smart guys.
Now, in all the talks we had, I was never proved wrong during that first year when covering everything.
I am not for one second suggesting I was never proved because I was brighter than those guys, I was never proved wrong because what I was teaching was correct and if they had doubts, I would then set up something on the training field that would inevitably prove my point.
They came to trust me, they ended up becoming better players and the rest is history during that first year.

OK, techniques, what are they?
The best way to understand them in a paintball context is to think of them as , the way you execute isolated actions on the paintball field.
These actions can start with the spin-around at game on, the shooting of a marker at short, mid and long distances, the snap shot, trigger fanning, the run between bunkers, running and gunning...the list goes on but I'm sure you get the idea.
The composite elements of a player's actions in a game are what i would describe as his technical skill-set.

Tactics, this is where the BS creeps in, and generally from people who don't really have a good hold on the game or maybe even want to sound as they know what they are talking about.
The problem with tactics in paintball is the same problem you see when applied to soccer, it's such a vague, inexact science that it allows, and in some cases promotes utter frikkin drivel.
It's a fertile bed of absolute bollocks because people who don't know much but like to sound clever, can seek refuge in tactical talk and spout it at almost every opportunity.
'Bullsh!t baffles brains' is an obvious saying that comes to mind when i hear some people talk tactics ... and so here comes a proper understanding of what tactics are all about.

First off, you can win a game of paintball with not one tactic in sight but you cannot win a game without some degree of technical aptitude, if you feel you need to debate this point, then you really need to get into another sport or get a brain transplant.
This point is undeniable and becomes the basis for the remaining perspective to be placed upon the relative merits of tactics and techniques.

Tactics are generally planned before each game, they are a set of ideas that will concern themselves with players' actions and are conditional, and that is the operational word here, conditional.

Generally speaking, but not always, a tactical plan will involve more than one player and includes an inter-related set of actions that are conditional upon a particular time during the game or a triggering circumstance.
Either the timer will kick it off or a player getting eliminated or real estate being giving up.
This will then put into play, an action, or a sequence of actions that has a goal attached to it.

Tactics are generally conditional, goal orientated and involve more than one player.
Techniques are not conditional, are not goal orientated and concern individual play.

And so, let's get to relative importances, and this is where it starts to move into less than clear waters and it does so, not because i understand it less but because the ratio between technical and tactical importance will vary in each and every game.

So as not to get too bogged down in classifying all instances, I am gonna describe their relative importance in a game between two top pro teams and this is where a tactical skill-set will have its greatest influence.
There are various reasons for this, some of which are quite long winded but i would ask you to believe me on this point because it makes this a lot easier to understand if you just accept it.
With two top pro teams we can assume their technical skill sets are quite close and this proximity allows the tactical side of play to take a greater hold, if, and only if, the tactical play is successful.
And in this situation, I would gauge tactics having a minor role in determining the game and if you made me assess that effect in percentage terms, I would gauge it around 15 to 25 % and that error bandwidth is there because of game circumstance.

This in my opinion is the greatest effect tactics can ever play in a game of paintball in general terms.
Anybody can cite exceptions whereby some hick team had a tactic of storming all down one side and beating some pro team, but if true, then it was an exception and therefore cannot be included in any general understanding.

I ain't saying tactics don't help, they do, of course they do but never lose sight of what wins games, and thats good technical play.

 

[Buddha 3]

Tactics ate generally conditional, goal orientated and involve more than one player.
Techniques are not conditional, are not goal orientated and concern individual play.

To me, this is the best part of Pete's post.

I would however like to say that I see a role for tactics that could get bigger over time. This assuming that teams will indeed be playing teams of a similar skill level.
Why do I say this? Particularly in games like X-Ball there is a whole lot of room for tactics, on, but most definitely off the field as well. Once people start seeing the true potential of things like playing the clock, the sky will be the limit and paintball may indeed become like chess.

It'll still be boring to watch on TV though.

 

[Skeet]

Oi Skeet, I love the way you hedge your bets here using me as your patsy

Actually young man, Dynasty didn't depart from any of what I had been teaching, all they did was to illustrate there is more than one way to skin a cat.

You might be confusing natural skillsets with trained techniques here mate but in essence, they have the same result, just differing paths.

And in exhibiting the same results, we can assume that Dynasty had great techniques, albeit, they weren't trained in the conventional manner.

That particular example, was gleaned from a practical experience I had, while participating in a training session, headed up by someone who I was told, was a "better than good" player.

It was an exercise in Snap Shooting. He was preaching the Dynasty method. When the time came for me to spar with him, I chose to use the method that Nicky T uses, (which I assume you taught him).

The result was, I kept shooting his knees, his feet etc. We were both behind coke cans, where a prone "horse stance" style, might offer great mobility, but is harder to keep the lower limbs safe.

Proving my point, that while there may be more than one way to skin said cat, the real skill, is choosing which method works best for you and when to apply it.

I wouldn't attempt to criticise Dynasty in anything, far from it. They were fortunate to have players that had natural ability, rather than having to rely on trained skills, which are based on an application of rules.

 

[Robbo]

After looking thru what I wrote above, I feel as though I wanna make something clear; I don't want you guys to just accept all of what was written because it needs to be attacked and questioned.
This process then allows a true understanding to evolve and not just default to some tacit acceptance.

If what I have written above is truly correct then it will survive attack from all sides; but it can only really be of benefit if it goes thru this process and that is obviously down to you guys and so, I will make this request; try to knock me down, coz if you don't try, then I will assume you're all just a bunch of pussies

 

[Skeet]

After looking thru what I wrote above, I feel as though I wanna make something clear; I don't want you guys to just accept all of what was written because it needs to be attacked and questioned.
This process then allows a true understanding to evolve and not just default to some tacit acceptance.

If what I have written above is truly correct then it will survive attack from all sides; but it can only really be of benefit if it goes thru this process and that is obviously down to you guys and so, I will make this request; try to knock me down, coz if you don't try, then I will assume you're all just a bunch of pussies

Trouble is Pete, you are asking two difficult things.

Firstly, while there are many on here who have an excellent knowledge of the game, how many of them can be confident, going against someone who has had regular conversation, in intimate detail, with people like Sergei? It's not a question of buttering you up, making you my Patsy, or anything similar. Nobody can deny, you have some considerable authority in this area, which is made more difficult by...

...the fact that many of us, have read what you and others have written, and watched the various techniques etc form, out of necessity due to the changing game; over a number of years. So we have already had these points proven to us.

So people would be trying to debate, what we already know, to be as close an approximation of the truth, as we are likely to get.

You could personify the question.

Team A, has 6 mediocre paintballers and 1 chess wizard. (15% tactics)
Team B, has 6 Chess wizards and 1 mediocre paintballer.

Who will win?

 

[Buddha 3]

I wouldn't attempt to criticise Dynasty in anything, far from it. They were fortunate to have players that had natural ability, rather than having to rely on trained skills, which are based on an application of rules.

I hate people that rely on natural ability, or talent, alone. I doubt the Dynasty boys do that though. They started out young and improved their skills by playing, playing, playing. They found out what worked and what didn't. For them anyway...
People that have a natural talent should always outclass those that don't, even if they train like the Russians. Because those with the talent should train equally hard, rather than just relying on their talent.

I meet a lot of people in the things that I do that have talent for those things. And I tell them all the same thing that a great coach once said to me: Talent just means you ain't proven sh*t yet.

 

[Robbo]

If this thread was focused on guys like yourself then I'd be inclined to agree with you mate, but it's not.
A lot of the people on this site haven't had the experience you have or had access to a lot of what I have written, and it is to these people I direct my attention.
Well that's the plan anyway

 

[Skeet]

I hate people that rely on natural ability, or talent, alone. I doubt the Dynasty boys do that though. They started out young and improved their skills by playing, playing, playing. They found out what worked and what didn't. For them anyway...
People that have a natural talent should always outclass those that don't, even if they train like the Russians. Because those with the talent should train equally hard, rather than just relying on their talent.

I meet a lot of people in the things that I do that have talent for those things. And I tell them all the same thing that a great coach once said to me: Talent just means you ain't proven sh*t yet.

I said that they did not have to rely on training.

I would not suggest, that they simply "knew" how to do what they do, without the benefit of training to improve it

I think natural ability, just makes for a more "fluid" style, earlier and faster progression.

It is no substitute for practice of course.

Pete. Fair enough!

 

[NitroBall]

I keep reading the words "Raw talent", someone define raw talent within paintball ?
The areas i see raw talent within our sport would be the agility to run faster(speed), flexibility, and awareness.
Other areas such as techniques like stance, snap shooting, understanding how to play different bunkers would be all down to each individuals learning skills and how well that player listen, the understanding and consume.
Like any sport it does however help with a good teacher in building a foundation to step on.