CPL Coaching, Dump It

[duffistuta]

I think now is a pertinent time for me to say, 'coaching has some advocates and some detractors; let's all respect each other's position and have a good debate rather than let this generate into 'coaching sucks' or 'if you think coaching is good you're a **** player'.

That is all.

 

[Chicago]

I've been involved in XBall since the beginning. I think there's some confusion and lack of information involved when many players talk about coaching in paintball.

The big thing I see a lot is when people who are used to playing paintall without coaching imagine what paintball is like with coaching, they imagine playing paintball with someone on the sideline telling them where everyone else on the field is.

The problem is, that's not what happens.

With 'coaching', what you really have is you're on the field, and there's a wall of sound coming at you from the sideline. You can choose to look at the sideline to get signals from people, but then you're not looking at the field, which can also get you into trouble.

Another common objection I see cited related to coaching is that 'it's not the way paintball should be played'. Why? Usually the person means that players who make unobserved moves shouldn't have their opponents know where they are. Why not?

I think what people are really complaining about in this instance is that they are not very good players - they made their big move, lack the ability to immediately capitalize on that move, and get mad when they fail to make something of that move in the 10-15 seconds it takes the other team to figure out what is up. Those objecting to coaching get even MORE mad when the opposing team is better than they are and the opposing team can make their moves AND capitalize on them before the coaching detractors can figure out what is going on.


There's no question that coaching is different. It takes a lot of room for error out of the game - 3 minute windows of opportunity become 10 second windows of opportunity, and if you are not able to adjust to that and your opponents are, you're certainly not going to llike coaching, but coaching isn't the problem. The problem is your opponents are better than you are, they're quicker, they communicate better, they have better strategy, and coaching just makes it more obvious.


But, if even we ignore all of that, we have to allow coaching because there's no way to get 3,000 people to shut up. The only fair alternative to no coaching is no spectators. Spectators+no coaching=not possible.

 

[impamiizgraa]

Personally i see coaching as a good thing...yes it can give away places and turn the players into chess piece's...but at the same time i saw some amazing run-throu's which even coaching didn't stop...

The Syndicate/Menace game was the most exciting game i watched all wk-end...the games were mega intense...both teams had people coaching them and the crowd was really involved...

The coaching may give people's positions away, but at the end of the day...the players (should) normally know where the other team is most of the time anyway.

But it's all down to personal opinion i guess...

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Hmm

I think, unfortunately, that there is no return from coaching in paintball.

We opened up that can of worms, and it is not getting closed again, however much we might like ti.

As an old school paintballer, I really enjoy watching the really gifted players break a game all on their own - and with coaching that happens rarely - it is more often the coach doing it for the player... at least when the field has a snake with the ability to break the game.

But, now that we have graduated the paintball crowd from the silence of a tennis match, to full force screaming and shouting of a soccer match... I think it will be impossible to return.... at least without some serious policing going on, which nobody really wants.

We may make rules that disallow spectator participation... but knowing paintballers, that is going to deter no more than half of them.

We might as well accept it - like it or not - that spectator participation/interference is here to stay!

Now, accepting that truth, leads us to what we ought to be debating... namely how to handle spectator participation, so it has the least possible impact on the game.

I think there are two major issues that needs to be handled, and then we will see much less impact from sideline coaching.

1. Disallow coaching from the team side of the field completely.
2. Use field designs that does not allow the snake (or spectator) side of the field to break games open.
3. Accept that counter coaching is a valid tactic, especially with 100s of spectators that support the "other team".

Making these two changes - and accepting the third point- will still see coaches impersonating spectators (even if we do not officially have sideline coaching on the spectator side).... but it will lessen the effect of what they do significantly.

Judging from the games in Paris, a good coach WILL make or break a match for a team under the current rules.

I have no doubt Magued plays a very significant role in the wins Joy gets - he alone is instrumental in getting half the points the team makes every match... and on the other hand teams like the Ducks and Shockwave (well - actually all the british teams - for some odd reason), struggle with terrible coaching, that time and time again makes them miss obvious oppertunities to win games.

- I mean no offence to anyone here.... but trust me when I say, I know a little bit about how a good X-Ball coach works his snake.... and I believe all the british teams are failing in this field of expertise at the moment.... the wins the British teams get, are gotten despite the coaches, more than because of them... where the opposite can be said for trams like Joy, Tonton and Menace.

Nick

 

[Chicago]

I mean no offence to anyone here.... but trust me when I say, I know a little bit about how a good X-Ball coach works his snake.... and I believe all the british teams are failing in this field of expertise at the moment.... the wins the British teams get, are gotten despite the coaches, more than because of them... where the opposite can be said for trams like Joy, Tonton and Menace.

Just because some teams arn't any good doesn't mean the format is bad. If half of the basketball teams didn't have anoyne who could shoot freethrows, would you take freethrows out of the game? If two soccer teams play and one has a goalie who can't block shots, wouldn't you expect that team to lose?

Maybe instead of designing fields so that teams that can't coach don't suffer for it we should just let those teams keep losing until they work on their coaching. It's not their opponent's fault that they're good.

"Coaching is bad because some teams are bad at it" just isn't a good argument.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

If half of the basketball teams didn't have anoyne who could shoot freethrows, would you take freethrows out of the game? If two soccer teams play and one has a goalie who can't block shots, wouldn't you expect that team to lose?

Well, none of those examples cover in-game coaching - they all relate to the ability of the PLAYERS - which should quite obviously have an impact on the outcome of a game.

If you had used NFL football as an example, and said a bad coach may call bad plays, then I would agree.

But, the question then becomes if we want paintball to become that "managed" by the coaches?

Personally, I would prefer - as much as possible - to lessen the impact of in-game coaching.... while still allowing the spectators to get involved with the game verbally.

If you take the opposite standpoint, we might as well go all the way and allow intercom systems for the coach to communicate dirrectly with all the players on-field - like they allow it in for instance pro cycling.

Nick

 

[jim]

Hide and Seek

When we played this as kids didn't you just hate the kid who told where everyone was hiding .
Ban the coaching !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Robbo]

are you saying everybody that agrees with coaching " like me " has an unsophisticated opinion?

It doesn't say that at all Billy... read it again and you will see exactly what it says !

If you imagine what Paintball is like without the attendant coaches in 5 man Xball (lite or full) then you get a more open game of Paintball coz coaches ain't alerting players of any impending bunker run.
When you factor that out of the game it promotes more aggressive play because the players then know they ain't gonna be grassed up from the side line and if as we all know, more aggressive play is more attractive play then this will put more bums on seats than anything that deters aggressive moves.

When you have imagined what it would be like then this is a more sophisticated position from which to hold an opinion of whether coaching is beneficial or not.


Nick : Maybe you are right about the can of worms but if it can be done, it can be undone and I can't imagine any change in Paintball (apart from going from pump to semi) that is irreversible, all it takes is balls and some common sense.
With the Millennium at least going thru the motions of telling us they have turned a new leaf, I think they should at least canvass the pros to see what the base opinion is...but this maybe academic anyways because the main dynamic is gonna be Stateside driven anyway.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Nick : Maybe you are right about the can of worms but if it can be done, it can be undone and I can't imagine any change in Paintball (apart from going from pump to semi) that is irreversible, all it takes is balls and some common sense.
With the Millennium at least going thru the motions of telling us they have turned a new leaf, I think they should at least canvass the pros to see what the base opinion is...but this maybe academic anyways because the main dynamic is gonna be Stateside driven anyway.

Well, personally I am not convinced the "can of worms" is entirely a bad thing.... worms catch fish

If we went back, we would effectively ban any form of spectator participation, and I think that development has been great for the sport.

It may be academic, but that does not mean I will not have my say, now that the debate is opened up on this fine forum... and every now and then, I am actually right you know

I think the perfect solution is one where you limit the effects of coaching, but keep the current spectator involvement.

Nick

 

[Robbo]

Well, personally I am not convinced the "can of worms" is entirely a bad thing.... worms catch fish

If we went back, we would effectively ban any form of spectator participation, and I think that development has been great for the sport.

It may be academic, but that does not mean I will not have my say, now that the debate is opened up on this fine forum... and every now and then, I am actually right you know

I think the perfect solution is one where you limit the effects of coaching, but keep the current spectator involvement.

Nick

I quite like your idea of banning sideline coaching as we have now, shifting the spectator line back and so everything gets lost amid the shouting anyway.
The players can then just ignore it all and thus stop scumbags like schmidt from counter-coaching.
Crowd participation is upheld and aggressive play remains unhindered, seems like a perfect plan to me..