I was thinking more the popeye character but then I realised he is called Bluto. He's proper clever though.PS Bjohnson: the word Platonic is a derivative of Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, not the planet Pluto
Question !
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Just having confidence will not always make a winning team.
Knowing your opponents stragety or move, will help boost your confidence. You can make the decision of your teams style of play, try to adapt, stay one move ahead of the game, knowing how to counter threats.
Having confidence without stragety, your only kidding yourself.
Knowing your opponents stragety or move, will help boost your confidence. You can make the decision of your teams style of play, try to adapt, stay one move ahead of the game, knowing how to counter threats.
Having confidence without stragety, your only kidding yourself.
Confidence, or lack of comes in 2 forms within a team,on the individual basis, you may be confident of your abilities, but if your team mates do not give you confidence, then you will suffer accordingly.
A lack of confidence within a team though will always create a negative impact in the results. If you take the field in any sport doubting your ability to win the game, well the result os already bourne out then, as your game will reflect tish witha backfoot/negative approach that any opponant (should) capitalise on.
This is like a cancer that grows and grows over time as your confidence reduces with every negative result, till you reach a point of hopelesness and your team dissolves.
A lack of confidence within a team though will always create a negative impact in the results. If you take the field in any sport doubting your ability to win the game, well the result os already bourne out then, as your game will reflect tish witha backfoot/negative approach that any opponant (should) capitalise on.
This is like a cancer that grows and grows over time as your confidence reduces with every negative result, till you reach a point of hopelesness and your team dissolves.
I think agressive strategies win more games, as long as the aggresive strategy is considered properly. I'd like to hope you would agree as well Robbo, becuase I have just finished reading your article in PGi Issue 213 (Dec 06) titled 'A fire inside', where you state 'The more aggresive our play, the more chance we have of winning consistently, as long as our aggression isnt overplayed'.
Good solid confidence I feel should come from a progression in ability (whatever the discipline paintball or otherwise), and good ability promoting good confidence on the field will allow this game winning agressive play.
Definatly agree with that
We were going up against a team that my squad considered "Good", then my lil bro comes and say to me, look they cant play left down the snake. so we just picked the appropriate end
Knowing the opponent definatly helps, but does that make you confident??
OK, here we go, you can win games playing both aggressively and defensively but you will always tend to win more games playing aggressively [positively].
That said, if we now consider a particular team, it matters not who they are but we can categorically state, if this team plays aggressively [positively] then they will win more games - but how the hell can I state that?
I mean, it's all well and good me just stating it but that's not proof in any way, I am gonna have to back my shiznit up.
The reason I suggest aggressive play wins more games is because I am adopting two methods of analysis here.
Firstly, I have seen thousands of games in my 22 years in paintball, I have also played in thousands of games as a pro for 10 years with 5 of those playing years in the US.
I ain't missed much but my point is, even though I have seen many examples of aggressive play tending to be more successful, this still doesn't mean it's proof.
This is just testimonial evidence borne out of my experience in our sport.
Mind you, don't knock people's experiences, it serves us well but as I say, still not proof.
My proof, or an approximation to it, follows these lines, when players play positively [aggressively] they tend to take the initiative when it comes to moving upfield, that's commonsense.
At this point, let's consider the following, if we then look across the whole team during the whole game where one particular team pays aggressively, we will generally witness more of their players making that first move.
That being the case, the move has two fundamental effects on the game, firstly it opens up new angles, not only new target angles (for opponents you couldn't even see before) but also wider angles where it's more difficult for the other team to defend themselves.
I need you to think about this point for a while, if you make a forward move, the angles tend to flatten in respect of your position and their target profile becomes larger.
Secondly, the aggressive team has an element of surprise inasmuch as players who move upfield will on occasion, blindside an opponent and that opponent has his big fat ass hanging out for you to light up like Las Vegas at Xmas time.
In a definitive sense this is not an exact proof I know but it's as near as you are gonna get to one I'm afraid when trying to analyze a sport.
And so, we have aggressive teams flattening angles, sometimes gaining the element of surprise and opening up new targets ...this is now a powerful weapon in a team's armoury.
So far so good, but can we just flesh the front end of this question a little more by considering how having less confidence can influence whether a team plays aggressively or not.
That said, if we now consider a particular team, it matters not who they are but we can categorically state, if this team plays aggressively [positively] then they will win more games - but how the hell can I state that?
I mean, it's all well and good me just stating it but that's not proof in any way, I am gonna have to back my shiznit up.
The reason I suggest aggressive play wins more games is because I am adopting two methods of analysis here.
Firstly, I have seen thousands of games in my 22 years in paintball, I have also played in thousands of games as a pro for 10 years with 5 of those playing years in the US.
I ain't missed much but my point is, even though I have seen many examples of aggressive play tending to be more successful, this still doesn't mean it's proof.
This is just testimonial evidence borne out of my experience in our sport.
Mind you, don't knock people's experiences, it serves us well but as I say, still not proof.
My proof, or an approximation to it, follows these lines, when players play positively [aggressively] they tend to take the initiative when it comes to moving upfield, that's commonsense.
At this point, let's consider the following, if we then look across the whole team during the whole game where one particular team pays aggressively, we will generally witness more of their players making that first move.
That being the case, the move has two fundamental effects on the game, firstly it opens up new angles, not only new target angles (for opponents you couldn't even see before) but also wider angles where it's more difficult for the other team to defend themselves.
I need you to think about this point for a while, if you make a forward move, the angles tend to flatten in respect of your position and their target profile becomes larger.
Secondly, the aggressive team has an element of surprise inasmuch as players who move upfield will on occasion, blindside an opponent and that opponent has his big fat ass hanging out for you to light up like Las Vegas at Xmas time.
In a definitive sense this is not an exact proof I know but it's as near as you are gonna get to one I'm afraid when trying to analyze a sport.
And so, we have aggressive teams flattening angles, sometimes gaining the element of surprise and opening up new targets ...this is now a powerful weapon in a team's armoury.
So far so good, but can we just flesh the front end of this question a little more by considering how having less confidence can influence whether a team plays aggressively or not.
if you lack confidence you tend to be less psyched up for a game.
this leaves you less adrenaline, less aggresive- therefore less keen (or indeed possibly foolhardy) enough to make that "brave" move up field.
this leaves you less adrenaline, less aggresive- therefore less keen (or indeed possibly foolhardy) enough to make that "brave" move up field.
I hardly think the odd pink shirt excludes me from rational thought! And I certainly do not own a "man bag". Anyway, looking like a gay arms dealer never did me any harm with the ladies. In fact it probably helped as they didn't realise they were being trafficed until they were 20 up in a container.