‘Talking Tactically’

with Lachlan Tighe..... 

(a weekly edition, commenced 12/9/2001, of thoughts, observations and commentaries on developments for bowls coaching and competition)

‘ Players quandary…selection’

(edition 114  - 2004 of thoughts & observations on lawn bowls)

Gee this is a concern right across the spectrum of the sport. The traditional approach in selection has to change for the sake of the players and success of all teams at all levels.

Over the past week I have mixed in bowls circles at national, state, premier league and last night pennant club level.  In every instance it is patently obvious that players, at each of these four levels, perform (at their intended best) without any prior and precise knowledge of what is expected (in performance) from them at their respective levels.

            In fact in one setting a selector (trying to be of assistance) told the players they had to have 60% effective bowls and when I randomly asked 7 players to describe ‘effective’, as an audience we heard 7 different answers.  Stopped asking anyone else, point made.

            And after competition no feedback from selectors seems to be provided to assist the better level of player to understand their current standing in the selectors eyes.

            I cannot control selection.

            What I reinforce to those 16 players I coach is to firstly accept that they don’t control selectors either, however (secondly) their performance may influence selectors so let us set standards and objectives pre the event we believe will be acceptable, achievable and successful at the relevant (competition) level.

            For a recent state event I set these as measure and objectives for one of the squad. This required the player as a lead to keep a scorecard for each of the 5 games played, and, to learn a new skill of estimating distance and length from the playing end to tally the score.

            Assuming each game is 21 ends, 42 deliveries the measures for game one were

21 of 42 deliveries to be within a mat length (ML) of jack as my definition of effective bowling

how many of the 21 ends did you have 2 bowls within ML

how many of the 21 ends did you have 1 bowl within ML

how many of the 21 ends did you have no bowls within ML

how many touchers for this game

how many times did you successfully deliver the jack within a metre of the designated length.

(I haste to point out that I think 60% of deliveries or 25 of 42 deliveries is around a state level expectation; I only set 21/42 in game one to allow him to face a realistic level of achievement to commence his 5 game competition program).

            What the player has after game one is information and source knowledge to set the benchmark for the next 4 games.

            At the end of the 5 games the player should now compile, record, review and share that data with me as they have an average for the program, they have a ‘pb’ from the program which they can take as a starting measure into future games where they are to lead.

            As you can see there is no mention of the team result as the role as the lead is to build the foundation, not as one bloke said just be cannon fodder (what a mindset, something which I have not found to be unusual given the grounding we all get as we rise up the scale).

            Without the knowledge in ‘battle’ the stats in training are meaningless.  All the stats from training say is you have basic technical skill.

            Compiling the stats in competition requires a commitment, even more so if you are playing like a dog.  That is a true level of commitment, to strive further.

            What we did is only a start and there may be other players and coaches doing it better than us (so please please share with us),but the information we collect in this manner overcomes the absence of feedback from selectors. 

Or for that matter team mates in club setting who as we well know score each others performances.

            Let me share a giggle session. On the weekend one of our squad playing in pennant had 68% of his deliveries as lead within ML and a team mate said he didn’t play well.  What if that team mate was a selector !!!

Hello, 68% within ML would catch the eye of the state selectors methinks let alone a local pennant competition.

What I do is convince the squad player to totally disregard that teammates judgement as it has no factual basis.  The important point is to view your collected information as the sound grounds (facts) on which you can continue your training to meet your competitive goals over the season.

Might I say had the % been ordinary the view of the team mate would be in accord with the facts.  But that is opinion and guesswork, sorry not good enough.

This objective approach I am fostering with the squad is only a start and will not happen overnight.  However it still does not account for a players mental skill application, their team skill and contribution as a positive influence and supportive team member.

Lachlan Tighe