why even watch the sport that you can't even play?

Originally posted by uzless
Based on what? You can't just make a statement like that and then walk away. It's meaningless palynka type territory you've wandered into there bubs.

OK, you've got me. I retract my statement. This discussion is not interesting.

Originally posted by richjohnson
OK, you've got me. I retract my statement. This discussion is not interesting.

Yes, it's always boring when someone asks you to back up your opinion with facts

Originally posted by uzless
NOTE: I note that no one came up with a clip to get some real emperical data. That's what I thought. Either laziness rules the day, or no one is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Naah, no-one cares about figure skating with sticks. Either that, or no-one thinks your little 'rants' hold any water and don't want to waste more time.

Originally posted by uzless
Good Coaches don't necessarily need to know the game. Coaching is more about motivating your players. You don't need to know the game to be a sucessful coach.

Just as good players don't always make good coaches because they don't know how to motivate or communicate. They just expect their players to play and understand the game like they did. (think Wayne Gretzky)

I'd agree to the extent that a good coach has to be able to communicate. But I can't agree they don't need to understand the game as well. The coaches who are consistently successful are the ones that understand the game and can communicate that. You need both.

Example - Kevin Keegan. Inspiring manager, according to everyone who's played under him. But he was out of his depth tactically as an international manager.

There's a difference, I think, between an instinctive understanding and an intellectual understanding. Great players will often have the former, but they can't necessarily explain it. Great coaches have the latter. Some have both (Johannes Crujff is a good example of that).

Originally posted by mtthw
I'd agree to the extent that a good coach has to be able to communicate. But I can't agree they don't need to understand the game as well. The coaches who are consistently successful are the ones that understand the game and can communicate that. You need both.

Example - Kevin Keegan. Inspiring manager, according to everyone who's played under hi reat coaches have the latter. Some have both (Johannes Crujff is a good example of that).

Um, there are reasons why coaches have Assistant coaches. It's to teach the technicalities of the game to the players. It's to work on little things, like face-off techniques or goaltending angles. They hire strength and conditioning coaches to work on cardio programs. Football has offensive and defensive co-ordinators that actually call all the plays.

So, again, what exactly does a coach do? Rare coaches may do all these things. Most don't.

They motivate.

Originally posted by uzless
Um, there are reasons why coaches have Assistant coaches. It's to teach the technicalities of the game to the players. It's to work on little things, like face-off techniques or goaltending angles. They hire strength and conditioning coaches to work on cardio programs. Football has offensive and defensive co-ordinators that actually call all the plays.
...[text shortened]... xactly does a coach do? Rare coaches may do all these things. Most don't.

They motivate.

What about the strategic element of the game? You don't think it exists or do you also think the main coach should delegate that?

Originally posted by Palynka
What about the strategic element of the game? You don't think it exists or do you also think the main coach should delegate that?

Don't lose focus of the point palynka. People tried to say that good coaches haven't neccesarily been ex-players...thereby, somehow proving that ex players aren't the only one's who can have true insight into the game.

I pointed out that the main part of a coach's job is to motivate his players, not to teach them the game per se. They have assistants for this.

Coaches can "know" strategies all they want but unless they've played, they don't always know what a player is "THINKING" when the player makes a play, or more importantly, makes a mistake.

See, most non-players only see what in their minds are "mistakes". For us ex-players we see mistakes as "failures to execute what you were trying to do". The difference between a mistake and an execution failure is your "INTENT". What were you TRYING to do when the "mistake" happened?

Only ex-players can look at another player and know what the "INTENT" of the player was because we know what the player was thinking when he did it. We base this from our experience in the same situation as the player on tv, we gain knowledge from his body position, from understanding what the ice/field looks like from the PLAYER'S PERSPECTIVE (not the tv-side view they show on tv) and most importantly we understand the TYPE (tough/scared/smart/risk-taker etc) of player that made the mistake because we've played with all of those types of players in past and we know how each type of player reacts in those situations.

To say you can learn this insight from watching tv is a joke. The shear magnitude of your ignorance is astounding on this one. See the quote below this post for some more insight....

Taken from the movie Good Will Hunting, slightly modified for our purposes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sean Maguire: You're just a non-hockey player, you don't have the faintest idea what you're talkin' about.
Will Hunting: Why thank you.
Sean Maguire: It's all right. You've never been out of Boston.
Will Hunting: Nope.
Sean Maguire: So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that. If I ask you about women, you'd probably give me a syllabus about your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You're a tough kid. And I'd ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right, "once more unto the breach dear friends." But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help. I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer. And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much. And look at you... I don't see an intelligent, confident man... I see a cocky, scared kid. But you're a genius Will. No one denies that. No one could possibly understand the depths of you. But you presume to know everything about hockey because you saw a game on tv? You're an orphan right? [Will nods] You think I know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are, because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you? Personally... I don't care about all that, because you know what, I can't learn anything from you, I can't read in some other post. Unless you want to talk about the clip. Then I'm fascinated. I'm in. But you don't want to do that do you, sport? You're terrified of what you might say. Your move, chief.

Originally posted by uzless
Um, there are reasons why coaches have Assistant coaches. It's to teach the technicalities of the game to the players. It's to work on little things, like face-off techniques or goaltending angles. They hire strength and conditioning coaches to work on cardio programs. Football has offensive and defensive co-ordinators that actually call all the plays.
...[text shortened]... xactly does a coach do? Rare coaches may do all these things. Most don't.

They motivate.

Would you agree then that for a player to know all these things he has to be taught them by other people? That simply "playing" the game doesn't inherently create the knowledge?

Originally posted by Traveling Again
Would you agree then that for a player to know all these things he has to be taught them by other people? That simply "playing" the game doesn't inherently create the knowledge?

No, I learned a tonne of things that weren't taught.

For instance, no coach can teach you that when you are skating toward the corner of a rink to get the puck to distinguish between the sound made by the skates of a normal forechecker coming at your from behind versus the sounds of the skates made by someone intent on putting your face through the boards.

Believe me, you cannot teach this, but you sure as hell learn it on your own.

Originally posted by uzless
No, I learned a tonne of things that weren't taught.

For instance, no coach can teach you that when you are skating toward the corner of a rink to get the puck to distinguish between the sound made by the skates of a normal forechecker coming at your from behind versus the sounds of the skates made by someone intent on putting your face through the boards.

Believe me, you cannot teach this, but you sure as hell learn it on your own.

I understand what you are saying about the nuances of a game and I agree whole-heartedly
that a player has a greater chance of picking up on these -- and maybe ONLY a player can pick
up on them, but that doesn't mean the player can't pass the knowledge on -- that doesn't
mean that a non-player can never learn these things. Because I just learned something about
hockey without having to play it - a nuance that not even a coach can teach (as you say) --
skates make different sounds on the ice depending on the intent of the skater. You passed this
knowledge on to us. Now, when I watch a hockey game I'll keep this in mind.

Does that mean I'll have the same skill as you or another seasoned hockey player? No,
but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about knowledge of the game (if I'm
in the thread I think I am). Players can pass on knowledge about the nuances -- that's what
coaching and teaching is about. Knowledge can be passed on, even to someone who doesn't
play it. And in the other thread, when you explain the nuances of the hockey video, you'll be
passing on the knowledge to those of us who never played.

Originally posted by uzless
No, I learned a tonne of things that weren't taught.

For instance, no coach can teach you that when you are skating toward the corner of a rink to get the puck to distinguish between the sound made by the skates of a normal forechecker coming at your from behind versus the sounds of the skates made by someone intent on putting your face through the boards.

Believe me, you cannot teach this, but you sure as hell learn it on your own.

This is a wonderful post, as it proves that a 'watcher' can understand the subtleties of a game just as well.

The watcher can easily see the intent of an opposition player and understand why [you] did what you did when [you] got to the puck, as he could see the intent - probably much better, actually - instead of 'sensing' it by the sound of skates on the ice.


Thanks for proving my point.

Originally posted by uzless
Don't lose focus of the point palynka. People tried to say that good coaches haven't neccesarily been ex-players...thereby, somehow proving that ex players aren't the only one's who can have true insight into the game.

I pointed out that the main part of a coach's job is to motivate his players, not to teach them the game per se. They have assistants for ...[text shortened]... ing on this one. See the quote below this post for some more insight....

You're seriously deluded if you think that only ex-players can know the "intent". You cannot know what he was thinking anymore than a non-player. Unless you want to make some claim about mind-reading skills, it all comes down to observation. This is valid for every single one of your points. What you need is to be able to infer correctly from what you observe.

But it's funny that you keep insisting on a losing battle. EVEN if you were right, then it would mean that it would be impossible to explain by words the intangible aspects of the game. So any possible example you can provide is in contradiction of your opinion.

Originally posted by Palynka
You're seriously deluded if you think that only ex-players can know the "intent". You cannot know what he was thinking anymore than a non-player. Unless you want to make some claim about mind-reading skills, it all comes down to observation. This is valid for every single one of your points. What you need is to be able to infer correctly from what you observ ts of the game. So any possible example you can provide is in contradiction of your opinion.

I don't think uzless is claiming any "intangible" metaphysical knowledge here. Rather he is referring to "subjective" knowledge - knowledge about what a given player is himself experiencing while out there playing.

By playing the game yourself, you have a much better ability of guessing at what the other players are directly experiencing or thinking. Obviously, there's no way for any observer to fully KNOW what another person is experiencing and thinking, but the player would seem to have a much better chance at making a good guess.

I like his example about the sounds of the skates. As a non-player, I don't think I would have ever thought about this element until uzless brought it up. And even so, I still have no idea what the difference between the two sounds are. I can try to imagine the difference, but the only way I could really KNOW would be to get out and play. And it would be very hard to for uzless to teach me the difference between the two sounds (even a audio-video recording wouldn't fully capture it).

Originally posted by Crowley
This is a wonderful post, as it proves that a 'watcher' can understand the subtleties of a game just as well.

The watcher can easily see the intent of an opposition player and understand why [you] did what you did when [you] got to the puck, as he could see the intent - probably much better, actually - instead of 'sensing' it by the sound of skates on the ice.


Thanks for proving my point.

ug, the player can't see someone coming at them from behind.



Next time a player coughs up the puck, are you going to blame it on skate blade noises?? It MAY be correct, or maybe it's because the goalie was yelling a warning to him...maybe someone from the bench was warning him to move the puck fast. Maybe there is an entirely different reason like he was just tired and wanted to get rid of the puck and get off the ice. You'll never know unless someone explains it to you.

Your posts on this topic are garbage. You have no idea. I am done with you.