Sign up to Total Squash now and get access to all content, or learn more.
Sign up to Total Squash now and get access to all content, or learn more.
Developing skilled squash players for long term benefits – perhaps just like the Egyptian’s seem to do it.
“I believe many talented youngsters in all sports fall by the wayside and never reach their true potential. There are numerous reasons for this, of course, but I think over pedantic coaches are a significant factor. Coaching is important but the balance needs to be right. Youngsters need to develop good techniques and they certainly need a good understanding of the game. On the other hand, it’s vital that they aren’t turned into little machines with each of them being manufactured to play in exactly the same way. Flair and individuality should be allowed to flourish.”
Peter Marshall, Ex World No2, British Champion, Shattered, p34.
Watching squash players play the game worse than they practice has been somewhat of a mystery to me. I have noticed that players who can hit the ball sweetly in training routines and feeding sessions often struggle to produce the same level out there in matches. In fact, what I admire when watching the very top players is their ability to play outstanding shots under pressure in all types of conditions. The very best players seem to be able to produce their best rallies when it really matters, in an actual match. Generally, the best players make very good decisions under pressure and they do this very quickly. There is an instinct at work too and these two qualities combined make for an excellent squash competitor; a player who appreciates that the sport is more about outwitting an opponent than just hitting ‘good’ shots. This is the most impressive part of watching the best of the best. In the world junior and male squash scenes currently lots of those players are from of a country called
How do players get to this level of skill then? How do they manage not to look “coached”? How do they play as if it means nothing when it means everything to them? What is really going on from a skill learning perspective? Here are some thoughts.
Functional Variability – the really ‘skilled’ player.
Research from the “Dynamical Systems” area suggests that all human existence is chaotic because of the mix between the organism (person) and the environment they are in. Within a person there are 3 areas at work; the neural (brain) system, the muscoskeletal (body) system and the perceptual (decision making) system. Basically there is a lot of complicated stuff going on in every person every time an action needs to be made because of how these 3 systems interact with eachother and the environment we are in, moment to moment. The good news is that we are quite marvellous at creating order from all the potential confusion and chaos. We have a basic human drive to achieve order and our system is amazing at self organising things so that life appears quite simple.
Squash example:
Lets take just one shot; say the backhand drop shot. How many different versions of this shot can you think of? Let me throw in a few variables that could affect the type of backhand drop you need to be able to play.
Table of potential constraints/variations on a backhand drop shot
|
Player
|
Environment
|
Task (the shot)
|
|
How fresh are you? Mental state? Confidence levels? Skill level (touch)? Current Emotions? Size of player? Tiredness? Injury or niggle? Experience level? |
Other player’s ability to pick shot up? Court conditions (floor, walls)? Court Temperature? Match score (first few rallies or match point?) Crowd noise? Who is watching? Size of crowd? Glass court or plaster court? |
Where from exactly? Spin on ball? What was shot before? Where have you moved from to get to the shot? Ball temperature? What type of drop do you want/need to play (hard, cut, topspin, sidespin, soft, push) Target (nick or sidewall) Equipment (strings, racket) Intent of drop (defending drop, moving drop, finishing drop) |
How many versions of the backhand drop do you think you need to be able to play then? 5? 50? 500? 5000? 50,000? Would a player ever hit exactly the same backhand drop shot in a career? If we need to be able to produce all these shots (just for one shot!) then how do expert squash players manage to do it so well in fast matches, under pressure? The key is what researchers have termed functional variability.
In a study of expert blacksmiths something very interesting was discovered relating to how our brains produce skill. Blacksmiths were instructed to hammer a specific point on an anvil over 1000 attempts. When the accuracy was measured it was truly expert; every attempt was perfect but for miniscule deviations. When the researchers analysed the arm movements of all 1000 of the hits on the anvil, no two techniques were exactly the same. The brain just found a way to make sure it adapted slightly and hit the target exactly. Of course there was a basic technique involved but the true skill of the experts was that their brains could always find a way to adjust. When compared with amateur blacksmiths they had much better abilities at coming up with the adjustments required at the time of the strike. All the best craftsmen are like this and best of all they can execute their best skills in all conditions: whilst holding a horse’s leg! In poor light conditions! With cold hands! Whilst tired! Whilst feeling unwell or stressed! This is functional variability – the ability to function expertly in a huge range of variable circumstances.
So what does this mean for squash players and squash coaches?
Well it makes two crucial points. First is that technique that is mainly learned under steady, constant, repetitive and emotionally stable practice conditions will lead to limited skill levels. Functional variability will be limited. Technique will look grooved and ‘textbook’ but it will break down when many different conditions (constraints) are placed on the shot. These types of practice sessions tend to rely heavily on coach feedback and instruction which can cause problems later down the line. Things may look great by the end of the session but what have you actually achieved? Who owned the thinking and working out in the session (cognitive effort)? Who did all the work in the session? Did the coach actually limit the player’s learning because they had all the answers and solutions to the problem being worked on? - a sort of over protective parent attitude, where the learner can’t be trusted to find a way themselves. We all know what happens to over protected children when they have to make it on their own.
Second point is that if you practice your shots in game play style practice conditions, you will be more likely to produce all the variations of core skills needed in squash no matter what the conditions (constraints). Routines that replicate game situations especially in terms of decision making, pressure, levels of tiredness, speed of play, scoring, different opponents, varied court conditions, times of day, emotional differences, length of practice and distractions will allow for greater functional variability. This will force players to cope; they will have to develop strategies and techniques to master their environment and find order from the chaos that is a Squash match. Skills for all occasions!
When skill breaks down…….how did that happen, I can’t miss in practice?
One possible explanation for poor execution of skills under pressure is summed up in a term used by “skill development” researchers called ‘REINVESTMENT’.
“Reinvestment is the tendency to direct conscious attention to the mechanical details of how a skill should be performed.”
Masters, R. Developing Sport Expertise, p90
Most coaches when developing skill will reiterate their “golden rules” of technique to players they are aiming to develop. These ‘rules’ have to be quite horrendously bad for them not to be useful in some way to the learner. Take for example the “cocked wrist” versus “relaxed wrist” approach to hitting a squash ball. Both completely different approaches but both have proved very useful in developing skilled squash players. The point is that whatever camp you are in technically, a coach can often feel the desperate need for the performer to take on board the merits of what you believe in because as a coach you know 100% in your mind, that if they just understand and do what you are preaching, then they will be far better off. Well this is where the issue of ‘reinvestment’ comes in.
Performers who are forced to acquire templates of technical instruction develop a deep well of technical RULES and KNOWLEDGE about particular shots. With repeated practice these shots become expert and automatic and all appears well. Great coaching, excellent learning, now let’s go and win. The trouble is the shots will forever be linked to an obvious set of verbal instructions of what is right and wrong. It is this conscious verbal set of rules that pops in to the head (consciousness) when we are under pressure that interferes with our flow. In other words it is these rules that limit the brains ability to just find a way. Worse still, reinvestment is magnified when we have time to think or are placed in pressure situations. For example, just imagine yourself playing in an important match that is really close. Your opponent plays a back wall boast that bounces high into the front court! A soft straight drop is required. You have practiced it all week. You know that if you;
1. open the racket face,
2. don’t take much of a backswing
3. send the leading edge of the racket through the ball
4. have ‘space’ from the ball
5. rotate your shoulders slightly
6. imagine you are releasing ‘a bubble’ from your racket
then you will play the perfect shot. The thing is you are tired, it is 7 – 7 in the fourth game and you are 2-1 down. The ball has a bit of spin on it, your opponent is getting everything back and not looking tired, you have just lost the last 4 points, you really (honestly) never play well at this club (especially on this court) and you have not beaten this opponent ever before.
Do you get the urge to hit deep again? Or can you comfortably take in a soft drop shot?
Just observing Amr Shabanna, Ramy Ashour, Wael El Hindi and Karim Darwish the other day (on TV), I noticed no patterned way to play a forehand drop. Generally, there were 4 different styles at work belonging to each player with some basic similarities of space and grip. Apart from that they definitely looked to me like they had no rules by which to abide by or refer to. Shots looked almost improvised and they appeared to play whatever was required to get the ball in short in the way that was tactically needed. This is especially noticeable in Ramy Ashour’s style; you get more than a feeling that he learned his skills with no technical ‘golden template’ in mind. He has his own rules based on feel and experience of taking that ball in many times over under many different constraints. Complete FUNCTIONAL VARIABILITY with hardly any possibility of REINVESTMENT taking place. For me, from a skills perspective, this is why Ramy Ashour is exciting to watch and why he makes others appearing to look coached and much more basic in their playing style!
Final Thoughts – should we throw away the technical handbook then?
Not at all. Technical teachings are clearly important in sport. Some individuals thrive off it and some sports require technical precision more than others. Having basics of technique linked to grip and movement are always going to be important. This will help players to be able to actually hit the ball and develop the skills to play rallies. After this, then ‘implicit/internal’ learning can begin to happen more easily. Just like fitness really: it is hard to get highly fit when you aren’t fit enough to train in the first place! Another thing about technical changes is that it can lead to benefits in other areas such as giving you more time, helping to reduce workload, aiding movement, simplifying things to create consistency and so on. It is just that coaches need to be wary how the technical information is taken in and utilised by the player. Coaches must notice how the player individualises the technical points with personal imagination and allow them to explore it despite noticing “technical imperfections!”
Ten Suggestions for a more implicit method of learning skills:
Danny Massaro
www.uksquashonline.com
March 08 - just after watching Cristiano Ronaldo toe end another free kick into the net with his technique that he adapted from his table tennis skills!!!!!!
