5 ms·
> Two hours a week of coaching is better than none. No one gets good at anything on two hours a week of practice. Absolutely nothing. Two hours a week will bar
by barry-cotter 8y ago
> Two hours a week of coaching is better than none.
No one gets good at anything on two hours a week of practice. Absolutely nothing. Two hours a week will barely get you past novice in a year. It’s so little, so seldom that a substantial amount of each lesson has to be revision too but even if learning was instant and perfect 100 hours a year rounds to nothing.
> Unstructured play is great, but it's no substitute for targeting coaching when it comes to developing useful skills.
Tell it to the Chinese football team. Then tell it to the Brazilian football team.
- nradov 8y agoBullshit. I've seen my own children and their peers make significant improvements in several sports with only 2-3 hours a week of coached practice. For example it's not that hard to learn a decent swimming crawl stroke, but almost no one can figure out the right technique on their own. That takes an experienced instructor and focused, disciplined practice. You might have had a bad experience in PE class but don't project your own failings on others.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- vanderZwan 8y ago> No one gets good at anything on two hours a week of practice. Absolutely nothing. You have never done any sports, have you? > Tell it to the Chinese football team. Then tell it to the Brazilian football team. Are you seriously going to use two professional teams with extensive professional coaching as an argument against the use of coaching? Nobody is arguing against unstructured play, you are just trying to steer the conversation into a direction where it's an either/or situation where it is not.