This leads me to ask a question which has intrigued me for some time. What is the correct balance between technique and tactics on a coaching course? Am I wrong in thinking that in the UK little attention is paid to the coaching of technique?

At the Maui Croquet Club, our coaching sessions are called "Techniques and Tactics". We spend equal time on each.

For example, this afternoon the technique will be the "reference split" (splitting hoop #1 from half way between the hoop and the corner), and the tactic will be building a four-ball break using bisques.

Technique
Players will be coached on how to setup and execute the reference split. Then they will practice doing the split (and then running the hoop, and roqueting the receiver ball) for about half an hour.

Tactic
One player will place the four balls anywhere from which they think it will be hard to build a four-ball break. [That's an interesting exercise in itself, and they learn quite a bit from just doing that.] Then another player takes the shortest shot (and takes croquet even if the roquet is not made), and then is coached on the easiest (least bisques) way to build a four-ball break from that position. Then the players reverse their roles. It takes about half an hour.

P.S.
It's called the "reference" split because during a game players can gauge an actual split against the reference split. For example, their actual split might be half the reference distance, and thus require half the force.

My opinion is that there is far too little technique taught in the UK. Somehow it is assumed that once someone has been shown how to play the strokes as a beginner, they don't need to go over them again. I would think about 50% of coaching could/should be on technique, but suspect it is closer to 5%. But I'm not much involved in coaching now, so my experiences may not be representative.

However, whenever you look at a B-class player and wonder what the difference between them and an A-class player is, the answer is almost always that their tactics are bad — their ball positioning on 4 ball breaks causes them to break down too much. It is very rarely that their strokes are poor.

I think the third "T" (temperament, to go along with tactics and techniques) is even more overlooked than technique. And yet to progress much beyond the B class, you either have to be born with an ideal termperament (e.g. apparently Mark Avery) or have to work very hard on attitude, calm-headedness, positivity, and all the rest. I feel that for many aspiring top players, it is this struggle that proves the hardest — and also for which there is the least help.

Isn't it likely that the poor positioning is, to some extent at least, a result of playing the shots poorly?

I went on a "gold" level coaching course in the UK last year, and although it was very good on things like ball positioning, it included more or less nothing on improving technique. As a largely self-taught player I'm sure my technique is far from optimal, and I was hoping the course would help me improve it.

It's probably a problem of both technique and tactics, but quite often when questioning a B-class player on why they placed a pioneer where they did you often discover that they were trying to put it in the wrong place.

I think that much of this is that you are normally told, as a beginner, to send a pioneer ("near that hoop") or possibly "lawn side of that hoop". That's not too bad when you're just starting out and have a large error margin. However, as they improve, many people never think again about where to put pioneers and keep sending them to "near" a hoop.

I accepted that it may not end up anywhere near where you want, but if you have a spot in mind, it will end up near there more often than if you only have a vague (or incorrect) area in mind.

This of course applies at all levels - you may also recall a recent Stephen Mulliner v the Rest discussion on where to place balls when setting for a straight double peel (near the peg or near rover).

Technique (above a certain standard) probably needs much more one to one coaching than a group course.

Maybe Jonathan meant that, but even then are the shots played poorly because of poor technique or poor execution? Watching croquet, and the variety of styles one sees, one has to wonder whether technique is so important. What is important is good execution; handsome is as handsome does.

The way to achieve good execution is through practice, with well understood goals. Even if improvement is slow, you should at least learn how accurately you can play the different shots, then you can tailor your objectives to your known accuracy. The accurate assessment of one's own abilities is an extremely important skill.

The world's top players play with widely divergent techniques. Who's to tell you which of those to choose, or worse, to say which of them is wrong?

I agree with Jonathan's estimate of the percentage of time given to coaching technique in the UK, and also with the points made by John Daniels.

However, has anyone in the UK made a detailed study of technique, to the point where they are equipped to coach it effectively? Or we in the position of having to hope our basic technique is adequate, and hope that by practice our accuracy will improve to the extent that we can successfully pursue our chosen tactics, rather than having constantly having to adjust them to the way the balls actually lie? (I refer to my own C-class play here, but my comments may also fid some resonance with B-class players.)

Martin, I think John was looking for help in his technique. If you don't have good technique or know exactly why things work the way they do then how can you improve your execution? Handsome isn't if handsome doesn't know what handsome is.

I don't think one has to copy how top players technique and I don't think a coach should force a player to use a certain technique unless it works for that player. It is helpful to have someone help you develop a technique that suits your body, flexibility, etc. It is next to impossible IMHO to coach oneself and see what you are doing right or wrong. If it was not a very hard thing to do the tennis players and golfers would not have coaches. Does your statement "accurate assessment of one's own abilities is an extremely important skill" mean that you should be able to coach yourself?? Just curious and want to be on the same page here.

Last week at the PGA event in LA, Phil Mickleson a 8-under par 63 in the first round. In the second round he shot a 1-over 72. He knew something was off in his swing and called his swing coach in Las Vegas who flew to LA and worked with Phil in the late afternoon and early evening or maybe the first thing the next morning, which ever time it was it must have worked because in the third round Phil shot a 9-under 62. He has the means to do something like this, most croquet players don't have that kind of opportunity, we are on our own.

I know when something is off and I cannot pinpoint it I ask someone to watch and see what might be off and it helps.

Going back 48 years, to when I started playing croquet in the summer of 1961, I suppose the first influence was the fact that the most attractive of the mallets in my college was fairly short. I just sort of adopted a centre style with standard grip, and, then having a fairly flexible back, bent over perhaps more than I should, so could get my right hand a little further down the shaft. When I first played away from Cambridge Mrs. Heley, the well-known benefactress of Cambridge croquet, gave me her late husband's mallet, which was also fairly short, and a few years later, when I bought my first mallet, a Solomon, I ordered it the same length (33"). That mallet lasted me until 1982, at which time I started getting occasional back problems, so I thought I should get a longer shaft and stand more erect. At the same time I started putting my right foot a little further back, to gain extra power; that was the origin of the "Murray leg". In 2007 I finally submitted to the modern fashion and bought a Pidcock, and added an extra inch to the length, so that I now have a 36" shaft.

As for having the right hand further down the shaft than many other players, I have always felt it gives better control, preventing the mallet from deviating from the vertical. On occasions when I have had really bad jitters (I was awful in the 1990s) I found taking both hands further down the shaft helped.

I've never felt that I've had the best technique, and most people seem to agree with that opinion! That's why I'd be reluctant to coach people too strictly on technique. All I can say is that I feel comfortable with it, and it seems the easiest way for me to do what I want to do.

One of the (many) things that I learned from Keith Aiton's practice routines on his courses, and it also came from a comment Robin Brown made to me several years ago, was that it is important to make the simple things automatic. The parallel with the golf story about Mickelson is that, usually, his swing is automatic, so he can concentrate on the slight difference required for the particular shot in hand. After Round 2, he must have felt something awry with the automation, so he was having to think (a little) about the swing as well as the actual stroke required, and he needed help to see what had changed.

Robin said "make sure that the simple shots are 100% before concentrating on practising or learning the difficult shots". Keith's repetitive routines build on this, as they are embedding frequently required strokes, so that concentration may be made on the slight variation this time, rather than the basic shot or swing to achieve the shot.

Last winter I looked to see whether I could build a seminar based around these principles, and was quite surprised that the one omission in the Association Croquet coaching books that I have seen was the single ball stroke. Martin Murray alluded to this when he equated a Riches comment about playing from corner 1 to the peg to a thin take-off to achieve that same distance on striker's ball. Bill Lamb's book describes the grip and swing, and almost immediately talks about hitting one ball onto another.

Fair enough, as most of the time in Association Croquet, there are two balls involved — apart from the final stroke of a turn (assuming that is not a missed hoop or missed roquet) or running a hoop. With the former, setting a leave requires control of distance (sometimes — unless aiming for beyond the boundary), and with the latter, getting the next rush requires control of hoop-run and distance (sometimes — unless getting it through will do, or running to beyond the boundary).

But learning your swing using a single ball, so that you are confident that you know how far it is going to go (and of course in which direction) with every variation of strength or pendulum, must be useful in all other strokes too. Then the concentration can be put into getting the direction right, including the angle for the croquet stroke, and the degree of roll.

It is more useful again for Golf Croquet, as a larger percentage of strokes will be single ball — lag to a position, for instance.

So building a basic practice routine at the beginning of your session merely to hit the ball six inches, one foot, two feet, three feet, two yards, and so on, several times each, will ensure that your swing (whatever technique and grip you are using) becomes automatic, and you can adjust for distance more easily.

Finally, when Reg Bamford first got his Swing Trainer, back in 2001 I think, I came across him practising at Surbiton, and asked him what he was gaining from this — his reply was "muscle memory", i.e. making the swing automatic.

Once you have got that, then making the strokes more accurate must be easier …

It is always easier to coach tactics than technique.

When I first take a group at club level, I always spend the first hour minutes on ball striking. This will cover:

• Grip
• Stance
• Mallet length
• Stalking
• Where to strike the ball
• Where to think about striking the ball
• Follow through
• Exercise of rushing to the peg from the side boundary (see Aspinall in "World of Croquet")
• Hitting hard/power

In my opinion this is important. Players may then decide to do what they want and "what feels comfortable", but they will have a better understanding of both what is technically better and also why it is technically better. For example, a player may decide to play with split hands because they don't have the physical development to play with them together, but can gradually aim to reduce the gap as time passes.

One of the items of technique change that I suggested for one of the Youth Squad was that Seth Bennett (2.04 minutes in) should practice approaching his hoops with standing up half rolls or drives rather than bending over rolls.

Last year Jenny and myself video'ed the Squads swings and as a result, Phillip Drew made a significant change to his grip and technique. His play is much improved.

Most of my coaching tends to be tactical because it is easier to cover in group sessions, but I always try and make some time available for one to one technical stuff. Additionally, we brought in a sports psychologist to the last Squad training weekend to consider the mental side of the game. We are an amateur sport and still learning how to present our ideas optimally. Any other ideas would be welcome.

It is true that most good GB croquet players have been self-developed, if not necessarily self-taught, and have gained much from watching good players in action. I don’t regard this as surprising because the croquet swing is essentially fairly simple and obvious and responds well to plenty of practice, especially in respect of “learning” how to play croquet strokes.

The point is that the croquet swing is a much more natural action than a golf swing and it is no surprise that golf is a much more instruction/coaching-based game than croquet and that if golfers are to make serious progress they need a combination of instruction/coaching and heavy practice. I believe that professional snooker players are similar to croquet players in that coaching plays relatively little part but they, being dependent on their sport for their living, practice for hours a day, just like golf professionals.

I have tended to divide croquet players into two camps — those who have been bitten by the bug enough to have no problem in regarding it as an activity worthy of serious attention and practice and those who take it less seriously. However, within the former group, those who have become good have almost always had an opportunity to play a lot at an early stage in their careers. Once the muscle memory has been loaded, they are able to maintain a high standard with far less practice than a professional golfer or snooker player.

Good croquet players sometimes ask peers to look at their swing when their shooting goes off. I had an introductory lesson from Keith Aiton many years ago and was impressed by the thoroughness of his approach. However, I could not persuade myself that it was sufficiently different from what I did for myself and we did not take it further. Who knows — it might have been a very bad decision on my part!

I certainly count myself among the many who have said they would benefit more from coaching in execution than in tactics. While I'm sure my tactics could improve, the benefit I would gain from being able to rush properly and do a good full roll reliably would far outweigh any tactical improvement.

Have many people used video coaching successfully? A few have mentioned it, and someone said that if their swing felt wrong they ask another player to look at it. At the weekend when I was playing badly and had blobbed another hoop, a spectator said he could see what went wrong and after the game was over told me. It occurs to me that having a friend video you playing a game could be very instructive and not too excessive in its resource demands. Or a coach could video a pupil making a break or playing certain shots for later analysis.

I am pleased to see Rob's comment regarding balance and would like to share part of a conversation I had recently with a local physiotherapist who has worked for many years with accident and stroke patients, is currently a university lecturer and runs a sports physio clinic. (Point being — I guess he knows a little about the topic.)

I have a small fracture in my foot and he was demonstrating the importance of correct balance and the effect on sporting activities as well as any expected recovery from injury, no matter how minor. He went on to explain one of the very good reasons young players achieve such good results in sport is quite obvious — balance and co-ordination. As children and young adults we continually practice muscle memory skills by the natural games we like to play eg kicking or catching a ball, riding a bike, skateboarding and generally running and jumping about all over the place. All these things hone our balance and motor skills daily and without effort or anxiety producing excellently co-ordinated muscle memory capacity.

He recommended; as we age if we have a genuine desire to excel or at the very least produce something close to our best performance we must keep our muscle memory tuned and most importantly well balanced.