It might be helpful for coaches, if they believe, that they know, what they are doing. Then they can answer the question „why they do something, like they do it“. If that, what coaches do, has the effect they expect, this means, it must be „good“ for the client and naturally for the coach. But this is not reliable. What we believe in is a construction, that we attach to our view on the world and human nature and comes out of our individual experiences.

However, our players and clients are always different in their uniqueness and in the context of their referring system. In systemic consulting and training I’ve learned, that interventions of a coach can have exactly the opposite effect. Regardless of whether the coach can justify the action.

This is evident in tennis training how we see it in the traditional conception of the „correct stroke technique“. If the coach has a concrete idea of the „right“ stroke technique and also the corresponding methodological and didactic ideas, this seems from his perspective as „good“ and indispensable. But it has been shown in studies of tennis training that a specified technology idea can slow down or interfere motor learning and sport specific development.

It just seems, that „paradoxical“ interventions and training measures, that can only be explained by illogicalitiy, can accelerate the development of the athlete. If I tell the tennis player „to dance“and integrate this in coaching, it seems to be a paradox intervention. Whether it’s good or not is not directly apparent (unless I feel that it is necessary, to make the result part of my „reality construction“).

How can I see whether the measure is „good“ or not?