Development of junior batsmen

[The Speaker]

gbatman, by the time they reach professional level it is too late to be teaching them to fundamentally change their technique. Junior cricket has to be the place where good technique and mindset is set in stone, because that is when the brain is malleable enough to make the most of it.

That's not a competing theory at all

You're exactly right. Boosting participation was the goal - it was getting more competitive for kids leisure time. Cricket reacted. I'm sure they thought it could happen without impacting quality.

It is a competing theory, in the sense that it changes what came first. You're arguing that cricket reacted to something (that being a large-scale loss in number of grassroots competitors) by implementing change, but I'm saying that it may actually be that they implemented change that wasn't necessary, in order to boost participation rates that weren't actually dropping.

It is, after all, plain to see that quantity has increased and that quality has decreased since the introduction of Milo cricket etc.

At the same time if those potential stars are attracted to another sport then the national team will suffer too.

It's a fine line between the two, something only India has mastered (Not through the BCCI necessarily but through the culture).

I'm not so convinced by this. Personally, I don't think participation rates matter in cricket to the same extent they do in footy.

 

[western royboy]

As somebody who once coached juniors at the local cricket club in a country league, let me weigh in.

My comments are based on a small sample size (one league) and anecdotal observation (prone to bias), but...

This country is up s**t creek in many ways, junior/local sport is one manifestation of underlying social problems.

The fathers either can't or won't coach their own kids. Those who do are generally girly men, not leaders.

There are exceptions, of course, and you can see the difference it makes to the kids when they are looking up to a coach worth their time.

Clubs with a 1st XI player who coaches the kids are doing it right. This is a rarity, though.

Huge credit to all the dads (and even the knowledgeable mums) who do what they can to coach or assist their local teams.

Relatively thankless task getting up at 6.30 am in the morning on a Saturday.

In the words of Shane Crawford “that’s what I’m talkin about”

 

[western royboy]

gbatman, by the time they reach professional level it is too late to be teaching them to fundamentally change their technique. Junior cricket has to be the place where good technique and mindset is set in stone, because that is when the brain is malleable enough to make the most of it.



It is a competing theory, in the sense that it changes what came first. You're arguing that cricket reacted to something (that being a large-scale loss in number of grassroots competitors) by implementing change, but I'm saying that it may actually be that they implemented change that wasn't necessary, in order to boost participation rates that weren't actually dropping.

It is, after all, plain to see that quantity has increased and that quality has decreased since the introduction of Milo cricket etc.



I'm not so convinced by this. Personally, I don't think participation rates matter in cricket to the same extent they do in footy.

BINGO!

 

[gbatman]

gbatman, by the time they reach professional level it is too late to be teaching them to fundamentally change their technique. Junior cricket has to be the place where good technique and mindset is set in stone, because that is when the brain is malleable enough to make the most of it.



It is a competing theory, in the sense that it changes what came first. You're arguing that cricket reacted to something (that being a large-scale loss in number of grassroots competitors) by implementing change, but I'm saying that it may actually be that they implemented change that wasn't necessary, in order to boost participation rates that weren't actually dropping.

It is, after all, plain to see that quantity has increased and that quality has decreased since the introduction of Milo cricket etc.



I'm not so convinced by this. Personally, I don't think participation rates matter in cricket to the same extent they do in footy.

Absolutely not. Yes a little more difficult but at professional level it is not.

 

[grizzlym]

Part of the issue is by the time players reach a state squad or the like they are pretty established as far as their game goes.
It’s not so simple to change much at that point . Yes subtle changes here and there but mass overhauls are rare.
So you’ve really got to take the base development back a step or two , then build on that.
That’s where I see the main issue.

Nothing wrong with a long net or throw downs either . It’s what you do with the session .
You can actually build concerntration and craft doing that if you want too.
But now it’s plundering half volleys and clearing your front leg to slap the ball around .

It was an eye-opener to me in the last year when my young fella started training with a Sri Lankan cricketer. This guy has been around thr traps and still a very fine batsman. Anyway, my son had kind of got disenchanted with the 'pathway system', the bowling machines, the mechanical way that cricket was becoiming. And he was losing interest in it. That joy of playing.

A friend, who is an old style coach and is now coaching OS, said to me, 'give him a call... one of the best technical batsmen Ive seen... and he loves to coach cricket'. So I did. And my son just thrived on hsi coaching during winter. I'd just watch the sessions because they were so precise, so full of craft, and as much about learning to know when to execute as how to execture.

And yes, when and how to leave the ball. Not over hitting the drives. Play straight until you get in. Just the nuances; the craft. It's been a lot for my fella to take in, a step back to go forward, but I can see the difference in how he bats now and thinks.

 

[Bwillow11]

I'm not so convinced by this. Personally, I don't think participation rates matter in cricket to the same extent they do in footy.

Sure they do! Yes, of course not as much, but there are plenty of talented sportspeople who play football but decide not to play cricket in the summer.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Country cricket in some areas is really struggling.

Historically these areas had 'Colts' cricket (effectively Under 16s) with nothing much underneath. Then seniors above that.

A 10 year old who wanted to play cricket in the country had to be able to survive against kids 4, 5 and 6 years older than him. Tough school, survival of the fittest. And a terrific breeding ground for the national team.

The 'little brothers' would hang out on Saturdays watching the team play, looking on enviously, dying for the day when they would be considered old enough to get a game. And always with their whites in the car in the vain hope that the team would be short or would need a subfielder.

The 'littlies' would wait years for their turn, playing their own game of tennis ball cricket on the sidelines. Eventually they'd reach 10 or 11 years of age when the Colts team would need them and their career began.

Now though there is not a waiting brood of younger kids, honing their skills on the sidelines, waiting for their big chance on the Colts team. Now these kids get snapped up by other sports. You can play soccer, basketball, footy as a 5 or 6 year old. This is why 'Milo' and assorted junior programs came in far and wide. To fight against Under 8s soccer or basketball or swimming or any other activity. To give cricket a sporting chance.

The cricket census that comes out each year proclaims that cricket's popularity is rising and I'm sure I've seen Cricket Australia point to figures that suggest cricket is Australia's favourite sport. I'm not so sure.

If there was a universal bench mark used - let's say Under 16 club cricket teams and Senior club cricket teams - now compared to the past, I'm sure it would tell a different tale.

All that's happened is that they've added more levels underneath. A metro club that used to have Under 14 teams, Under 16 teams and seniors now also fields Under 12 teams, Under 10 teams and Under 8 teams. These younger age groups have heaps of teams (from clubs in the wealthier suburbs anyway).

Sure, overall club team numbers have gone up. On the surface things are healthy (raw numbers) but there are actually fewer cricketers feeding into senior teams than there were previously. And that's before you even consider the quality of what is coming through.

 

[western royboy]

It was an eye-opener to me in the last year when my young fella started training with a Sri Lankan cricketer. This guy has been around thr traps and still a very fine batsman. Anyway, my son had kind of got disenchanted with the 'pathway system', the bowling machines, the mechanical way that cricket was becoiming. And he was losing interest in it. That joy of playing.

A friend, who is an old style coach and is now coaching OS, said to me, 'give him a call... one of the best technical batsmen Ive seen... and he loves to coach cricket'. So I did. And my son just thrived on hsi coaching during winter. I'd just watch the sessions because they were so precise, so full of craft, and as much about learning to know when to execute as how to execture.

And yes, when and how to leave the ball. Not over hitting the drives. Play straight until you get in. Just the nuances; the craft. It's been a lot for my fella to take in, a step back to go forward, but I can see the difference in how he bats now and thinks.

Batting is an art - it needs to be learnt and by definition you need to have someone to help teach you - that is what is being lost

 

[grizzlym]

Batting is an art - it needs to be learnt and by definition you need to have someone to help teach you - that is what is being lost

It is indeed. It's like learning a musical instrument. So many nuances. It's so much more than the mechanical. And it takes time as a junior too.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Ian Chappell once said that young cricketers should either have a good coach, or no coach.

His inference was that a bad coach is worse than players being left to their own devices as they drive people away from the game, teach bad habits etc.

Taught or self taught?

Taught: Access to good coaching, facilities, well run clubs, focus on skill development

OR

Self taught: Immerse themselves in the game, lots of backyard cricket, trial and error, experimenting, copying their heroes, countless hours catching, throwing, batting, playing

Both can be effective. There's not enough of the former sadly and due to societal changes not enough of the latter either.

 

[thejockey]

Ian Chappell once said that young cricketers should either have a good coach, or no coach.

His inference was that a bad coach is worse than players being left to their own devices as they drive people away from the game, teach bad habits etc.

Taught or self taught?

Taught: Access to good coaching, facilities, well run clubs, focus on skill development

OR

Self taught: Immerse themselves in the game, lots of backyard cricket, trial and error, experimenting, copying their heroes, countless hours catching, throwing, batting, playing

Both can be effective. There's not enough of the former sadly and due to societal changes not enough of the latter either.

True . There are plenty of good coaches around right from top flight to local clubs.
A lot of players just want a quick fix and aren’t prepared to put the yards in to hone their craft and game.

I had a technique flaw that got badly exposed in top grade . Took 18 months of extra nets , throw downs , shadow batting to iron it out. Time investment from myself but also my coach at the time who was fantastic and patient.

So often now someone will seek advice and coaching and give it away after a few weeks if they don’t get a big score straight away . Or they go seek other advice / coaching and complicate and confuse the problem further.
That’s part of the issue .

Also always frustrates me when a coach is doing there job , then the batsman walks out of the net and gets stopped by 3-4 others chiming in with advice.
If you have a good coach , let them do their job and coach .

 

[Power Raid]

Is this a symptom of generational change. Perhaps organised sport and long contests like cricket simply don’t appeal to youth.

 

[t_94]

There is genuine talent around - Renshaw, Puckovski, Sangha, J. Edwards and Phillipe all look very good. Renshaw wish the oldest of that lot at 22.

 

[The Speaker]

Is this a symptom of generational change. Perhaps organised sport and long contests like cricket simply don’t appeal to youth.

Given that we're saying the focus on participation rates, which have grown massively over the last two decades, has been detrimental to player quality, no.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Participation rates growing is a result of creative accounting as much as anything.

Cricket has worked out (as has other sports) that generating a club cricketer who plays a whole season and trains regularly is very difficult. However running a lightning carnival for schools is easy. The kids get a half day off school, play four very short games of cricket. Cram about 10 mini ovals onto a big oval. You beauty! As long as they play four matches they are regarded in the census as a participant. The equal of a club cricketer. Who cares if that half day was their only cricket experience of the year.

They even devised an 'in school' program where if a PE teacher ran a block of cricket during the school year (which most already did anyway alongside all their other sports) that every student in every class could be counted as a cricket participant.

It even got to the stage at one point that if a cricket association also ran a Twenty20 competition for its clubs during the season then those teams would be counted twice. Not sure if that's still the case. There was a clampdown on this type of thing across all sports. A lot of Australian Sports Commission funding for sporting bodies is tied up in meeting targeted participation rates. They are aware of sports 'fudging' numbers and the stats are now independently audited and scaled in some instances (eg to remove double ups such as a kid playing school cricket and club cricket).

Bottom line looks very healthy - raw numbers are good. Reality is quite different and the bulk of any actual growth (people participating in cricket regularly) is largely confined to 5-9 year olds. It's easier to get a 5 year old to try a one-hour-per-week program for a term than it is to get a teenager to play cricket every weekend of the summer.

 

[revo333]

It was an eye-opener to me in the last year when my young fella started training with a Sri Lankan cricketer.

A few Sri Lankan coaches have developed pretty good reputations around the Ringwood area the last 5 or so years.

The club i was at got one down to do a few pre season sessions 5 years ago and the sessions got great feedback from everyone. The club tried hard to get him as club coach for a few years but his asking price was just to high.

Wasn't surprised to find out a premier club currently has him doing some coaching.

 

[western royboy]

A few Sri Lankan coaches have developed pretty good reputations around the Ringwood area the last 5 or so years.

The club i was at got one down to do a few pre season sessions 5 years ago and the sessions got great feedback from everyone. The club tried hard to get him as club coach for a few years but his asking price was just to high.

Wasn't surprised to find out a premier club currently has him doing some coaching.

Coaching batting isn’t hard if you understand the basics and can identify and show how to correct flaws. 99% of technical flaws come from grip, backlift and stance

 

[revo333]

Coaching batting isn’t hard if you understand the basics and can identify and show how to correct flaws. 99% of technical flaws come from grip, backlift and stance

Some of the best cricketers off all time had techniques that were flawed.

A cricket coaches biggest asset is helping players get into form and overcome slumps, If a coach can't help a batsman with the mental part of the game then they are useless.

 

[western royboy]

Some of the best cricketers off all time had techniques that were flawed.

A cricket coaches biggest asset is helping players get into form and overcome slumps, If a coach can't help a batsman with the mental part of the game then they are useless.

Freaks will always be about - and you’re right you just need to let them go, but the basics of batting haven’t changed in 150 years and anyone telling you otherwise is an idiot. The mental aspect of the game is huge but that’s largely in the court of the player - a coach can only guide - you have to work most of it out for yourself

 

[western royboy]

Country cricket in some areas is really struggling.

Historically these areas had 'Colts' cricket (effectively Under 16s) with nothing much underneath. Then seniors above that.

A 10 year old who wanted to play cricket in the country had to be able to survive against kids 4, 5 and 6 years older than him. Tough school, survival of the fittest. And a terrific breeding ground for the national team.

The 'little brothers' would hang out on Saturdays watching the team play, looking on enviously, dying for the day when they would be considered old enough to get a game. And always with their whites in the car in the vain hope that the team would be short or would need a subfielder.

The 'littlies' would wait years for their turn, playing their own game of tennis ball cricket on the sidelines. Eventually they'd reach 10 or 11 years of age when the Colts team would need them and their career began.

Now though there is not a waiting brood of younger kids, honing their skills on the sidelines, waiting for their big chance on the Colts team. Now these kids get snapped up by other sports. You can play soccer, basketball, footy as a 5 or 6 year old. This is why 'Milo' and assorted junior programs came in far and wide. To fight against Under 8s soccer or basketball or swimming or any other activity. To give cricket a sporting chance.

The cricket census that comes out each year proclaims that cricket's popularity is rising and I'm sure I've seen Cricket Australia point to figures that suggest cricket is Australia's favourite sport. I'm not so sure.

If there was a universal bench mark used - let's say Under 16 club cricket teams and Senior club cricket teams - now compared to the past, I'm sure it would tell a different tale.

All that's happened is that they've added more levels underneath. A metro club that used to have Under 14 teams, Under 16 teams and seniors now also fields Under 12 teams, Under 10 teams and Under 8 teams. These younger age groups have heaps of teams (from clubs in the wealthier suburbs anyway).

Sure, overall club team numbers have gone up. On the surface things are healthy (raw numbers) but there are actually fewer cricketers feeding into senior teams than there were previously. And that's before you even consider the quality of what is coming through.

100% correct - adding that we don’t have the coaches “qualified” to handle the number of junior sides that we now have

 

[thejockey]

Coaching batting isn’t hard if you understand the basics and can identify and show how to correct flaws. 99% of technical flaws come from grip, backlift and stance

You sound like a batsman/cricketer after my own heart .

It’s amazing how much more complicated people can make the game then what it should be or is .

 

[thejockey]

There is genuine talent around - Renshaw, Puckovski, Sangha, J. Edwards and Phillipe all look very good. Renshaw wish the oldest of that lot at 22.

Sangha looks very organised and appears to quite a smart player. Was impressed how he manipulated the field and played all around the wicket in his 100.

Edwards looks a real talent . Has a lot of ease in his batting . Can’t coach that.

We need to every patient with these guys though .

 

[bananatigz]

Kids just simply don’t get the chance to bat for long periods of time unless they make it into a pathway system, and even then all those pathway systems are looking for big hitters and kids who can score quickly.

The ‘everyone gets a go’ approach means you get max 10 overs these days to bat as a junior, so why wouldn’t you have a crack and try to score as many as possible? Being there on 4* and being retired can’t be very fufilling.

Pathway programs have been sucked in by the t20 stuff as well, they aren’t interested in kids who can properly build and graft an innings, that’s not exciting, they’ll pick the big kid who can whack it every time.

Comps everywhere are seeing more one dayers and more t20s into the fixture, I don’t see it as an issue that’s going to fix itself anytime soon.

Long gone are the days where a 14 year old Ricky Ponting would go out and make 150 every weekend and just keep batting and batting and batting.

 

[western royboy]

You sound like a batsman/cricketer after my own heart .

It’s amazing how much more complicated people can make the game then what it should be or is .

Cricket is a very simple game if you stick to the basics - it gets complicated by idiots who don’t understand the basics - my major concern at the moment is the “group think” that exists in coaching at the higher level

 

[western royboy]

Sangha looks very organised and appears to quite a smart player. Was impressed how he manipulated the field and played all around the wicket in his 100.

Edwards looks a real talent . Has a lot of ease in his batting . Can’t coach that.

We need to every patient with these guys though .

Sangha is from my old club - I was alerted to him a few years back as he was said to be very technically correct, got to watch him bat one day at Coogee and whilst he didn’t get many he looked very good and there were no glaring problems - interestingly the same man who alerted me to him was possibly the best technical judge of a player in the country