Bomber Bears
Cancelled
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Posts
- 8,948
- Reaction score
- 351
- Location
- Wollongong
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- North Sydney, Liverpool, NSW
Is there a flaw in our coaching methods at present?
I ask this because the way I see it there are a couple of schools of coaching
1. Coach everyone to the textbook technique
2. Coach individuals to their technique
I feel we are far too much in the catagory 1. Two stand out examples of recent times
Mitch Johnson - Not a player I rate hugely at the best of times personally, but it was clear he was bowling at his best a couple of years ago in the Saffer series. Since he's had the coaches in his ear saying do this do that he had flailed to the point where, well, he bowled like he did in Brisbane.
Phil Hughes - Probably the one that pisses me off the most. Comes into shield cricket at a young age and kicks the shit out of most attacks. Comes into the test team and hits centuries against Steyn and Morkel in difficult South African conditions. Goes to county cricket to tune up for the Ashes and kicks the shit out of county attacks. Poor tour game and a couple of average test matches (including being given out off a piss poor claim of a catch by Strauss, similar to one which got reviewed when England were batting) and suddenly there is a technical issue. Since then he's performed pretty well but he now looks a player not at all sure of himself, whereas previously he oozed confidence.
These are players who do not have textbook style technique, but they had a technique they were comfortable with and that worked for them. Changing that is to their detriment, because the textbook does not suit every player, and when you treat all promising cricketers as similar players you are going to run into problems. Look at say, Shiv Chanderpaul, averages near 50 in test cricket and has been a great batsmen for some 15 years now in test cricket. He wouldnt have got through the junior system in Australia.
Dont get me wrong, technique is important, but it should be a technique that feels natural to the player, because not everyone is going to feel comfortable with the textbook way.
I ask this because the way I see it there are a couple of schools of coaching
1. Coach everyone to the textbook technique
2. Coach individuals to their technique
I feel we are far too much in the catagory 1. Two stand out examples of recent times
Mitch Johnson - Not a player I rate hugely at the best of times personally, but it was clear he was bowling at his best a couple of years ago in the Saffer series. Since he's had the coaches in his ear saying do this do that he had flailed to the point where, well, he bowled like he did in Brisbane.
Phil Hughes - Probably the one that pisses me off the most. Comes into shield cricket at a young age and kicks the shit out of most attacks. Comes into the test team and hits centuries against Steyn and Morkel in difficult South African conditions. Goes to county cricket to tune up for the Ashes and kicks the shit out of county attacks. Poor tour game and a couple of average test matches (including being given out off a piss poor claim of a catch by Strauss, similar to one which got reviewed when England were batting) and suddenly there is a technical issue. Since then he's performed pretty well but he now looks a player not at all sure of himself, whereas previously he oozed confidence.
These are players who do not have textbook style technique, but they had a technique they were comfortable with and that worked for them. Changing that is to their detriment, because the textbook does not suit every player, and when you treat all promising cricketers as similar players you are going to run into problems. Look at say, Shiv Chanderpaul, averages near 50 in test cricket and has been a great batsmen for some 15 years now in test cricket. He wouldnt have got through the junior system in Australia.
Dont get me wrong, technique is important, but it should be a technique that feels natural to the player, because not everyone is going to feel comfortable with the textbook way.