Development of junior batsmen

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The system of yesteryear where half the kids in every junior team were happy to just field year in and year out so that the few guns could do all the batting and bowling are over.

What set up will both produce good cricketers and attract lots of players now?

 

[western royboy]

The system of yesteryear where half the kids in every junior team were happy to just field year in and year out so that the few guns could do all the batting and bowling are over.

What set up will both produce good cricketers and attract lots of players now?

That wasn’t the system that I grew up in - it was a system where you got an opportunity based upon merit. Kids weren’t forced into it - there wasn’t a million Mickey Mouse under age competitions - if you wanted to play you could but you waited your turn until you were good enough to play, in the meantime you trained and practiced and played with your mates. Now all kids do is play Mickey Mouse games and they learn nothing because there are too many junior teams and no coaches that are equipped to teach them. System is totally ****ed.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

That wasn’t the system that I grew up in - it was a system where you got an opportunity based upon merit. Kids weren’t forced into it - there wasn’t a million Mickey Mouse under age competitions - if you wanted to play you could but you waited your turn until you were good enough to play, in the meantime you trained and practiced and played with your mates. Now all kids do is play Mickey Mouse games and they learn nothing because there are too many junior teams and no coaches that are equipped to teach them. System is totally ******.

That is exactly the system I described above.

The ones who merited the opportunities did all the batting and all the bowling. Everyone else sat on the sidelines and clapped or stood in the field. And were happy to do it because this was Australia where you play cricket in the summer and footy in the winter.

At some stage in the 90s these 'passengers' started questioning their role in this system. And kids started to stop playing if they weren't good.

It affected team numbers and 'everyone gets a go' was born.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

That wasn’t the system that I grew up in - it was a system where you got an opportunity based upon merit. Kids weren’t forced into it - there wasn’t a million Mickey Mouse under age competitions -

It was at my first club.
Left at the age of 13 due to not doing anything each week.

You do get some clubs that operate this way and it's not right.
Junior sport should be about enjoyment for all.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It was at my first club.
Left at the age of 13 due to not doing anything each week.

You do get some clubs that operate this way and it's not right.
Junior sport should be about enjoyment for all.

It's the balance

You want it to be an enjoyable experience where lots of people want to play

But at the same time be able to develop and produce high quality players

Tough to get right

 

[The Speaker]

At some stage in the 90s these 'passengers' started questioning their role in this system. And kids started to stop playing if they weren't good.

It affected team numbers and 'everyone gets a go' was born.

This claim requires proof.

 

[western royboy]

That is exactly the system I described above.

The ones who merited the opportunities did all the batting and all the bowling. Everyone else sat on the sidelines and clapped or stood in the field. And were happy to do it because this was Australia where you play cricket in the summer and footy in the winter.

At some stage in the 90s these 'passengers' started questioning their role in this system. And kids started to stop playing if they weren't good.

It affected team numbers and 'everyone gets a go' was born.

Everyone played a role in all of the teams I played in - either bat or bowl at some point - whether it be a few overs here or a bat every now and again - when the older boys failed - when I got to top age you had to retire at 40 - that’s 30 years ago - restrictions were removed for the finals - I made my first ton in the GF - I don’t subscribe to what you’re saying

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

It's the balance

You want it to be an enjoyable experience where lots of people want to play

But at the same time be able to develop and produce high quality players

Tough to get right

Agreed. Its the kids who aren't particularly good who might go on and keep suburban and bush clubs running (and become the attendees and viewers on whatever device of the pro game). The mass participation aspect which has come in is probably necessary.

But the balance is wrong when there isn't also something to develop players. At the moment its most obvious with batsmen who can't build an innings, or adjust to a situation. The constant breaking down of bowlers may also be linked to the limitations most games are played with - they don't bowl unlimted overs or two days in a row until state level.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

This claim requires proof.

Did you not live this?

Surely everyone did (unless everyone on here is way younger than me....)

 

[Art Vandelay_]

It's the balance

You want it to be an enjoyable experience where lots of people want to play

But at the same time be able to develop and produce high quality players

Tough to get right

Depends on the age group.
I'd anywhere up to U13s/U14s it needs to be about everyone getting an equal shot, and enjoying the game.

After that you can start to preference guys who are better IMO.

 

[The Speaker]

Did you not live this?

Surely everyone did (unless everyone on here is way younger than me....)

Anecdotal evidence is not enough, because a competing theory would be that change was implemented from the top in the belief that it would increase participation with no detriment to the quality of cricketers produced, coinciding with the increased professionalisation and monetisation of the game.

 

[western royboy]

Anecdotal evidence is not enough, because a competing theory would be that change was implemented from the top in the belief that it would increase participation with no detriment to the quality of cricketers produced, coinciding with the increased professionalisation and monetisation of the game.

My hobby horse but Milo changed the way kids learnt to play which then led to an explosion in junior cricket which has been poorly managed. Coaching was spread to thin, standards dropped and rather than fix it they thought they’d skim the talent off the top and everything would be ok. It wasn’t, it’s not and in doing so they weakened the pyramid which had maintained the game at the elite level for so long.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Anecdotal evidence is not enough, because a competing theory would be that change was implemented from the top in the belief that it would increase participation with no detriment to the quality of cricketers produced, coinciding with the increased professionalisation and monetisation of the game.

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.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The weakness of cricket is that only two players bat at a time and one person bowls.

2/22 players are active in a delivery.
3/22 if the ball gets hit to a fielder
4/22 if the batters run between the wickets
5/22 if the fielder throws it into the wicket keeper

Whatever way you slice it, it's a low percentage.

Compare that to basketball, soccer, footy, even fricken video games everyone is involved all the time.

We (us blokes on here who would like to see Australia do better) want kids to bat for long periods of time and for bowlers to get lots of overs under their belt.

Fine.

But how do we do that without the 19/22 getting bored stiff and quitting cricket to try something else? How do we do that without the games taking countless hours?

Those new changes that have come in to trim the player numbers in a team are good IMO. Not sure if it has happened everywhere? Skews the 'involvement percentage' up for starters. Less time waiting for your turn to bat/bowl.

I'd crank it up a gear. Two bowlers at once. Works like in the nets. One bowls while the other is walking back to his mark to save time. Don't swap ends each over either. Our club did this for junior practice games and we found that we could play 32 over games in the time it would take to play a normal T20. More batting and bowling for everyone.

How do you make kids value their wicket but without imposing the love-of-the-game death sentence which is when-you're-out-you're-out?

IMO if you get out you walk off. End of your innings. The kids who stay in get the most batting time. However, the dismissed batters can come back at the end of the innings. Maybe the last 5 overs are for the batters who were dismissed cheaply to share.

A middle ground between the peewee version of cricket where everyone gets a block of overs regardless of dismissals and the cutthroat nature of when-you're-out-you're-out.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Everyone played a role in all of the teams I played in - either bat or bowl at some point - whether it be a few overs here or a bat every now and again - when the older boys failed - when I got to top age you had to retire at 40 - that’s 30 years ago - restrictions were removed for the finals - I made my first ton in the GF - I don’t subscribe to what you’re saying

That's literally what I'm saying

There used to be passengers in junior teams as you've described and, over time, this has changed to engineer more equal opportunities for each player.

 

[western royboy]

That's literally what I'm saying

There used to be passengers in junior teams as you've described and, over time, this has changed to engineer more equal opportunities for each player.

It hasn’t worked - put it that way

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It hasn’t worked - put it that way

Agreed!

 

[Bwillow11]

The most attractive thing to kids is watching teams that win.

Winning teams are made by producing good players.

Rules that promote attracting kids via participation at the expense of producing good players are, therefore, contradictory.

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).

 

[western royboy]

Let me quote from one of the great cricket minds of our time
“At the end of the day, cricket is a simple game and it’s a performance-based game. You’ve got to perform on the field. All these words and everything – it’s all about actions. And I think it’s got to be the basics.”

SK Warne

 

[gbatman]

1. There is not a lack of talent in Australian cricket in terms of batting.

2. It's less about the batsmen having poor techniques and more about the mentality.

3. This is a problem in both test and ODI cricket for us. It's why our ODI side is so poor and why we can't win tests overseas where the ball moves.

4. Training and coaching for mine is the big issue here. Batsmen are not trained to score in all ways.

All these guys have great eyes and a lot of ability. But they are all developed as lower middle order sloggers and T20 players.

They have all played a lot of T20 cricket and cricket on flat wickets and that's developed a T20 technique/mindset. Basically that is all about keeping still and minimising movement and hitting it hard. This technique doesn't work in ODI cricket. These are pitches where the ball moves, international level bowlers and more attacking fielding and bowling plans.

The glaring thing is a lack of singles, turning over of the strike and running! Watching our good sides, the batsmen hit the ball (not hard), controlled and with good footwork through mid wicket and mid on when the bowlers were full and around the off stump area. These guys play outside the line and block with no footwork.

The mentality these batsmen have is to block if they aren't sure or swing hard at it, there's nothing in between. They are all about boundaries when they should be about scoring and scoring safely early.

Batsmen should be thinking one thing, move and get in behind the ball. Get forward, get across, get your damn head over it and get behind it and don't over hit it. Once they start doing that then we will see more ones and twos. More balls played into gaps etc.

Once you get the batsmen moving and getting behind it you will see less blocking and more scoring and a lot less knicking off. Batsmen not moving to get in behind the ball and blocking it with their head outside the line is just fodder for the keeper and slips and it's happening because of this mentality.

Batsmen need to be trained and reprogrammed properly. Net sessions won't do it, they need to be out there in the middle, practicing their movements, getting in behind the ball and hitting ones, twos and not over hitting.

As for the selectors I would be looking for batsmen who score a lot of ones and twos. They have to be out there.

The greats like Ponting and Hussey they would always be looking to get their feet moving and get across to the ball. If they didn't make it they would leave or play if it was over pitched or short. If they were able to get across and get in line they would play, work it into a gap if it was a good ball or look for more if it wasn't but they were always looking to get close to the ball and really move their feet. These guys just don't. It's not hard to train, it's just one damn thing to think about.

Past Australian teams always had a lot of batsmen who had good footwork, could play it late with soft hands and could hit it all around and find the gaps and they always kept the score ticking over. Batsmen who could at least hit three singles per over. It works over the fielding side. The fielding side have very little worries when your batsmen can't get off strike and are limited.

IMO these guys need to train their arses off. The state clubs need to get these guys and train them properly. It's the reason why our ODI and test side can't seem to find batsmen. They are just poorly coached and play a lot of cricket against average bowlers on flat wickets.

Batsmen need to learn to move and run!

Massive job for Justin Langer to fix this. But it's got to start at state level as well. State level coaches need to train these guys properly, it's an indictment on state level coaching that these batsmen are coming through so limited.

 

[grizzlym]

I’ll probably be repeating a fair bit of stuff already mentioned in this thread so apologies if I do.

I played premier cricket in Melbourne between 98-2005 starting as a young fella then finishing as a burnt out 26 year old.
The batting standard drop through that time was incredible noticeable.
Occupying the crease, building and innings and the art of grafting through tough patches gradually became less and less .
No coincidence it happened with the increase in one day games and T20 cricket

When I started we were taught to value our wicket , get ourselves ‘in’ and then play shots . If you got out for a nice 20 or 30 look out.
A tough 3 hour 50 enabling your side to make a defendable score on a tough track was a big deal a real badge of honour.
By the time I finished we spent more time working on lap shots , power hitting , clearing boundaries .

When I returned to coach my home club I was staggered at how guys couldn’t go a 7/8 minute net hit without getting out several times.
Batting a full day 80 overs almost never happened . Just no discipline at all.
Batsman happy to hit a few 4’s rather then build a knock.
We spent hours just doing basics like leaving the ball . Started batting the day out and started winning some games because our opposition couldn’t

This has been on the cards for ages and I dare say most who have been around club/grade cricket through my era could see it coming .

Unfortunately there is no quick fix . I coach juniors a bit now and do work at my current club and it’s really the same issues. It would be almost a generation turnaround IMO.

I hear you. My teenager is going through the system now. And spending a bit of time at clubs and the various pathways coaching, I am amazed at the lack of skills that are actuallly taught. Syntho, bowling machines, one-size-fits all batting techniques, gives an illusion of dominance.

I'll also add this top the mix too: there is very little bowling coaching done in junior ranks. Not to the same extent as batting. Invariably, batting mostly wins matches not bowling. As a consequence, kids don't often face really challenging bowling from their peers.

 

[gbatman]

I wouldn't blame junior competition, once players get to professional level they should be taught right and they are not. Players are stepping out of the state comp to play for Australia and they are not developed properly for ODI and Test cricket.

At junior level, it's about having fun and a bit of advice. Kids can get over taught. If kids have natural ability they will go well at under age level and from then on more focus will be on them. Kids learn by doing more so than by being coached.

It's evident that the young guys at state level don't have the mentality and approach for international cricket. They are not being coached properly at state level and they are not working hard enough I would suggest.

Too many net sessions and throw downs. Not enough time out in the middle actually doing it and working on things they have to work on to become international cricketers.

A review needs to be done across all state clubs on their player development and training practices in relation to this very glaring weakness. It's not a fluke that all these players are coming up from state cricket with the same weakness.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Now all kids do is play Mickey Mouse games and they learn nothing because there are too many junior teams and no coaches that are equipped to teach them. System is totally ******.

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.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Let me quote from one of the great cricket minds of our time
“At the end of the day, cricket is a simple game and it’s a performance-based game. You’ve got to perform on the field. All these words and everything – it’s all about actions. And I think it’s got to be the basics.”

SK Warne

Not that I disagree with Warne, in fact I liked what I was hearing when he was saying that today, however, let's be real:

If Warne had been a professional off the field in his playing days, he could be the coach today, doing things his way.

He wasn't a pro off the field, so he now spends time telling others how it should be, from behind a microphone, which is as close as he will get.

Langer and co are paid by a multi million dollar organisation to do a task, and that task involves a lot more than simply playing cricket.

This is the reality of the situation.

I am neither for nor against Langer but look at the s**t sandwich he has signed up for. Not an easy task ahead.

And simply saying, 'alright boys lets go play cricket and win YEAH', is not the role of the professional coach today.

 

[thejockey]

I wouldn't blame junior competition, once players get to professional level they should be taught right and they are not. Players are stepping out of the state comp to play for Australia and they are not developed properly for ODI and Test cricket.

At junior level, it's about having fun and a bit of advice. Kids can get over taught. If kids have natural ability they will go well at under age level and from then on more focus will be on them. Kids learn by doing more so than by being coached.

It's evident that the young guys at state level don't have the mentality and approach for international cricket. They are not being coached properly at state level and they are not working hard enough I would suggest.

Too many net sessions and throw downs. Not enough time out in the middle actually doing it and working on things they have to work on to become international cricketers.

A review needs to be done across all state clubs on their player development and training practices in relation to this very glaring weakness. It's not a fluke that all these players are coming up from state cricket with the same weakness.

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 .