A Turn For The Better

Where are all the UK Asian spin bowlers in County cricket?

I ask this for two reasons:

1. County cricket has a complete dearth of quality spin bowlers

2. There are thousands of UK Asian spin bowlers who don't appear to be coming through.

Both of these factors might be interlinked, certainly point two might lead to point one. However, is it a lack of spin bowlers below county cricket that is leading to the lack of spin bowlers AT county cricket, or is it that those spin bowlers just aren't good enough?

I genuinely do not know the answer to the overall question. When we see someone like Graeme Swann developing into a world-class bowler and Monty Panesar going into reverse, it is baffling. Adeel Rashid is widely touted as someone who will be a seriously good leg spin bowler but so far he has been inconsistent and not penetrating enough. It IS harder for a leg spin (wrist) bowler to control the ball and to be fair we have been spoilt by Shane Warne's prowess in taking a massive amount of wickets. But the fact remains that even the finger spinners cannot seem to make much headway. James Tredwell is currently best of the rest.

With the rise and rise of Murali, the prevalence of bowlers learning to bowl the 'doosra' and the mystery of the Mendis delivery, the time has never been more focused on English cricket producing even a pale imitation of a top-quality spinner. Some of the physical attributes for bowling like Murali or Mendis may require a degree of double-jointedness and maximum flexibility in joints. Yet on Saturday afternoons all across the country, we can see evidence of young Asian spinners plying their trade for clubs. Is it too much of a jump to expect that at least one of these talented bowlers could be good enough for county/international cricket?

Or is it lack of opportunity that is restricting the development of them? Or are there talented bowlers who simply don't want to play county cricket?

There are far more Asian spinners on county staffs now than ever before of course. However the numbers are disproportionate for the amount who are available. And given the lack of quality running through our county teams with regard to spin, the need for a really talented young spin bowler of any background right now would be exciting.

Having said that I think it is hard for a spin bowler to genuinely establish themselves quickly. It takes time and needs to be proven over many seasons. But now and again, we come across a few who can create a real stir. And I sincerely hope we see a real quality UK Asian spin bowler weaving their mystery skills over county cricket sometime soon.

Swann has shown the way and has learned flight, spin and control. He has realised how to use the crease discovering that it's not always where the ball goes but sometimes where it comes from that's important. Changes of speed, rotation and drift too, has given Swann rightly the title of world-class spin bowler. I personally think he is one of the best we have had since John Emburey back in the 1980's and maybe in time, might prove to be better than that.

What Swann needs though is a spin bowling partner. The door is wide open. It's time for the UK Asian spinners to show what they can do because it would be a great pairing for all concerned.

It would be great to have our own Murali or Mendis, Saqlain or Singh, Kumble or Kaneria.

Adeel Rashid and Monty Panesar cannot be the only ones out there. Someone who could be successful would also have little competition right now. Assuming the chances are there and there's not a block to talent coming through, it will be down to ability and consistency.

What is a qualified coach?

Can anyone else see the point of the Level 1 coaching award?

Widely heralded as necessary to ensure parents (in particular) and enthusiastic volunteers (especially) understand a little about the game, the new Level 1 coaching award falls somewhat wide of the mark.

Speaking to assessors and attendees, it's firstly very difficult to fail (to test this theory my cat went on it, sailed through and now has a position as a regional coach). However more importantly, it doesn't prepare anyone to actually deliver any coaching because technical aspects of what to coach are not covered. Simply put you may as well interchange the word coach for... organiser.

Yet once armed with this new award, hundreds and hundreds of 'qualified' coaches are out there 'teaching' cricket with not much knowledge of what they are doing. It's hard to see what the difference is? Except of course we now have more qualified coaches than ever and it does require you to have CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checks and get a first aid certificate. On the down side, many volunteers and parents have been put off by having to take this award in the first place just so they can do some coaching at their club. Like me, who came through a club littered with volunteer coaches, helpers and parents on coaching night, now days others find that many clubs really struggle with the numbers wanting to play the game compared to the coaches 'qualified' to coach.

One local club I know has just 3 ECB coaches for more than 150 youth players. The result is those players are not developing as they should and the resulting standard of cricket is low.

I personally would like to see the coaching awards made more difficult to pass, have far less paperwork, understand more about how to deliver skill, be less reliant on just getting kids running about to fill their time and perhaps even specialise in disciplines.

It's always been baffling how, just because a coach is a certain level, they can teach a certain discipline. Wouldn't it have been far better to have batting, fast bowling, spin bowling, wicket-keeping and fielding coaching awards for coaches Levels 1 to 4? In that way, a coach could be a Level 2 batting coach and Level 3 spin bowling coach for example. Parents seeking a coach could therefore know that coach knows what he/she is doing. I know Level 4 coaches who know absolutely nothing about fast bowling coaching. It's a fact they admit to. But if you were coached by a Level 4 coach you'd assume you are getting the very best you can, wouldn't you. It's just not so.

So is the problem with the labeling of coaches or is the problem with the teaching of the skills they need to pass on?

It's both. The levels of coach are far too generic, which means the technical skills they have learned are far too basic for that level they have been given. Strip out the disciplines and make them harder, more intense, better informed and full of great content that a coach can take out and start using right away.

It's called relevancy. Let's make our coaches more relevant for their environment. It will not only make them better equipped to deliver the correct skills but also ensure parents, administrators and more importantly, players know who is best to work with.

In this country we seem to be forever altering and tweaking, changing and messing, fiddling and rejigging. Things are renamed, rehashed, renewed even re-invented. But it isn't rocket-science. The answer is to integrate best practice and make the learning progressive and cohesive. Cut out the unnecessary paper work. Teach coaches to coach skill, how to, why they should and when they should. Explain fault correcting, intervention and the drills to make the changes.

In other words, have coaches teach the right things from the start, because even a little knowledge is great. Better to have some idea of what you should do than have none.

Same Meat, Different Gravy

Don't you just love new initiatives? Cricket seems to, particularly when it comes to restricting the number of overs a bowler can bowl.

Back in the day (as all of us say who played when a coach was just another form of transport) a young fast bowler could bowl away to his heart's content. Part of your apprenticeship as an up-and-coming speedster, was bowling over after over and bowling yourself fit. Not only that but you became fit for purpose and you were 'grooved' in your talents to bowl a line and length.

Sadly, and I say sadly because I am just not sure we have improved things, young bowlers can only bowl 5, 6 or 7 overs in a spell (dependent on age) and up to 10, 12 or 18 overs in an entire day. There is also some 'directive/suggestion/guideline' (delete or add as applicable) that is called '7-4-2' and aimed at the higher levels I believe. This says that in 7 days of cricket, a bowler shouldn't bowl for more than 4 days and certainly not 2 days in a row. 7-4-2 makes it kinda hard to plan for any sort of group practice or training work with a group as it is clear you will need to have twice as many bowlers as you think to fill in the gaps left by the 3 days when NO ONE can bowl in a week, and the 2 other days that a bowler cannot bowl back to back.

Apart from utilising all your form filling skills and writing out sextuplet versions of the same plan, which you might have learned from your new Level 3 or 4 coaching course, you will need to have some degree of project planning. This 'new era' type of coach, armed with laptop, sunglasses and sponsors logos will probably require a decent sized back room staff to help implement it.

Hmmmm.

I do recall bowling hundreds and hundreds of overs in pre-season nets to prepare for the new season. This grooving was essential in developing skill and to learn how to construct long bowling spells. Yes we were as stiff as a board but we bowled through it and seemed to break down far less than bowlers today. Or maybe I am just misty-eyed about bowling for 2 hours in the morning, going to the pub for lunch, then come back for another 2 hours in the afternoon. The truth is many fast bowlers, NEED to bowl.

Ironically, it is in fact net practice that blows apart the directives for young bowlers because if you have watched any net sessions it usually involves people bowling pretty aimlessly for a long time. Coaches rarely, if at all, monitor the amount of bowling. And even if they do, who is going to monitor a young bowler during the week who might bowl every day, with different teams and at different times?

It's mighty hard for a teenager who has been restricted in overs, to then be able to bowl regularly and more often without stress overloading. I'm certain that's why we see more prevalence of injury than ever. Added to the fact that we now build bodies in the gym but not in the nets.

It all comes back to being fit for purpose.. rather than just fit.

Better monitoring leads to better management. The question is, does all this achieve what we want - better cricketers?

When the main aim of a coach is to 'keep the fast bowlers on the park' I think we have shifted our focus away from skill and actions and into a whole area that passes the onus from the bowling coach and over to the strength & conditioning coach. Indeed part of the modern first-class and international coach brief is to interact with a myriad of support staff, analysts, fitness experts, specialists, coaching programmes, directives, media yada, yada...

It is a balancing act of course, but with less and less talented fast bowlers around than ever and fewer overs being bowled it makes you wonder what the reasons are behind changes. We may or may not be keeping bowlers playing longer. I am certain we are not raising the standard though.

If it came to it (and I don't think it needs to be this way), would you rather have an average length career as a great player or a long career as an average one? If we are seeking to be the best, I am not sure averageness is a desirable goal.

It's Never About The Technique

An interesting fact about cricket coaches - some can and some cannot, coach. Yet, the thought is if you have played at the highest levels you are automatically a superb coach who can teach others the same skills you had.

This phenomenon seems particularly superimposed on the most technical of all disciplines - fast bowling. And there's an oddity to why this seems to happen.

The great leg spin coach, Terry Jenner, is widely credited with an astute quote that explains this. He says that 'C' stands for coaching when it's to do with batting, but 'C' stands for change when it comes to bowling. This is seemingly how people view fast bowling coaching - change. We don't want to change a bowler. And there are some extraordinary comments such as 'non intervention'. 'leave well alone', if it ain't broke don't fix it' and 'fast bowlers are born, not made' when it comes to teaching the technique of pace bowling. This is sadly very wrong and explains a great deal.

Former players who really know little about this subject will want to 'keep things simple' and 'not change too much' whilst focusing on 'bowling in good areas with a decent wrist position'. Yet when it comes to batting coaching, we rarely ONLY look at the outcome. In fact we employ technical coaches (''it's all about technique, technique, technique'' Geoff Boycott famously said) to work with our batsmen. Pietersen's technique has come under fierce scrutiny as has Alistair Cook's, who has changed himself not once but twice in a 6 month period.

Coaches will never allow a batsman slog across the line or hit a ball badly without trying to make them 'better' even if those batsman have a canny knack of missing the fielders. It just doesn't look right if they don't have a certain style or technical expertise. It proves we don't watch a batsman and only focus on the outcome.

However, in fast bowling the exact opposite seems to happen. Bowlers with poor actions, mistakes in their technique and errors that restrict their speed are not corrected because coaches do not look at those things.

The root problem is more to do with the educators of coaches because they do not teach how to coach pace and accuracy. Simply put, they do not know themselves. And this is the reason we appoint former test players at international level where possible, just because they used to be able to bowl. T'was ever thus.

The thought process is inherently flawed in this line of appointment. Even if you were to listen to the amazing stories a great fast bowler has to tell you, how they did what they did and how they achieved their goals, it doesn't make YOU a better bowler. You cannot learn from someone else's experience. It does make them a great after dinner speaker though.

To truly learn about fast bowling, you need to work alongside a coach that understands how YOU can bowl fast and straight.

Sadly, fast bowling is never about the technique and it's why we don't produce as many fast bowlers as we could. We substitute technique for strength and conditioning, fitness and other parts of the essential make up of a pace bowler instead. We bowl less, train more. We do less skills, more fitness. We do more box ticking, less educating. But it does justify the money spent on 'coaching'. Bowlers come through in spite of it, not because of it.

One day, maybe not soon, cricket authorities will have to review this area and come to the same conclusions about pace bowling. If we are truly to have places of excellence and world best practices, all options should be looked at. If we are truly to be great we have to be open to all the possibilities. We may all have long, white beards by the time this happens and meanwhile, the coaches appointed in fast bowling will ever increasingly rely on their own playing experience - rather than the knowledge of how to coach technique.