Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Cricket Training, Fitness and Injuries => Topic started by: thedevil on March 29, 2013, 11:05:19 PM
-
Hi guys, my brother is completing his level 2 coaching badge at the moment and has to submit the session plans of skills that he has progressed 4 times. He has used fielding for the four week period and has tried to go into as much detail as possible, however when he has read the advice in the booklet it says 'see module 5 for examples' fielding isn't under this page...has anyone recently completed their badges/ have an insight into whether this will be sufficient ?
He has to submit this by tomorrow so any help would be appreciated
Thanks in advance
-
Its a few years since I did my level two but I have mentored a couple of people through it and my take is that fielding is a skill of the game just like any other, mentioned in the pamphlet or not. That said, others may be more pernickety about it so probably best to check with the course examiners.
-
He'll be fine, don't even look into them in too much detail, its just a paper chase for them, remember its in their best interests to pass as many people as possible so don't worry!
-
its just a paper chase for them, remember its in their best interests to pass as many people as possible so don't worry!
Umm, anyone else think that's really bad and actually devalues the point of even bothering to do the courses??
-
It is mate, in my experience a lot of them will pass you even if you are not a very good coach! The more people they get through the door and enrolled into the ECB coaches association the better it looks for them!
-
It is mate, in my experience a lot of them will pass you even if you are not a very good coach! The more people they get through the door and enrolled into the ECB coaches association the better it looks for them!
I have to say that the assessment process can be quite lax - I should probably have failed my level two assessment because, well, I was crap on the day. Now, I'm probably not the type of person they should be looking to weed out, but the experience still makes me suspicious of the levels of rigour involved.
-
That's a shame. Coaching at all levels (in my humble opinion of course) is probably the key thing that will allow cricket to survive and improve it's standards. If the quality of coaches isn't there then this just won't happen. That's a shame.
I am no coach, I have no qualifications yet this winter purely because I'm willing to give my time and have a machine etc I now 'teach' 4 under 15's, 3 under 18's and a 20 yr old. Now, don't get me wrong, I can only teach what I've read, what I've been told or what I see and don't go anywhere near bowling as I know very little about the mechanics of bowling. These have all seeing massive improvements in their batting (with one lad's county coaches being 'astounded' with his progress) and that's all been achieved with no quals and purely time and effort being spent.
Just imagine if knowledgable coaches who really knew what they were doing AND clubs being prepared to actually spend time on individuals could achieve.
I have to admit although I suspected the coaching levels was flawed, it is still shocking.
-
Even with level one's, somebody completely froze on the spot and had no idea what to do, still passed...
-
I have to admit although I suspected the coaching levels was flawed, it is still shocking.
I have to be clear, I don't think in many cases bad performance on the assessment day makes for a bad coach - indeed, I'd say going back to my personal experience that I am reasonably good, and have gone on to take higher qualifications. The point is more that excellence is often given secondary importance to willingness, which is an argument that I suppose I can understand given the need for volunteers that most clubs have at most times...
-
Volunteers don't have to be 'qualified' though. A club can have people running/coaching teams without levels. Surely the idea of the quals is to separate the good from the bad (so to speak).
Oh well, it's not going to change so looks like it's down to word of mouth to find the good ones then :) . Just ignore quals.
-
Volunteers don't have to be 'qualified' though. A club can have people running/coaching teams without levels. Surely the idea of the quals is to separate the good from the bad (so to speak).
I agree that it should be, but for a club to look toward Clubmark and the funding streams that go with it, their junior coaches need to be both qualified and members of the ECBCA. Its fine to have volunteers driving to games, but not more than that...
-
Its fine to have volunteers driving to games, but not more than that...
Probably why there are less people helping out at clubs then if they are looked down upon. (not saying any of us do, just the establishment)
-
It's not really that they are looked down upon, a club offering qualified coaches and Clubmark status is a lot more appealing than a few dads who used to play cricket. Safeguarding children and their coaches levels is not snobbery.
-
It's not really that they are looked down upon, a club offering qualified coaches and Clubmark status is a lot more appealing than a few dads who used to play cricket. Safeguarding children and their coaches levels is not snobbery.
no but if people are just being given said coaching quals no matter what (which is being inferred in the first 2 or 3 posts) then tbh it's not really any better. In fact, CRB is probably the only good thing worth anything (although, we all know that is easy to get around).
I'm starting to wonder why clubs want Clubmark? Is it purely money driven as surely they'd be able to improve without clubmark anyway?
N.S - I'm quite interested in how a club 'actually' compared to how they 'should' run and how to get the best out of clubs for the benefit of players (ie aiming to raise each player to their peak no matter how good or bad they are). In my limited knowledge always thought ClubMark was a sign of excellence but if the coaching system is flawed then to me it becomes just a marketing tool for a club to attract youths (for their subs and the odd good one) and the cash grants rather than actually raising the standards etc.
-
In my experience level 1 coaches are there purely to allow the higher level coach to coach a greater number of children. Also doesn't having more qualified (even if level 1) allow more funding?
-
I don't think you can quite go as far as to say that they are being given the qualifications "no matter what" - even if, as I have suggested, the assessment at the end of the course is sometimes a little on the lax side, the coaches that graduate it will still have done the first aid training and child welfare modules, attended the training itself (which is a real eye opener) and done their supervised practice. Thats a lot more than nothing...
On the Clubmark issue, I acknowledge that there are some benefits to having that type of accrediatation available to clubs as a way of distinguishing those that have met an agreed, above baseline, level of standards. I also like that it is a nationally recognised qualification that goes between sports.
Set against that, there is already a problem in the recreational game with the ECB pushing everything toward a select group of focus clubs - if these "Powers That Be" determine that a particular club is worthy of its attention then a massive range of resources are pushed in its direction, whilst other clubs who might be at the same or a similar level receive almost no assistance. It then becomes imperative to attain Clubmark because it is the very real difference between being one giant leap behind Focus Clubs and three or four. I know it is galling to many our of senior members playing in Division X to see another local club that used to play in the same Division progressing to Division X+3 on the back of Focus Club status and with a first XI containing five of our best recent youngsters...
As to the question about how players are developed, you state that clubs should "aim to raise each player to their peak". This might sound great in theory but I have to ask how you think a club should acheive this. Its all well and good saying that there are coaches, but there are never going to be sufficient coaches to supply the amount of one on one attention that this type of progression would require and it must be bourne in mind that the vast majority of coaches are, like me, unpaid volunteers who give what they can, and often quite a lot more, because they want to give something back to the sport.
-
Oh dear, I did rather ramble on a bit there....
-
Oh dear, I did rather ramble on a bit there....
all good :)
-
As to the question about how players are developed, you state that clubs should "aim to raise each player to their peak". This might sound great in theory but I have to ask how you think a club should acheive this. Its all well and good saying that there are coaches, but there are never going to be sufficient coaches to supply the amount of one on one attention that this type of progression would require and it must be bourne in mind that the vast majority of coaches are, like me, unpaid volunteers who give what they can, and often quite a lot more, because they want to give something back to the sport.
I get that there will never be enough coaches but why don't clubs make it a sort of rule that if you play first xi cricket you have to run/help coach a youth team? That gives you 11 more coaches per club straight away. I know you can't do it but I'd say there are more things the ECB could promote than just pushing through people on courses.
-
I get that there will never be enough coaches but why don't clubs make it a sort of rule that if you play first xi cricket you have to run/help coach a youth team? That gives you 11 more coaches per club straight away. I know you can't do it but I'd say there are more things the ECB could promote than just pushing through people on courses.
Okay, that might conceiveably work at the type of club where most First XI players are paid. But at any other club....you'd have the guys who suddenly only want to play in the Twos or stop playing altogether, the ones who plead inability to relate to kids or inability to dedicate the number of hours that would be required to the task. You'd end up noticeably weaker as a result...
-
You're also making themistake of thinking that being a good cricketer makes you automatically into a good coach, whichis definitely not the case...
-
Because mate people have life's away from coaching and cricket and you can't force somebody to coach it simply would be counter productive.
Some of the best coaches I ha e worked with are not cricketers them-self.
Coaching should not be done for free either at clubs if it included in membership that's fine but at club level it is a paid scheme
-
Level 1 are more for the mums and dads to help out with clubs and just to help the club coach and your find most of them stop once the kiddys stop playing cricket or 2 old for colts cricket. As a level 2 coach I have to submit coaching plans for every session at every age group at my club and haveing over 100 kids from age 6 to 16 I don't think I can coach them on my own so level ie mums dads and some level one players are a god send as they can check basic techniques etc but I still over see all. I take my coaching to heart as when u was boy coaching was very very poor I think your see more young kids at a better level than most of us on hear at about the same age. Dean
-
i did my level 2 last year and they really pushed us to make sure we knew what we were doing, all got god feedback on mistakes we made etc so deffo wasnt just a case of passing everyone. there were a couple of guys there who maybe werent as strong as some of us but that doesnt mean they wont make good coaches, it just might be that they need to build their confidence up over time. one guy who i coached with last year has come on massively after having a year of experience he was nervous during the assessment but is an excellent coach now