Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Companies => Custom companies => B3 Cricket => Topic started by: Butterfingerz on November 17, 2020, 10:54:18 AM
-
Hi All,
We have recently paired up with some of the best coaches in the country to be part of the B3 Coaching Hub, (https://b3cricket.com/coaching-hub/meet-the-team/ (https://b3cricket.com/coaching-hub/meet-the-team/) with more to be announced in the coming weeks). The B3 Coaching Hub is designed to help both players and coaches improve their cricket knowledge, skills, and performances. For a further look at the Hub please take a look at this..
https://b3cricket.com/coaching-hub/online-video-coaching/# (https://b3cricket.com/coaching-hub/online-video-coaching/#)
We have also released some videos on our YouTube channel for a few things to see you through lockdown #2
https://www.youtube.com/user/B3cricket/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/B3cricket/videos)
We don't just make great bats. we put something back into the game too!
-
I am in the process of completing an ECB Level 2 coaching qualification and am, quite frankly, very depressed about it. I'm sure these guys know their onions though.
-
What's making you depressed about the Level 2?? It's something I'm looking at doing soon.
-
What's making you depressed about the Level 2?? It's something I'm looking at doing soon.
For starters, it's depressing how little people have to know about cricket to be a cricket coach nowadays. The ECB have clearly lowered the bar to address concerns about participation levels and justify prostituting themselves to Sky. There is much scope for conflicting, and downright bad, information being passed onto kids and developing players.
-
For starters, it's depressing how little people have to know about cricket to be a cricket coach nowadays. The ECB have clearly lowered the bar to address concerns about participation levels and justify prostituting themselves to Sky. There is much scope for conflicting, and downright bad, information being passed onto kids and developing players.
Level 2 has virtually no technical content at all - its mainly pedagogical.
They basically assume you're gonna coach 12 year olds and that if you've played a bit of league cricket you probably already know enough about the sport to be able to do this.
Obviously this is nonsense - the coaches who coach kids are the ones who really need to know technique inside out, and 95% of league cricketers know basically nothing about technique.
-
The level 2 course is specifically designed so that you don't have to have played cricket to be able to complete the course. Having done it myself, there were a number of parents on the course with no cricket background who were there because they had a son or daughter who played and they were on the coach to support them and their club. There is a very strong focus in the early years in simply making cricket an enjoyable experience which will make children want to play cricket in the first place and then to keep coming back.
The level 3 qualification deals with much more of the technical side to coaching and is a much more substantial investment of time for those who want to develop as coaches.
I would highly recommend doing the level 2 course if you get the opportunity. It is fun and a good opportunity to interact with people from other clubs in your local area as well as being able to give something back to the game
-
have to admit to finding lvl 2 utterly pointless and a total waste of time. Lvl 3 is marginally better but still not very good. It's all sadly just for tick boxing, as long as you look at it like that it's fine. If you actually want to be a good coach you might as well just not bother as you won't really learn anything new unless you know little to nothing to start with.
just my opinion and I'm sure ECB lovers will disagree as they do love a good qualification
-
The level 2 course is specifically designed so that you don't have to have played cricket to be able to complete the course. Having done it myself, there were a number of parents on the course with no cricket background who were there because they had a son or daughter who played and they were on the coach to support them and their club. There is a very strong focus in the early years in simply making cricket an enjoyable experience which will make children want to play cricket in the first place and then to keep coming back.
The level 3 qualification deals with much more of the technical side to coaching and is a much more substantial investment of time for those who want to develop as coaches.
I would highly recommend doing the level 2 course if you get the opportunity. It is fun and a good opportunity to interact with people from other clubs in your local area as well as being able to give something back to the game
Isn't that what level 1 is supposed to be????
I did my level 1 a few years ago and it was pretty much 0 cricket content, more about participation, fun and making sure your priorities were child safety (Obviously this is a no-brainer).
-
Isn't that what level 1 is supposed to be????
I did my level 1 a few years ago and it was pretty much 0 cricket content, more about participation, fun and making sure your priorities were child safety (Obviously this is a no-brainer).
Level 1 is as you say about child safety and welfare. It is aimed at those supporting a coach running a session whereas level 2 is for those running sessions.
-
Level 1 is as you say about child safety and welfare. It is aimed at those supporting a coach running a session whereas level 2 is for those running sessions.
So essentially Level 1 is a course on volunteering to help out and Level 2 is a course on facilitating a session?
-
Playing devils advocate here, but does anyone think training ‘technique’ (certainly depending on age and experience the training is to be delivered to of course) is becoming less relevant in the modern game? More and more top level players are unorthodox in technique, and I am certainly of the belief we’ve trained quirks and difference out of a lot of talented cricketers in this country, as well as dismissing those with a technique that doesn’t fit with traditionalist views far too early in their careers.
-
So essentially Level 1 is a course on volunteering to help out and Level 2 is a course on facilitating a session?
Yes, that is a fair summary.
-
Basically, yes. It will probably a session about: running in straight (and the ball will go straight); showing the full face of the bat; or being in a 'ready person' when in the field.
Add a liberal sprinkling of terms you've heard on Sky (whether you understand them or not), and you're pretty much there.
-
Playing devils advocate here, but does anyone think training ‘technique’ (certainly depending on age and experience the training is to be delivered to of course) is becoming less relevant in the modern game? More and more top level players are unorthodox in technique, and I am certainly of the belief we’ve trained quirks and difference out of a lot of talented cricketers in this country, as well as dismissing those with a technique that doesn’t fit with traditionalist views far too early in their careers.
So what if bowlers don't want to run in straight? You wouldn't believe the regimented way this is being taught. Only Archer of England's bowlers would get through the tunnel of cones that I routinely being set up by 'coaches'.
-
Playing devils advocate here, but does anyone think training ‘technique’ (certainly depending on age and experience the training is to be delivered to of course) is becoming less relevant in the modern game? More and more top level players are unorthodox in technique, and I am certainly of the belief we’ve trained quirks and difference out of a lot of talented cricketers in this country, as well as dismissing those with a technique that doesn’t fit with traditionalist views far too early in their careers.
I think there is still an emphasis on the fundamentals needed to succeed, but a recognition that we got it wrong with emphasising orthodoxy. Certainly a positive development in my view.
The amateur game is changing though. Looking back at a few scorebooks from when I first played league cricket in the mid 90s and comparing scoring rates to today, it is a different game.
-
have to admit to finding lvl 2 utterly pointless and a total waste of time. Lvl 3 is marginally better but still not very good. It's all sadly just for tick boxing, as long as you look at it like that it's fine. If you actually want to be a good coach you might as well just not bother as you won't really learn anything new unless you know little to nothing to start with.
just my opinion and I'm sure ECB lovers will disagree as they do love a good qualification
Im not sure why you bother with Cricket, you barely have anything positive to say
-
So what if bowlers don't want to run in straight? You wouldn't believe the regimented way this is being taught. Only Archer of England's bowlers would get through the tunnel of cones that I routinely being set up by 'coaches'.
Part of my concerns exactly mate. Around the world we see some of the most effective players have quite unorthodox actions. Bumrah, Rashid K, Tahir, Tanvir, Malinga, Wasim, Mujeeb, Green all spring to mind from a bowling perspective.
There’s definite value in technique steers of course, but I often worry about the ‘technique above all else’ mantra we try and instill sometimes. It’s certainly not helped by analysis too which often focuses solely on failings (which any technique will have).
-
"If you run straight, the ball goes straight!" No, it doesn't. The ball goes where your hand goes.
-
Part of my concerns exactly mate. Around the world we see some of the most effective players have quite unorthodox actions. Bumrah, Rashid K, Tahir, Tanvir, Malinga, Wasim, Mujeeb, Green all spring to mind from a bowling perspective.
There’s definite value in technique steers of course, but I often worry about the ‘technique above all else’ mantra we try and instill sometimes. It’s certainly not helped by analysis too which often focuses solely on failings (which any technique will have).
This is what coaching in a couple of other sports has taught me. A good coach makes suggestions, not demands, based on their opinion on how problems they've identified could be fixed. In a sport like cricket, the goal should be finding a (legal) method that works, not a method that looks good or fits the textbook.
-
A cricket coach who's never heard that an off-spinner pivots on his front foot? For example.
-
For starters, it's depressing how little people have to know about cricket to be a cricket coach nowadays. The ECB have clearly lowered the bar to address concerns about participation levels and justify prostituting themselves to Sky. There is much scope for conflicting, and downright bad, information being passed onto kids and developing players.
The coaching process has to start somewhere! Only a few years ago the Level 2 was the limit for the non ex pro wanting to make their way in coaching at least now we as normal people can access the level 3 Advanced coaching course!
-
"If you run straight, the ball goes straight!" No, it doesn't. The ball goes where your hand goes.
Agreed but if you don't run straight your alignment and momentum is going in a different direction to where you want the ball to go!!
-
Agreed but if you don't run straight your alignment and momentum is going in a different direction to where you want the ball to go!!
Not true. Do dancers only dance in straight lines? Would a footballer run in a straight line to kick a football? Are our bodies shaped in straight lines?
-
Agreed but if you don't run straight your alignment and momentum is going in a different direction to where you want the ball to go!!
You used to need more knowledge and undersranding of cricket to get a coaching qualification. Or so I've been told.
-
A bowler bowling with side-on action (this hasn't been banned yet!) has to turn fully 90 degrees as he jumps if he runs in straight. So not really very aligned or beneficial to momentum?
-
A bowler bowling with side-on action (this hasn't been banned yet!) has to turn fully 90 degrees as he jumps if he runs in straight. So not really very aligned or beneficial to momentum?
This is a stupid argument. It’s basic biomechanics, and a fairly basic premise of bowling, the more of your body mass and momentum you can get going towards the target, the better. For example, If your head falls over to the offside when you bat then you’ll get out a lot, if your head falls over when you bowl, you’ll bowl a lot of rubbish.
Dancers aren’t trying to release a ball in a straight line, footballers don’t run in a straight line so they can give themselves access to a stationary ball and creat a swing arc with their foot, not something relevant to bowling again.
-
This is a stupid argument. It’s basic biomechanics, and a fairly basic premise of bowling, the more of your body mass and momentum you can get going towards the target, the better. If your head falls over to the offside when you bat then you’ll get out a lot, if your head falls over when you bowl, you’ll bowl a lot of rubbish.
But you've just done a big twist in the air? For me, momentum, and other good stuff you've mentioned, comes the from back foot landing in a strong and stable position from where it can push-off most effectively towards the target.
-
Dancers aren’t trying to release a ball in a straight line, footballers don’t run in a straight line so they can give themselves access to a stationary ball and creat a swing arc with their foot, not something relevant to bowling aga
Dancers can change direction without the momentum or strength of their last move being compromised.
Footballers kick using a natural arc. The natural arc of a bowling action is across the body.
-
But you've just done a big twist in the air? For me, momentum, and other good stuff you've mentioned, comes the from back foot landing in a strong and stable position from where it can push-off most effectively towards the target.
When your back foot pushes off towards the target what happens? Your body mass and momentum travels down the pitch towards the target. However you achieve that is irrelevant. Run in spinning if you want to, but at the time of delivery you have to be going towards your target.
But again, dancers aren’t pushing anything towards a target.
You’ve just reaffirmed my point and the point that the level 2 is trying to install, the more of you thy goes towards the target, the better. Yes some kids might want to run in from mid off because they want to be Ryan sidebottom, but generally a straighter run up makes it easier to plant your back foot and get your momentum towards the target.
You’re taking issue with the sentiment of run in straight, when it’s actually trying to achieve the same end goal that you have just admitted is important.
-
So you've admitted that is not necessarily only one way to achieve this optimum momentum towards target? Fantastic!
My problem with Level 2 wasn't specifically about straight run ups. But can coaches please stop putting those stupid cone tunnels down now?
-
* Dancers move fluidly and fluently. Probably towards some kind of imagined targets, but I don't know enough about it. i used to live with a dancer; if I still did I could ask her.
-
Playing devils advocate here, but does anyone think training ‘technique’ (certainly depending on age and experience the training is to be delivered to of course) is becoming less relevant in the modern game? More and more top level players are unorthodox in technique, and I am certainly of the belief we’ve trained quirks and difference out of a lot of talented cricketers in this country, as well as dismissing those with a technique that doesn’t fit with traditionalist views far too early in their careers.
No - if anything I think its more relevant than ever. T20 is a very technical game - you can't survive just as a canny medium pacer or spinner or a brave and patient nurdler. You have to be able to spin the ball, bowl and pace, and hit the ball hard - and you simply can't do that without an absolutely rock-solid technique.
-
This is a stupid argument. It’s basic biomechanics, and a fairly basic premise of bowling, the more of your body mass and momentum you can get going towards the target, the better. For example, If your head falls over to the offside when you bat then you’ll get out a lot, if your head falls over when you bowl, you’ll bowl a lot of rubbish.
Dancers aren’t trying to release a ball in a straight line, footballers don’t run in a straight line so they can give themselves access to a stationary ball and creat a swing arc with their foot, not something relevant to bowling again.
Run-up and alignment at the crease are totally different things - you can run up at 45 degrees and still be perfectly aligned through your bowling action. A bowling action is not linear - it involves several rotating components, including the hips and the shoulders.
A straight run up isn't massively important for pace bowlers, but its especially irrelevant for spinners.
-
Run-up and alignment at the crease are totally different things - you can run up at 45 degrees and still be perfectly aligned through your bowling action. A bowling action is not linear - it involves several rotating components, including the hips and the shoulders.
A straight run up isn't massively important for pace bowlers, but its especially irrelevant for spinners.
Spot on. Thank you.
-
When your back foot pushes off towards the target what happens? Your body mass and momentum travels down the pitch towards the target. However you achieve that is irrelevant. Run in spinning if you want to, but at the time of delivery you have to be going towards your target.
But again, dancers aren’t pushing anything towards a target.
You’ve just reaffirmed my point and the point that the level 2 is trying to install, the more of you thy goes towards the target, the better. Yes some kids might want to run in from mid off because they want to be Ryan sidebottom, but generally a straighter run up makes it easier to plant your back foot and get your momentum towards the target.
You’re taking issue with the sentiment of run in straight, when it’s actually trying to achieve the same end goal that you have just admitted is important.
Leachy, I agree however lets remember that Sid's is left handed and so the angle changes but the principal stays the same, and like the footballer is then asking the ball to swing to get to its intended destination.
Bats, Lets think, if I run in at an angle, by the time I arrive at the crease my body now need to change direction to get to straight. My arms now need to clear my hip ( my right hip - if right handed) and my hips are now locked behind straight. This will mean I now need to over compensate and as such reduce the continuity of action. My coaching method is to keep the action as simple as possible that way less can go wrong. This method certainly breeds results.
-
Run-up and alignment at the crease are totally different things - you can run up at 45 degrees and still be perfectly aligned through your bowling action. A bowling action is not linear - it involves several rotating components, including the hips and the shoulders.
A straight run up isn't massively important for pace bowlers, but its especially irrelevant for spinners.
I never said you cannot have good alignment with a wonky runup, read my post again.
I said a straighter run up often makes it easier to have good alignment at the crease. But it is equally possible regardless of your Run up, as I said before.
-
Spot on. Thank you.
Are you seriously trying to argue that it would be as easy to maintain good alignment if you ran in on a diagonal in line with cover as it would be running in conventionally?
No, of course your not, that would be unfathomably stupid.
What the course is trying to teach is some absolute basic coaching cues that could help break it down into bite size chunks for kids or struggling cricketers.
One of those basic cues is, straighten your run up as it will be easier to maintain good alignment.
I can’t believe I’m having to justify this basic point 🤷♂️🤷♂️
-
Are you seriously trying to argue that it would be as easy to maintain good alignment if you ran in on a diagonal in line with cover as it would be running in conventionally?
No, of course your not, that would be unfathomably stupid.
What the course is trying to teach is some absolute basic coaching cues that could help break it down into bite size chunks for kids or struggling cricketers.
One of those basic cues is, straighten your run up as it will be easier to maintain good alignment.
I can’t believe I’m having to justify this basic point 🤷♂️🤷♂️
There's a difference between identifying a technical problem and fixing it, and being overly-prescriptive in the first place.
If - and only if - a player is struggling to maintain good alignment through the action because they have a surplus of lateral momentum, then first I'd look at the bound (as a lot of bowlers run up straight and then jump in towards the stumps) and as a last resort I'd look at the run up itself.
However it fundamentally unnecessary and almost always counterproductive to force young bowlers to conform to a straighter run-up from the get go. Just let them run-up however feels natural.
The are a variety of technical must-haves that pretty much every player that reaches professional cricket conforms to, but a straight run-up is not one of them.
-
If you are trying to get side-on and your back foot square/ parallel to the bowling crease,then angling a run up can help create better alignment, yes. Because you are not having to turn 90 degrees at the critical point in the process. Traditional coaching books would actually encourage an angled run.
The 'run in straight' thing is massively simplistic and will be laughed at in ten years time, mark my words. Already I see professional cricket moving away from it.
But I understand, for now, I am going against modern convention, and don't expect to win the argument here.
-
Sounds like we have a few candidates for Englands next fast bowling coach.
My 2 pence for what it's worth, there is no right or wrong way to coach. Coaches wanna use cones for bowlers and their run ups, fine by me if it works or theres reasoning for it. I've used them in the past and still do for some youngsters as I find a visual aid helps them. That line of cones wont necessarily be dead straight though, for example if the bowler comes in on an angle already, the cones may be used on an angle still
I myself spend a lot of time researching other coaches and their methods and ideas on bowling especially, as its something I feel I lack knowledge in with not being a quickie myself. Especially the blokes I work with who have more experience than me and in some cases are more qualified
-
It's people with seemingly not a lot of real knowledge imposing things they've learned on a six-week crash course, in a regimented way, that I object to more than anything else.
Not really about me having a passionate belief in angled run-ups!
-
I know what you mean, those coaches have to make a start somewhere though. You would hope and think their methods and ideologies would change over time
-
It's people with seemingly not a lot of real knowledge imposing things they've learned on a six-week crash course in a regimented way that I object to more than anything else.
Not really about me having a passionate belief in angled run-ups!
I totally agree that the level 2 does not really qualify you to properly coach people. Takes a lot more than that and as other have said the ideologies have to adapt over time.
-
Sounds like we have a few candidates for Englands next fast bowling coach.
My 2 pence for what it's worth, there is no right or wrong way to coach.
I'm not sure about that. If you take a keen, promising kid and interfere to the point where you ruin their technique, destroy their confidence, and drive them out of the game, I'd say that was quite definitely the "wrong way to coach".
-
If only this fella had known what he was doing...
https://youtu.be/AQg4RUETbz0 (https://youtu.be/AQg4RUETbz0)
-
I totally agree that the level 2 does not really qualify you to properly coach people. Takes a lot more than that and as other have said the ideologies have to adapt over time.
I reckon a big factor in coaching is the ability to recognise when to say nothing. I've had coaches in other sports who seemed to feel they had to be making comments or changes to every athlete to justify their role, rather than waiting until there was something that needed fixing.
-
I'm not sure about that. If you take a keen, promising kid and interfere to the point where you ruin their technique, destroy their confidence, and drive them out of the game, I'd say that was quite definitely the "wrong way to coach".
I agree yep, however I'd like to think there wasnt too many coaches who were out to coach like that. It may happen unfortunately, but unintentionally
-
I don't think anyone coaches like that deliberately, but I've seen it happen to multiple players unintentionally whilst growing up and then later as an adult at different clubs.
The best players I ever played with were victims of this. They scored hundreds pretty much every week in schools cricket against good opposition, took 5-fers, opened the batting and bowling, played county juniors etc...
So much wasted talent. Of course, other things are a factor too, such as discovering the joys of life as a teenager, but in this instance, I think they were killed by coaching, overcoaching, and too much cricket. I'd have killed to have even a tiny bit of their talent.
-
If you are trying to get side-on and your back foot square/ parallel to the bowling crease,then angling a run up can help create better alignment, yes. Because you are not having to turn 90 degrees at the critical point in the process. Traditional coaching books would actually encourage an angled run.
The 'run in straight' thing is massively simplistic and will be laughed at in ten years time, mark my words. Already I see professional cricket moving away from it.
But I understand, for now, I am going against modern convention, and don't expect to win the argument here.
As it has been discussed already the Level 2 course does not cover the technical aspect of the game. As a Level 2 coach myself (I had been coaching for 10 years prior to obtaining this) I see that this is a dangerous thing, coaches with little knowledge taking to a seam bowler and tampering with their actions. However I have sought advise from hose with far more understanding one such things as myselg and most if not all on this forum.
I am however willing to listen to all beliefs. What is your theory?