Print

[uknsaunders]

We did the 1st team/2nd team split based on ability but guys who were gifted in one particular area use to swap nets. Batting order was pretty much turn up first and you bat first, encourages people to be prompt. Most of the coaching involved a bit of passing on knowledge or encouragement. Nothing beats proper coaching but having somebody with some experience giving you some insight and advice doesn't hurt.

We also did a bowling machine session on a weekend. Working on specific batsman weaknesses and getting guys reactions up. Like to think they did them some good. Too many guys just set it for the drive and look pretty. Our sessions weren't pretty at all. Use to start on the weak area at a nice slow pace, get the basics sorted and slowly ramp it up. Amazing what a bit of repetition did for some guys weak areas.

I reckon 1 hour is a bit short, 2 hours can feel a bit tough. Depends how many you have netting. I work on 1 batting, 1 getting gear on, leaving a minimum of 3 bowlers, ideally 4 if it's just an hour. I'd probably push that to 6 or 7 for 90 mins/2 hours as guys start to fade, get drinks, have a rest.

A couple of things we did every now and again was to get the camcorder out and video batsman. Funny how they start batting properly in the nets isn't it  . The other thing was a 3*3 bowling grid. Somebody would score the bowlers on where they pitched the ball ie. short/good/full length or wide off/stumps/down leg. The idea being to hit the good to full lengths on or outside off and get a high % accuracy score. It's a real wakeup call for some so-called bowlers when they discover there accuracy is below 30%!

[thecord]

I like the bowler accuracy idea.
How do bowlers respond to being asked to bowl at a target like this rather than at a batsman Nick?
Any bowlers have an opinion on that?

[tim2000s]

I like the bowler accuracy idea.
How do bowlers respond to being asked to bowl at a target like this rather than at a batsman Nick?
Any bowlers have an opinion on that?

Depends what you mean by "At a batsman"

In reality, as a bowler, you should be using nets to bowl line and length and to make sure your stock and change balls all come out fluidly. Until you are doing this, you really shouldn't be bowling anything else. When you are hitting the spot 6 out of 6, then you start to try your new things, but again, not to the detriment of your normal result.

The problem is that when you are bowling yourself into line and length, and the batsmen is creaming you on your bad balls, too many people resort to using the silly stuff because of the net conditions, where continuing to bowl what you should would serve you better.

[thedevil]

I think one of the worst things that I find at nets is bowlers that think they can bat(without sounding harsh) and constantly end up batting every session for ages.

At ours though we set up 3 nets and for 2 we have a mixture of 1st and 2nd XI players, then the other one a 3rd and 4th XI net(excluding a few who fancy a challenge) and then people will choose when to bat

[thecord]

Depends what you mean by "At a batsman"

In reality, as a bowler, you should be using nets to bowl line and length and to make sure your stock and change balls all come out fluidly. Until you are doing this, you really shouldn't be bowling anything else. When you are hitting the spot 6 out of 6, then you start to try your new things, but again, not to the detriment of your normal result.

The problem is that when you are bowling yourself into line and length, and the batsmen is creaming you on your bad balls, too many people resort to using the silly stuff because of the net conditions, where continuing to bowl what you should would serve you better.

Haha, not too many "batsmen" where I play!
What I mean is will bowlers object to being asked to bowl at a target on the ground repeatedly rather than trying to get a guy out?
And also if the aim is to hit the target is there actually any need for a batsman to be there?

[tim2000s]

Haha, not too many "batsmen" where I play!
What I mean is will bowlers object to being asked to bowl at a target on the ground repeatedly rather than trying to get a guy out?
And also if the aim is to hit the target is there actually any need for a batsman to be there?

Answering question 2, no, answering question 1, it's what you should be doing. Answering the missing question, if you are bowling at a marked target area, there should be a batsman there practising leaving, defending, or whatnot, against good line and length!

[tushar sehgal]

A couple of things we did every now and again was to get the camcorder out and video batsman. Funny how they start batting properly in the nets isn't it  . The other thing was a 3*3 bowling grid. Somebody would score the bowlers on where they pitched the ball ie. short/good/full length or wide off/stumps/down leg. The idea being to hit the good to full lengths on or outside off and get a high % accuracy score. It's a real wakeup call for some so-called bowlers when they discover there accuracy is below 30%!

I get this idea and the merit behind it although i do not necessarily agree with the exact method...a few years ago someone tried doing this to me and it completely (No Swearing Please) up my game...i think a little bit of self awareness and areas where you can bowl and bowl well are important...

I usually mark an imaginary spot on the track and aim to hit that over and over again, it obviously needs to be a spot where its not easy for batsmen...i think line of the ball can be marked down but the length should be detemined by bowlers...me being 6'3 tall have different length than another guy who is 5'9... but the basic idea of hitting the same spot over and over again is very important for accuracy...

and as tim said you need a batsman at the other end, just bowling at stumps is very different to bowling at a batsman, similarly bowling at a batsman is also very different to bowling in a match....

[uknsaunders]

I like the bowler accuracy idea.
How do bowlers respond to being asked to bowl at a target like this rather than at a batsman Nick?
Any bowlers have an opinion on that?

I don't bowl at a batsman, I bowl at the stumps. I'm trying to bowl in good areas every ball. The only time I bowl at a batsman is when he has a specific weakness I can exploit or my good areas need revising ie. tall guy with long reach might need to bowl more back of a length to avoid being driven.

The important thing is to develop good habits. Too many idiots try to knock your head off and then bowl a badly disguised slower ball, then go around the wicket, then do something else, etc ,etc. (Honestly, I'll slap the next bowler who goes round the wicket to me after being hit for 4). The upshot being they haven't bowled a single ball on the stumps. To me this is a the biggest change in the last 30 odd years in club cricket. The number of guys bowling a consistent length and line has fallen away. I never needed a helmet in the 80's because I would be more worried about getting bowled or caught in slips as bowlers nagged away on a length. Last season I got 30 odd in a game and only received 2 balls in 10-12 overs hitting the stumps, the second one yorking me. The rest I hooked, cut, drove or simply left.

My bowling % accuracy in the top 4 left squares ie. full/good length on or outside off was nearly 90%, that's 1 rank ball in every 9 or 10. I'm not a brilliant bowler, decent yes. However you'd be surprised how many star bowlers can't bowl a consistent length.

[thecord]

i think line of the ball can be marked down but the length should be detemined by bowlers...me being 6'3 tall have different length than another guy who is 5'9... but the basic idea of hitting the same spot over and over again is very important for accuracy...

If a moveable target is used and the length changed according to bowler that would be ok though yes?

[19reading87]

I love my bowlers thinking so much

[tim2000s]

I get that Nick. On grass, I bowl as a standard, a ball that pitches just short and seams away. I get a lot of playing and missing. Occasionally I'll bowl a slower one that swings in, but does the same off the pitch. It's usually a good shout for LBW. I can also pull one back in off the seam, which looks like the one going the other way and usually hits the top of the stumps.

This normally means I am bowling roughly off/just outside off. I rate a good game as one where I don't go for many runs, and wickets are a bonus. If I am being miserly, the wickets are usually falling at the other end. All about pressure...

[tim2000s]

If a moveable target is used and the length changed according to bowler that would be ok though yes?

If you do this, you are bowling in overs, not in standard net practice.

[uknsaunders]

Your pretty much right Tim. It's about your personal performance rather than the batsman. 95% of batsman get themselves out, honestly how many unplayable balls do you bowl in a season? I bowled 1 that pitched outside leg and spun hitting off, the other 50 odd wickets were from rubbish batting. Batsman have a low boredom threshold and get twitchy if 6 balls on a length are bowled at them. Bowling a disciplined line and length is more important than bowling magic balls in club cricket.

[uknsaunders]

I love my bowlers thinking so much

Redders, when I moved South and left Headingley they had to find somebody else to tell the bowlers to "bowl at the bloody stumps". You'll be sick to death of it by the end of the season lol

Putting it simply - bowl at the stumps and bowled/lbw/caught are all in play. Bowl halfway down the deck or wide and only caught comes into play. Therefore setting accuracy targets that involve hitting the stumps is common sense in terms of practise. Likewise, bowling one-side of the wicket and putting your fielders there isn't such a bad idea either.

[ProCricketer1982]

All these reasons are why I rate a darn good training session with the machine (all different sessions from working on specific weaknesses to getting someone to bowl good lines and lengths and mix a few in there etc) over 'nets' anytime. Hell, I refuse to even waste my time with indoor cricket purely because a net session is better for me that playing that load of tosh. Only guys I've found playing indoor are the so called 'stars' of the clubs. Problem is, when you look up the stats they are not there to back them up. makes me laugh

I haven't played that long BUT my father was pretty darn good (hell he's still better than I am, bowls so bloody accurately and swings/seams it).. anyway, he came to most of my games in 2011 and his observations were

1) The bowling is crap, no consistency. Yes they are as quick etc, but they gift 4 balls and runs by spraying it about.
2) Batsmen seem to just want to slog it all teh time and worry so much about S/R's
3) Sledging is worse today than it's ever been (he said it's always been there but it's more 'personal and aggressive' now.

That to me tells me that the overall quality of club cricket is lower than ever and barring the overseas and baring in mind I play a respectable standard I'd say it's pretty darn accurate. Nearly all batsmen slog and get themselves out, I've not seen one bowler who actually is just nagging.. they might nag for 5 balls an over but they will give you something, oh and the sledging is pathetic, banter between yourselves is fine but why people feel the need to attack me personally I don't know. Sod off and play your own game fellas.