Print

[thedevil]

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

[Manormanic]

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.

[123*]

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!

[ProCricketer1982]

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??

[123*]

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!

[Manormanic]

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.

[ProCricketer1982]

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.

[Twelfth Man]

Even with level one's, somebody completely froze on the spot and had no idea what to do, still passed...

[Manormanic]

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...

[ProCricketer1982]

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.

[Manormanic]

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...

[ProCricketer1982]

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)

[The_Bird]

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.

[ProCricketer1982]

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.

[The_Bird]

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?