Print

[Manormanic]

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. 

[Manormanic]

Oh dear, I did rather ramble on a bit there....

[ProCricketer1982]

Oh dear, I did rather ramble on a bit there....

all good

[ProCricketer1982]

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.

[Manormanic]

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...

[Manormanic]

You're also making themistake of thinking that being a good cricketer makes you automatically into a good coach, whichis definitely not the case...

[procricket]

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

[Vulcan Cricket]

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

[ad2606]

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