Print

[Percy]

I saw this post on the article about Stuart Broad on the BBC website:

"Good old cricket, and the BBC - like hand in glove - ignoring the fact that to be successful as a cricketer you are usually privately educated and have it all going for you. Not always, but most often. Even a brief look into the background of most English pros tells you that. 'Chance to Shine' ...- even the idea that we have such a campaign should make us ashamed. All responses welcome."

I think it's a tragedy that more sport isn't played in the state school system but local clubs are doing a great job and making cricket available to all; those boys / girls that are lucky enough to be privately educated have more opportunity to play / practice so have a huge advantage but talent will out and , when spotted, can be nurtured and developed. Whilst I accept that there are a lot of privately educated players could some of it be due cricket not being the game of choice - there aren't a lot of privately educated football players!


Any thoughts?
 

[Nickauger]

Historically, there has been more coaching in private schools. Currently, IMO the best coaches are working at club level now, with more up to date knowledge and a better understanding of what makes success. I know a lot of ex pros who coach at private schools who are hopeless and are only there because oif their cv.

[Percy]

Couldn't agree more. At junior level (U13) you tend to get enthusiatic amateurs in private schools whereas the clubs have fully trained coaches (ECB level 1-3) who understand and coach technique

[jamielsn15]

I've discussed this before in other posts.  I used to manage School Sport Partnerships and we had an upsurge of coaches going into state schools, which meant more playing and much more competition (contrary to reports!).

We were working with local clubs, the local CCC (in my case Northants), who in a lot of cases hosted school competitions on their outfield.  We had strong, sustained links with the pro clubs and the ECB, who were providing coaches as part of a strategic coaching plan in state schools.

Unfortunately, the funding got cut, many of us managers were made redundant and this topic is getting aired three years too late!  Only now are many seeing the impact of the loss of a specialised state school sport system that saw participation rise for 2+ hours per week from 23% in 2002 to 94% in 2010...

With that in mind, I would suggest that public schools keep doing what they're doing - i.e. feeding the elite game.  What needs to happen on a local level is more support for clubs and the generation and sustainment of school-club links...

[Red Ink Cricket]

i think it varies. Ali Cook is a year older than me and grew up playing cricket in the same area. He had some of the best coaching and facilities available to him at private school. whilst he has always been very talented if he was at a state school do you think he would have got to where he is now? the answer is probably, but i would say it wouldnt have been so fast tracked. Id wager id be a hell of alot better if id had that opportunity. not to his standard though!

Club coaching varies a huge amount. there are some very talented and cricket minded coaches out there and there are also some who i struggle to comprehend how they ever passed a course. Chance to shine just gets kids playing cricket again. it will unearth some talent and get kids playing longterm but the issue as previously stated is the fact that its not a overly popular sport due to the coverage other sports get and the fact very few schools do it. My other half is a lower school teacher and they have finally, after me bugging her, got a cricket coach in from the local board to do some after school sessions. they are now entering teams in the local schools comps and the kids love it. fortunately its not costing them too much and the coach is excellent. this is open to both boys and girls and without this cricket wouldnt even get a mention in the school and this is a very proud sporting school.

 I would say if cricket got the coverage year round that football does then there would be alot more kids wanting to grow up to be like KP than rooney etc.  Im looking forward to the ashes and hoping like previous years that football doesnt occupy the back 10 pages of the papers and that Ashes fever gets a decent run.

[tim2000s]

I guess the key difference between Cricket and Footbore is that you can play footbore all year round in the UK, whereas it's a great deal harder to watch cricket ata  sensible time of day in the winter.

[Red Ink Cricket]

I guess the key difference between Cricket and Footbore is that you can play footbore all year round in the UK, whereas it's a great deal harder to watch cricket ata  sensible time of day in the winter.

thats true, but do we really need to hear about it all day everyday. it would be nice to have a month or 2 of peace and quiet before the new season starts and the transfer market goes mad.

[jamielsn15]

There is a lot more support for grassroots cricket at NGB level than football.  Give it time, football will eat itself - they're pricing the average fan out of the enjoyment of the game.  It will become a TV oriented sport within 15 years if the current distribution of money and priorities remains the same.

Cricket is still viewed as an upper class sport.  I've lost count of the times I've been playing and youth and adult footballers have walked past and mocked with toff accents.  The irony is that, having spent a career in football, playing cricket is more intense than any football game I've played in!  Football is rapidly becoming an elite middle class game.  How many working class parents, like the majority of ours are, can afford to take 2-3 kids to a game now? 

Where funding for NGBs is dropping, and they are being measured on elite results, the ECB are doing more than many others to ensure there are still funding streams and programmes for the grassroots game...

[no1northernbloke]

Professional cricket has always been about which school you go to, what your dad does for a living and what club you play for. You have to be extremely talented to have made it from a small club and state school... whereas just talented with the right 'attributes' helps massively to make it through. Look at it this way, let's say you go to a grammar school where there is an ex-pro on the staff - if he sees anyone with promise he can easily refer them with his contacts from the County game. If your Dad has the time to take you to the games and gets to know the county coaches then again it's a massive help.

I've lost count of the amount of times that players have been told which club they need to be playing for if they want to remain in the County programme.

Life in general is about who you know not what you know...

[MD2812]

Ali Cook is a year older than me and grew up playing cricket in the same area. He had some of the best coaching and facilities available to him at private school. whilst he has always been very talented if he was at a state school do you think he would have got to where he is now? the answer is probably, but i would say it wouldnt have been so fast tracked. Id wager id be a hell of alot better if id had that opportunity. not to his standard though!

The story of Cook getting recognised at private school is a good one, he was clearly naturally talented but being recognised at 13 I'm sure he benefitted by playing as high a standard as he did at such a young age rather than coming into it later.

[jamielsn15]

Professional cricket has always been about which school you go to, what your dad does for a living and what club you play for. You have to be extremely talented to have made it from a small club and state school... whereas just talented with the right 'attributes' helps massively to make it through. Look at it this way, let's say you go to a grammar school where there is an ex-pro on the staff - if he sees anyone with promise he can easily refer them with his contacts from the County game. If your Dad has the time to take you to the games and gets to know the county coaches then again it's a massive help.

I've lost count of the amount of times that players have been told which club they need to be playing for if they want to remain in the County programme.

Life in general is about who you know not what you know...

It's about what you know about who you know...

[Percy]

"It's about what you know about who you know... "

Sure - but a bit of talent helps as well

[trypewriter]

The huge difference between cricket and football development is that, with some justification, in respect of cricket there is a nagging thought that there may be unrecognised major talents who are being missed.
I football major talents are recognised very early, and also discarded very early. Typically a gifted player will be spotted at about 6 years old, but will be discarded by age 9 if it looks as though he will not meet the physical parameters demanded by the club. Many clubs measure leg bones etc. to give an indication of projected likely height at maturity. In England we may have produced Paul Scholes (and his future was in doubt at an early age because of size issues) but we are unlikely EVER to produce a Lionel Messi - the concept being that his lack of stature would not have allowed him to make an impact in the game at the highest level.
By comparison cricket has a much smaller network, but on the plus side there is less reliance on pure physicality. Yes, you'd like your quicks to be 6-3 minimum, but you wouldn't turn down Darren Gough in his pomp. Fielding requirements nowadays do have more emphasis on mobility etc. but in cricket these are still within manageable parameters.
Anyone wanting a bit of inspiration that you can come up the hard way and make a career in cricket - check out Andy Moles.

[Simmy]

its not how good u r its who u know!

if u are brought into the circles at an early age.

and have the best choaching from being young chances are you will probs mate it.

just like what no1northernbloke

my mate played with Joe root as a junior.

wasn't anything special now look at him!

[stevat]

The huge difference between cricket and football development is that, with some justification, in respect of cricket there is a nagging thought that there may be unrecognised major talents who are being missed.
I football major talents are recognised very early, and also discarded very early. Typically a gifted player will be spotted at about 6 years old, but will be discarded by age 9 if it looks as though he will not meet the physical parameters demanded by the club. Many clubs measure leg bones etc. to give an indication of projected likely height at maturity. In England we may have produced Paul Scholes (and his future was in doubt at an early age because of size issues) but we are unlikely EVER to produce a Lionel Messi - the concept being that his lack of stature would not have allowed him to make an impact in the game at the highest level.
By comparison cricket has a much smaller network, but on the plus side there is less reliance on pure physicality. Yes, you'd like your quicks to be 6-3 minimum, but you wouldn't turn down Darren Gough in his pomp. Fielding requirements nowadays do have more emphasis on mobility etc. but in cricket these are still within manageable parameters.
Anyone wanting a bit of inspiration that you can come up the hard way and make a career in cricket - check out Andy Moles.

You sort of suggest that there are missed talents in football too, perhaps as a nation we aren't very good at identifying talent.  Also, identification of talent should be irrelevant, it upsets me that late developers are denied opportunities to improve by playing against their peers after the early developers are declared as being talented and so are no longer exposed to the riff raff.

In cricket you need natural talent, but essentially the more you play (any racquet sport too), the better your hand-eye coordination and ultimately the better your performances.  The fact that certain schools don't encourage exposure to our great sport sickens me somewhat - how many kids out their with cracking reflexes and decent technique are just in need of better coaching and more exposure to the game to be quality players?