Print

[Jimbo]

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.

[cricketbadger]

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

[billyb]

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.

[Butterfingerz]

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?