Allowing self-discovery in coaching

How I broke my game and then fixed it again by Ed Cowan

Ed Cowan is one of our more thoughgtful professional cricketers and I love the way he is brave enough to share his innermost thoughts and fears about his job; scoring runs. I say scoring runs rather than batting as he says in his book “In the Firing Line”:

“Batting and scoring runs are two very different practices. I don’t like getting suckered into the prior during the season.”

I found it interesting to compare this article with some of his thoughts from 2011. What is clear is that he thinks deeply about his art and leaves no stone unturned in his desire to become a better player; a trait of all elite performers I would suggest. However, ‘thinking’ needs to be at the right time and we know that consciously attending to technique during the game can have a detrimental effect on peformance. Ed, like many players, knows this and has developed ways of quietening the mind. This allows him to simply trust himself to bat; as Cowan says when describing one of his better performances:

“I fell into my routines…after a while I felt in a state almost trance-like, not thinking about my hands or feet-just the ball.

In my days as a club cricketer, I was lucky enough to play against some top overseas professionals. One massive run scorer in our league for many years was the West Indian, Clayton Lambert. Lamby often used to sing while he batted, but one day was very quiet. I said to him, “Lamby, you aren’t singing today” to which he replied “No man, I only sing when I ain’t got the bowler’s rhythm; today I got his rhythm!” Oh dear, here comes another ton, I thought!!!

I sing when I don’t have the bowler’s rhythm; today I got his rhythm.

Ed Cowan’s journey of self-discovery is an interesting one and in his book he describes how he adapted his method as he came up against different environments, such as faster and better bowling, different pitch conditions and about trying to adapt to different game forms. What is significant is that (at least for now) Cowan’s journey of self-discovery has led back to where it all started; by adopting the technique he had as a 20-year old ‘beginner’ just breaking into shield cricket.

© Getty Images. On the way to a 2nd ton in the game v NSW 2015

I started to tap the bat and pick it up only when it was required. Within ten minutes I felt like a bird released from its cage. The ball started to fly purely off the face of the willow as it is meant to – with little effort and an ease that only comes when your feet and hands are talking to each other like loving siblings.

It seems that by chance or design his natural way of playing was very much in line with the methods adopted by Australian greats of the past…

A shot of the top 15 Australian run scorers in Test and first-class cricket recently appeared on our change-room wall. The photos were taken as the bowler was in his delivery stride. All but one batsman has his bat touching the ground. Admittedly most then move their bat upwards as the ball is leaving the hand, ready to pounce.

While I strongly believe that there is no one right way to bat, standing still and ‘tapping’ has some big advantages and I would suggest coaches need to encouaraging young players to adopt this method and move away from the more limited ‘bat-up’ method that has only worked well for a few.

Tapping the bat creates better rhythm in batting and allows the lower body and upper body to work in synch.

To finish, it is worth citing Ed Cowan’s 4-day record this season:

147, 158 v South Aust Hobart 9 Dec 2014
2 v Queensland Brisbane 25 Nov 2014
25, 40 v West Aust Hobart 16 Nov 2014
105, 13 v Victoria Hobart 8 Nov 2014
0, 100 v West Aust Perth 31 Oct 2014

Like all animals who achieve longevity in their environments, the “new” Ed seems to have adapted well to his niche.

Practice Effectiveness

The Best Ways to Practice

This article discusses the well known concept of contextual interference and how it can be used in golf practice. In this article, I will talk about how cricket coaches can use the same ideas in their own practise.

Golf and cricket have always gone together and is often the favourite destination for cricketers on rained off days or after an unexpected early finish. Given that both sports are highly technical and require hitting a ball there is often an over focus on technique at the expense of just getting the job done. In terms of practice, there are often common features between the methods adopted in the two sports. Coaches talk about a ‘repeatable’ technique which can only be acquired through high levels of repetitive practice, or what cricket coaches term “volume”. While I would agree with the need to undertake lots of practice to get better; and that cricketers generally don’t hit enough balls, I would not support the way that this is currently undertaken. As the average 15 minute net session will involve facing approximately 30-40 balls of varying usefulness, there are  few chances to practice specific shots due to the competitive nature of the net session and consequently, ‘technical’ practice tends to take place in one-on-one sessions with the coach and makes use of bowling machines, throw-downs or sidearms.

In these sessions, coaches  tend to focus on improving their players’ ‘weaknesses’ and will drill the specific shot until ‘practice makes perfect’. In the golf article, this is the equivalent of hitting a bucket of ‘3-irons’ in an attempt to make it better. This approach leads to good improvements in practice, however, poor ‘retention’ of the improved skill when it comes to using it in competition.

How then should we encourage players to practice? Essentially, coaches should use variable practice or as I have said in previous articles, ‘repetition without repetition’ which means never repeating the exact same  movement twice. Ideally this would also be against real bowlers who are asked to bowl specific deliveries (this is just as good as practice for the bowler). In practice, So, if a batter is looking to improve an off-drive, for example, the coach should ask the bowler to mix up his line while maintaining the same length, or keep the same line and change the length. The key point here, is that the batter needs to develop perception (the ability to pick the right ball to off-drive) at the same time as developing the hitting action (the off-drive). If a bowler is not available, the coach should either provide slow throw downs (from the full length of the pitch) or bowl downs from a little closer. While you might think these deliveries would be ‘too slow’, they are still more likely to result in the development of good co-ordination of the upper and lower body than would be achieved via underarms or drop feeds. If the coach wishes to use a bowling machine, it should be set at a slower speed and the batter can be asked to change his or her stance after every ball to ensure that the same shot is not played twice.

In summary, if you are looking for short term  improvements in confidence use blocked practice. If you are looking for longer term improvements use variable (repetition without repetition) practice, but remind the player that they won’t feel that they have improved as much during the practice session but will get better in the long run.

The wisdom of Ed Smith and the place of technique in cricket batting

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/792155.html

This article by Ed Smith contains a number of gems for coaches. At the same time he provides us with windows into the theory behind skill learning and the implications for a more-hands-off coaching approach advocated by a constraint-led approach.

Using quotes  taken from the article, I discuss some of the key concepts highlighted by Ed Smith.

Repetition without Repetition

Although coaches talk about developing a ‘repetitive action’, actually repeating exactly the same movement over and over is impossible to achieve. This was shown in the landmark work of Bernstein who is one of the grandfathers of modern thinking about skill acquisition. As you can see in the picture below, even a task as repetitive as hitting a metal sheet with a chisel is achieved via many different swing paths. Repeating a task without being able to repeat the exact movements was described by Bernstein as Repetition without Repetition. It is crucial that coaches understand this concept when working with players; no two shot or ball deliveries are ever the same. In fact, the expert performer shows more variability than the less skilled. This variability is said to be functional and leads to great skill adaptability.

Rhythm and Trust

Smith cites golfer James Baird who espoused this wisdom a century ago;

“The dispatching of the ball from the tee by the driver in the downward swing is merely an incident of the whole business.”

Consider then cricket batting, if the player is encouraged to hit the ball with a full, uninhibited swing, the key to success is to simply time the swing of the bat with the arrival of the ball. As part of my coaching I believe that the foundation for batting is developing a full bat swing (ala Bradman). Developing an uninhibited swing results in batters who can trust themselves to hit through the ball and not try to ‘control’ the path of the bat. Controlling bat swing leads to stilted and mechanistic movements, not the fluidity we associate with highly skilled players. Paradoxically, trying to control the bat often leads to more kinks in the swing. For example, the bottom hands chokes the bat and creates an in-to-out swing path that creates more problems. Once the batter is able to consistently hit the ball with a full backswing the coach can focus on developing control, by getting the player to vary the force they hit the ball by asking them to hit the ball to targets set at different distances. This approach is much more natural than starting with defence and then expecting to ‘build’ on it.

Self-Organisation

“The perfect technique is the technique that disappears: it is no longer in the way. We are not conscious of it at all. We track the ball, swing the bat in rhythm, and everything else organises itself intuitively.”

According to the principle of self-organisation under constraints, coaching must be more hands-off than it would be under a traditional approach. Providing learners with opportunities to discover solutions rather than ‘prescribing’ answers is a basic tenet of constraints coaching. This approach creates a learning environment that facilitates exploratory behaviour and self-discovery via natural subconscious learning of movements rather than using explicit instructions that would encourage players to analyse their own internal movement.
The key point then is that if we let it, the body will solve problems such as hitting a ball using subconscious control mechanisms. This means that coaching batting should simply be about providing opportunities for batter’s to learn to co-ordinate their movements to the flight of the ball. By setting broad outcome based goals (e.g., “hit the ball down the ground with a full bat swing” the player will learn naturally. Indeed, sometimes for the very young I have simply had them swing the bat back and forward across their body and I time my delivery so that the ball arrives at the right moment to facilitate good contact. After a few goes, and as they become more and more proficient they will then time their own swing to the ball’s flight.

Relax and let it Happen

In sport, some coaches have intuitively understood that performers have the ability to self-organise. For example, Gallwey (1979) rejected the idea of teaching by providing explicit instructions to performers and developed strategies that ‘quietened the mind’ allowing ‘the body’ to solve the problem by self-organisation. He suggested that making ‘judgments’ after every go can get in the way of good learning and recommends just ‘noting’ what happened and then repeating the task without ‘trying’ to correct it. There is good evidence that this approach works as it allows the body to self-organise and come up with effective solutions. Incidentally, music can help quieten the mind and many great batters and bowlers have used this trick to quieten their inner voices.

The Coach as Facilitator

“Coaches can help you to understand the process, perhaps even help you get there more quickly. But, at best, the coach can only support and enable a journey that the player must undertake on his own.”

Constraint-led coaching is very much an advocate of hands-off coaching, with the coach as guide or facilitator. Here is what Greg Chappell said on this subject in our book chapter in Lynne Kidman’s book on Athlete-Centred Coaching a few years ago:

“I mean the coach at the end of the day is a resource. I think in cricket coaching there’s an unrealistic expectation that a coach can come in and wave a magic wand and make somebody better. It can’t happen. It won’t happen and if you try and wave that magic wand it will usually turn to dust and, as I say, the individual will go backwards. It’s more of a mentoring role, it’s more of a resource provider that you can set up the structure of sessions that will lead towards certain outcomes and then it’s up to the individual to get out of it what they’re capable of getting out of it.”

The Need for Theory

“Because the important things are hard to coach, it is tempting to take refuge in the small, irrelevant things because they are easy. Too much bottom hand, getting squared up, playing too early, closing the face of the bat? All symptoms, but unlikely to be the ultimate cause. That is probably much simpler and yet harder to put right: the bat isn’t working as part of your body but in opposition to it.”

A failure to have a theoretical understanding of learning and the learning process can lead to coaching that “tinkers” at the edges. The key is to identify the core issue and then provide the environment to ‘guide’ discovery and allow batters to explore and discover the solution for themselves. In contrast, traditional coaching using explicit instructions and a focus on internal feedback is problematic because most basic movement patterns are under subconscious control. It is no surprise then that forcing learners to consciously think about what they are doing through providing explicit instructions and feedback will disrupt their performance and make it more difficult for them to automatise their skills (Beek, 2000).

Non-linear Talent Development: An Adaptive Transitional Development Model

Traditionally, it has been said that a grade cricketer is only ever two great performances away from playing for Australia. However, can it be still said nowadays?

In a recent article (see my earlier post on learning to bat before learning to bat) Greg Chappell suggested that the talent pathway that had served Australian cricket for so many years was not working any more. In this post I suggest that one of the main problems is that there has been a reduction in the overlap between players playing at the different levels of the game and this is largely due to the increase in the amount of Test cricket being played. I propose that to get the talent development system back on track requires strategies from administrators that result in the up and coming club player once again being able to test himself regularly against the best state and test players. To that end I propose a move away from the Step-Wise Sequential Model currently in place in Australian cricket, back to the traditional Adaptive Transitional Developmental Model. (sorry about the jargon  )

In Australia, the changing international performance landscapes and the advent of professionalism (in what was a largely amateur sport where even Bradman went out to work before playing for South Australia) has led to a radical change in the structure of the sport. As highlighted above this new approach is providing cause for concern as a separation has occurred between performance levels and a Step-Wise Sequential Model has developed (Portus, 2010). For example, in the past, state and international cricket players regularly played in grade (club) competitions and this was viewed as one of the foundations of Australia’s success over the decades as players were only ever two short steps away from playing at the highest level. However, when the game went professional in the mid-90s, it has led to very little cross-over between levels; a situation that became even more challenging with the advent of centrally contracted players who rarely play state cricket, and almost never play club cricket.
Creating opportunities for cricketers to compete against higher level opponents is important to help develop more skilled performers. Playing better players, means that players are pushed out of their comfort zones away from stable solutions and forced to adapt to more demanding performance environments. These phases can be challenging psychologically and lead to high levels of emotional variability.

However, despite the importance in cricket talent development, the structure of the sport acts to limit the development opportunities for players. Opportunities for players to move out of their comfort zone is largely dependent on breaking into higher levels of competition, training with higher squads or perhaps occasionally playing against a high performing player who is playing at the lower level as part of his/her rehabilitation from injury.

This traditional group-based approach which we have termed the Step-Wise Sequential Model creates a number of challenges in developing talent. Firstly, the difference in standard between performance levels means that selection is often based on guesswork as assessment of performance potential is often based on the whim of coaches who are all powerful (Christensen, 2009). In this sort of system the coach can be over reliant on statistical data or second hand evaluations when selecting (e.g., by the media). This may be more or less useful as it does not necessarily reveal data about the psychological attributes of the athlete. Secondly, lower initial performance levels would be predicted as the new player takes time to adapt to the increase in skill demands (perceptually, technically and in decision-making). Thirdly, promoted athlete may face a number of psychological barriers including being overawed or intimidated by playing against ‘stars’, low self-confidence and high levels of anxiety as the nagging question “am I good enough” rears its head until success is (hopefully) achieved. Fourth, selectors are likely to make more mistakes in selection as players are chosen who do not have the requisite qualities to succeed, Finally, because of the limited opportunity to compare players at different levels, players with the potential to be successful at higher levels may have to play for a long time before they get their chance at the higher level. This effect means that their performance can become too stable and they reach a plateau. Subsequently, when they do get their chance they struggle to adapt to the new demands.

Figure 1_Talent Development Programmes

The previous discussion highlights that over-riding issue for the Step-Wise Sequential Model is that the match between the intrinsic dynamics (e.g., the current abilities) of performers and the ‘new’ task constraints of the higher level is largely dependent on the size of the step between two levels. The height of the step can be influenced by cultural constraints that influence the structure of performance pathways. For example, the step from club level in many English Counties to County 2nd XI and eventually county cricket can be massive. A potential way of solving this problem is to design competition structures that create overlap of playing talent between performance levels. Creating a system where players perform at two or even three levels promotes skill acquisition by moving performers to meta-stable regions of their performance landscape. This approach which we term the Adaptive Transitional Developmental Model (ATDM) is much more individually focussed and may go some way to solving the problems inherent in the Step-Wise Sequential Model. Below are some of the assumptions/advantages of adopting an ATDM approach:

i. Provides opportunity to learn by playing with and against the best players. This would include off-field behaviours and preparation.

ii. A number of players playing at two levels means that the step up for up and coming players is less severe as they have played against a selection of the ‘better’ players in the lower level competition.

iii. The time required to adapt to the higher standard is likely to be shorter.

iv. Promoted players may be more confident when promoted as they have played against (and most importantly had some success against) some of the players while at the lower level.

v. Up and coming payers are less intimidated and not overawed by better players as they are more familiar with them.

vi. There is a greater chance of selectors choosing the right players as their performance can be assessed when they play against players from the higher levels (in their current level).

vii. Provides opportunity to move players up for a short period and then back down again…give them a taste of the requirements of the higher level.

viii. If a player fails at the higher level it can be a good thing as they know they can go back to the lower level and work on the areas of need.

ix. The greater movement between levels means that players can be given an early chance to be exposed to higher levels.

x. Playing ‘down’ a level also can be advantageous as it:
a. Gives the player the opportunity to take risks without significant consequences: to create new adaptive solutions.
b. Creates mental toughness
i. as expectation levels are higher
ii. as the player has to fight off the challenges of the ‘new kid on the block’
c. It means that the better player has to become a team player and help the more junior partner. At appropriate moments this can involve protecting the player or giving them the chance to lead; act as a role model (in all aspects of performance); pass on knowledge that cannot be found in books.

This back to the future concept for cricket may be the answer to Greg Chappell’s fears; but, putting it into place in the face of the over loaded international calendars may be more difficult.

This article was adapted from a Book Chapter:

Renshaw, I., Davids, K., Phillips, E., & Kerherve, H. (2011). Developing talent in athletes as complex neurobiological systems. In J. Baker, S. Cobley & J. Schorer (Eds.), Talent Identification and Development in Sport: International Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Avoiding Early Specialization improves your chances

Avoiding Early Specialization improves your chances

This is an excellent article and a very worthy project that should be shared with all cricket coaches. Encouraging players to play other sports can only help them to develop the all round mental and physical skills needed to become a top cricketer. I know form experience that team mates and opponents who played any of the football codes were often far tougher opponents than those who had only played cricket. The type of sport also doesn’t matter: Graham Onions was an England U-18 badminton player.

Sadly, the days of the dual international appear to have gone for ever. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this project resulted in modern day Denis Compton’s, Jeff Wilson’s, Brisbane Grammar School legend Otto Nothling or another  MJK Smith of England.

The nearest comparison I can think of in more recent times is Rob Andrew and Simon Halliday who played in the 1991 rugby World cup Final for England and also scored first class centuries for their respective universities, while I.T Botham famously turned out for Scunthorpe United.   

When should we play the “Proper” Game?

In his recent article on learning to bat before learning to bash, Greg Chappell provided some recommendations for introducing young cricketers to competition. However, what he highlighted presents an interesting challenge for junior cricket administrators and coach co-ordinators responsible for designing programmes that introduce the game to children. Given the increased aggressive marketing by a number of sports for the hearts and minds of young people, there is a view that children need to be put in ‘organised’ competitions as early as possible to ‘capture’ them for the sport. However, sadly, at present this results in the first experiences of cricket for many young children being one of failure and more than likely boredom due to the long periods of inactivity.

I still fail to understand why we make 6 and 7 year olds play in formal games that last up to 2 hours where they only get to face 12 balls and bowl 12 balls…the rest of the time we see an assortment of cartwheels and handstands by fielders trying to make their time in the game more interesting. In two hours each child should be continuously hitting , bowling, throwing and catching balls…

As Greg Chappell wisely states:“Competition should be restricted until batsmen can recognise length and have developed a battery of options to hit the ball into gaps.”

For bowlers, I would say the equivalent would be:

“Competition should be restricted until bowlers can bowl accurately and have some control of length.” 

For me, early experiences of cricket require the modification of games and activities to ensure that the basic skills can be acquired in fun environments. Bowling should be to graduated targets to give bowlers “points” for accuracy. Batting should be with controlled ‘bowled” feeds that put the ball in areas that are “hittable”, throwing should be at “big” targets and catching should be introduced with soft balls that don’t hurt when dropped. Games should be fast paced and made up of lots of goes.

Essentially, Chappell emphasised that young children should not be playing ‘competitive’ cricket until they can play. That is until they  are capable of ‘scoring  runs’ and I would add until they can bowl relatively accurately.

The key challenge for junior clubs and schools, is that many young players still do not have these skills by the early teenage years, so what do we do with these boys and girls? These children should be given opportunities to play in small-sided modified games where there are more gaps (as there are less fielders) to hit the ball into. In fact, I was struck by watching a 13 year old boy having a great time in a 8 v 8 game in the last training session of the season who I over heard saying to his batting partner “this is the first time I have scored runs all season.” We have to be smarter and modify games to meet the needs of the children. By doing this we will create a deeper engagement with the game and meet the goals of the sporting administrators at the same time.

Key message to parents: be patient, there is no rush to play ‘proper’ cricket. Additionally. you can speed up the readiness for competition with backyard games and activities (I have given some suggestions in earlier posts).

 

 

 

The Multi-ball equivalent in cricket batting

The Multi-ball equivalent in cricket batting

This short video clip shows “Jamie” playing table tennis with his dad. 

For me, this summarises the first stage in learning in a bat-ball sport and is all about providing opportunities to learn to time bat swings to ball flight. In terms of a constraint-led approach, Jamie is learning to couple perception (ball flight) to action (bat swing).

My question then, i to ask if  there any other ways of developing perception and action than simply providing balls (for Jamie) to hit and what are the implications of this for learning to bat in cricket?

In terms of batting, it seems that learning to bat by facing bowlers is seen as too hard. Cricket coaching has advocated ‘simplifying’ batting by placing balls on tees, or using drop feeds to develop ‘technique’ in isolation to the need to ‘time’ the swing to the ball flight. As you can imagine, I am strongly opposed to these strategies and believe they simply do not work.

So, what is the cricketing equivalent of multi-ball?

In the recent article I posted by Greg Chappell, Greg says that batting:

• Must be learnt and contrary to popular opinion, it can’t be taught.

He follows up with:

• The early exposure to the art is critical in the development process. Too much instruction in the formative stage can be deleterious to development. 
• The first thing that a young player must be able to do is pick length

So, in terms of developing batting skills I would argue that the advice I was given by veteran Yorkshire coach, Ralph Middlebrook the day after my son was born is still spot on. Ralph said: ‘Do me a favour, Ian…bowl at him from day one, as he needs to learn to couple this (he mimicked the bowling action) to this (mimicking a batting action)”. For me, this made perfect sense, theoretically and practically. Thus, my batting multi-ball was via a basket of tennis balls placed on a stool at the top of the driveway. These balls were bowled at the young batter standing in front of the ‘stumps’ (the front door or the house). I ‘bowled’ the ball to land short or full, with the only instruction being to hit the garage wall (square leg) or step forward and hit it back over my head to land on the garden on the opposite side of the road…(a straight drive). 

Through this approach, the young batter was able to couple his actions to the ball flight and was easily able to pick length when he started playing in organised cricket at 7 years old. 

Learn to bat before learning to bash

Take a look at this outstanding article by Greg Chappell about learning to bat.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/greg-chappel/learn-to-bat-before-learning-to-bash/article5851699.ece

There are many great points with nearly every sentence powerful in its own right. In order to do justice to the article I want take my time and deal with the key issues in turn over the next few weeks. However, here is a quick summary of the main points, many of which provide wonderful support for the benefits of adopting a constraint-led approach to coaching batting:

Sir Donald Bradman said in his seminal book “The Art of Cricket” that he would rather tell a young batsman what to do than how to do it.

 

My thoughts: This is a fundamental principle that underpins every aspect of our coaching. In effect instead of prescribing solutions, we create environments where we set nothing more than the global goal and provide opportunities for learners to solve the problem in their own unique ways. This does not mean we don’t ‘coach’ but does change the emphasis of what we do as coaches.

All of the following points have important implications for coaching practice:

• In Test cricket the mental skills are tested as much as the physical skills while the fitness to bat for hours on end is underestimated.
• It takes time to develop top-class batsmen.
• There is no easy road to the top. Hours of patient, intelligent and persistent training is required to reach there.
• The early exposure to the art is critical in the development process. Too much instruction in the formative stage can be deleterious to development.
• It must be learnt. Contrary to popular opinion, it can’t be taught.
• If batting is indeed an art, then ‘simplicity is the ultimate sophistication’.
• I was taught that footwork and top hand dominance were critical components of good batting
• Most of the young batsmen that I see coming through have dominant bottom hands and minimal footwork. The more I understand batting, the more I realise that the first leads to the second. In other words, if one has a strong bottom hand grip, it has a negative effect on the ability to use one’s legs.

Why are batting skills getting worse?:

• …the most impactful thing, is that coaches are more prevalent in junior cricket than ever before. By trying to be helpful, we have stunted the growth of generations of batsmen to the point that we are not seeing the rare talents reach the top in the numbers that they once did.
• Learning to bat with an implement that is too long or too heavy for the individual is a sure-fire way to develop bad habits and stunt creativity. Because the bat is unwieldy, the individual grips it tightly with the bottom hand creating habits that are not only limiting, but also hard to undo years later.
• The weight of the helmet is considerable which has an impact on an individual’s balance that restricts the development of good footwork.
• Every prospective batsman sees the ball hit in the air regularly and that is what they practice in the belief that it is what brings success.

What can we do to help?:

• We must stop trying to teach batting and, instead, create learning environments that encourage thinking, decision-making and which achieve the outcome of giving the batsman a strong foundation to play on both sides of the wicket.
• Competition should be restricted until batsmen can recognise length and have developed a battery of options to hit the ball into gaps.
• The best players are known to be the best decision-makers so we must include this aspect in these early sessions.
• Young players should have limits on the weight and size of bats and should be learning with softer balls so that they don’t need to wear helmets or at least wear something that is light enough not to impact their footwork negatively.
• Coaches should be seen and not heard.
• The [role of the coach] should be to set the environment and observe the action. If refinement to a player’s method is required, the parameters of the training session should be adjusted to encourage the desired outcome.
• No other sport trains in an environment that is as far removed from the real game as cricket does.
• Good players don’t learn to play and compete in nets. They have to learn from playing and competing in environments that replicate the real thing.

 

 

I will add some commentary to these points later, but for now, I strongly recommend you read this and pass it onto your coaches, coach educators and perhaps most importantly, parents.

Ricky Ponting MasterClass

Ricky Ponting MasterClass

Some great insights into the preparation, mind-set and strategies that Ricky Ponting adopted. It is easy to see why he became one of the true greats. From a constraints-led approach there are some fascinating insights. While there are many points of interest, here, I want to deal with just one. Ponting talks about the impact of his early development where at the age of 11-12 he played against men on hard pitches. In order to cope with the high bounce he played with ‘high hands’ and because he was always looking to come forward he developed a unique pull shot that became one of his trademark shots later in his career. Early experiences play a massive part in underpinning the techniques and strategies of future elite players. Think of Malinga, who developed his slingshot style of bowling through playing lots of tennis ball cricket, or Hoggard, who’s curved run-up developed to take into account the position of his dad’s greenhouse. One of my favourite examples is Neil Harvey, who developed his renowned ability against spin by batting on a cobblestone street near his home. Remarkably, Harvery was never stumped in test cricket and puts this down to the technique he developed when learning on this uneven surface. For those interested, Australian journalist, Steve Canane wrote a superb book on this subject called: First tests: Great Australians and the Backyards that made them. The link to the book is here: https://shop.abc.net.au/products/first-tests-great-australian-cricketers-and-the-backyards-that-made-them-. Canane’s thesis is that the backyard is the true academy for Australian dominance not the high-end coaching or formal academies. He makes a pretty powerful case  providing evidence form Trumper to the Husseys. There is a cautionary note though, backyards are disappearing in Australia and (possibly) with it the unique skill sets developed in these adult free learning environments.

In our own work on talent development in fast bowlers, we found that many of Australia’s greatest fast bowlers all played significant amounts of backyard cricket but also played against men while still young.

“Results provided strong support for previous research highlighting the importance of unstructured practice activities, such as backyard‟ cricket (Weissensteiner et al., 2009; Cannane, 2009). Backyard cricket was encouraged by cultural constraints, providing experts‟ with the capacity to adapt movements to emerging task and individual constraints. This unstructured play was also important for promoting enjoyment, participation and competition at various stages of development. These early experiences shaped the intrinsic dynamics and movement patterns of developing experts, as they naturally discovered creative movement solutions in unstructured play (Phillips et al., 2010).” 

Playing with adults was also vital to future success, and these experiences took place in supportive environments where senior players ‘looked after’ the youngsters.

“Participants stressed the importance of opportunities to play with older cricket players, and the challenge of this environment. The practice and performance environments made sure players were continually challenged and always on the edge of stability, forcing them to constantly adapt their behaviours and increase their level of performance. They also felt the club structures protected them when required but also gave them the opportunity to play a more challenging level of cricket, both in big cities and smaller locations. Many affirmed there was no specific fast bowling coaching available, so often senior team mates filled this gap. These ideas bring into question the relevance of birth date effects by arguing that these constraints on expertise could be manipulated, depending on the dynamics of development environment, where backyard, and structured cricket environment are not necessarily age-specific. Qualitative data suggested that introducing younger players to play with older, more experienced players may create a controlled, supportive, mentored learning programme (Phillips et al., 2010).“

Personally, I think the way that older players mentor youngsters  is one of the strengths of cricket and a real challenge going forward given that players are retiring from playing at younger ages with a resulting  lack of leadership in the lower Grades in club cricket. In Australia, Cricket Australia are acutely aware of this problem and a review of grade cricket is currently underway to try to ensure that the pathway form the backyard to the Baggy Green remains open and connected.

Phillips, E., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Portus, M. (2010). The development of fast bowling experts in Australian Cricket. Talent Development and Excellence, 2(2), 137-148.

Representative Testing?

Representative Testing?

Click on the title to go to an interesting article by Simon Briggs in The Daily Telegraph about ‘testing’ and measurement of performance in cricket. Below I provide some thoughts on this issue from our own work.

A key feature of our work highlights the need to design learning environments that replicate the performance environment. However, we have also commented on ‘testing’ that fails to capture the key features of expertise in sport. Capturing expertise is a challenging task and the inherent complexity of performance environments maybe one reason why sport scientists often disregard the importance of environmental characteristics and instead opt for simplified tests such as  video based perception tests (or fitness tests) because they are easy to standardise and repeat. While  previous research has shed some light on our understanding of expertise, when experimental conditions differ to performance environments they markedly alter an athlete’s behaviour. Recent research is bringing into question the value of making performance judgements via non-representative tasks as participants are only able to base their responses. For example, how useful is testing batting ability via a standardised test against a bowling machine, when the absence of the cues available in bowler’s actions has been shown to change the technique of batters (See Renshaw et al., 2009: Pinder et al, 2009, 2011)?  In contrast, responses taken from tests representative of performance environments are a consequence of participants interacting continuously and unobtrusively with their environment through being are able to see, feel, and hear relevant stimuli (Pluijms et al, 20013). Designing tests in ‘representative performance environments requires sport scientists to ensure the presence of all key information sources that guide performer’s actions. By default, this requirement requires the adoption of integrative, inter-disciplinary approaches to studying expertise.

References

Pinder, R., Renshaw, I., Davids, K.D, (2013). The Role of Representative Design in Talent Development: A Comment on “Talent identification and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes.”  Journal of Sports Sciences, 31, 8, 803-806.

24.    Pinder, R., Renshaw, I., & Davids, K. (2009). Information-movement coupling in developing cricketers under changing ecological practice constraints. Human Movement Science, 28(4), 468-479.

Pinder, R. A., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2011). Manipulating informational constraints shapes movement re-organisation in interceptive actions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. doi: 10.3758/s13414-011-0102-1

Renshaw, I., Oldham, T., Davids, K., & Golds, T. (2007). Changing ecological constraints of practice alters coordination of dynamic interceptive actions. European Journal of Sports Sciences, 7(3), 157-167.

Villar, L., Araujo, D., Davids, K., & Renshaw, I. (2013). The need for ‘representative task designs’ in evaluating efficacy of skills tests in sport: A comment on Russell, Benton and Kingsley (2010). Journal of Sports Sciences, 1-4.