5 Dec 2007 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 5 Dec 2007
Maybe i\'m opening a huge can of worms here.
Education for cricket wicket management...
After talking with colleagues in the southern hemisphere recently the main topic of discussion was education for young 'turf wicket' managers here in the uk and abroad.
It seems that there's a big 'hole' in the system in that most lecturers don't understand the basic understanding of cricket pitches and clay minerology but not all teachers i must say.
I often think back to my old college days (which seems so long ago now) and how the grass teachers had very little understanding about 'the dirt or clay' and how it should be managed to get the very best out of the turf wicket.
I understand the 'bulk' of students are from various golf clubs but the certificate is classed a 'sports turf' qualification so the whole spectrum of turf surfaces should be covered?
I believe i could teach my young guys at Yorks so much more being with me on the ground and feeling the dirt than sat in a classroom but hey they need a turf certificate to progress in the industry.
I feel it\'s a question of 'bums on seats' rather than quality education for our young turf managers.
I\'m a big believer in 'education' but surely the modern system has to be restructured to incorporate the whole spectrum of sports surfaces.
So much about cricket wicket management is about experience, instinct, touch and feel and learning how to 'feel the dirt' and squige beetween the toes and all that stuff.
Look forward to all responses!
5 Dec 2007 by dave r-b Last edited 5 Dec 2007
Spot on AA.
i finished my NVQ2 last year and whilst i know this is essentially a work place gained qualification, we did 1 day a week at college.
i must say that my lecturer had little or no experience in sports turf management, most of his experience of fine turf was on ornamental lawns.
I know we did get out to some top sporting venues, golf courses, bowls greens and croquet lawns but no top football or cricket venues although Harrogate was good it was a golf orientated event (mind you i did enjoy weatherspoons in the old bath house, food quite good and cheap ale).
the college i went through does i know have a big link with the belfry for its NVQ3 and foundation degree student, i feel they should try and cater for all the different needs of the students.
im now an ex groundsman but hey old habits die hard
AA, the answer is in your last sentence. Its all touchy feely, gained from experience. You cant teach it.
5 Dec 2007 by donals
So become a trainer and serve the need of those you mention.
6 Dec 2007 by vid
Hi Anthony,
Its one thing to set up a course, its another one completely to find the content and someone to teach it or at least structure the course. As we touched on the other day applying the minerology to practise takes specialist need, time, money and dedicated research.
I personally understand a small amount about clays and their structures but mine was an agricultural HND so was concerned with 'poaching', 'pans', percolation rates and drainage - rather than plasticity and resilience. I have not heard at any great length anybody apply their knowledge of clay minerology to cricket preparation - I dare say the STRI would disagree but articles by them do not spring to mind and you would have thought considering the interest that there would have been more from them in the trade press.
I agree that a grounding in the minerology would have huge benefits to understanding the art of pitch preparation in most clay content sports surfaces, at what level though should it be introduced - it does require a fairly good understanding of chemistry at quite a high level and would probably be of no use at all to 'entry level' groundsmanship.
Dont get me wrong Im all for it, I just wont be holding my breath!!
6 Dec 2007 by Peter Leroy Last edited 6 Dec 2007
Soils ain't Soils eh AA ?
I am shaking my head in agreement with many already about who taught what way back when and was there any real use for such knowledge.
In my case I had one of the best of turfgrass lecturers one would find in any institute...yay Peter Mc... And yet, I learned very little in the way of cricket. Golf for sure, bowl, yes, race tracks a little, greyhound racing tracks a very tiny amount....indeed football (see golf same thing just higher cut)..funny the things some come out with at school huh ?
How it began is not the point here, but as I cast the old mind back, I do believe that we did touch on clays soils. Much time spent on how to grow grass in concrete.
I listened, talked to, travelled far and wide globally seeking out those who worked on wickets. I possibly learned far more that way for the first few years than I did while attending a specialist college.
Fortunately, my career took me through a university and as it happened the work shed was next door to the Soil Science dept of the Ag faculty. And those guys were interested in clay soils and jumped at the chance to explain to the groundsman of the time just what all these colloids did.
So... AA has some wonderful thoughts on just what should the curriculum be for those budding wicket makers of the future.
I gave this much thought years ago and came up with a brief outline which went something like ... Three years of basics in greenkeeping..you know..turf types (warm and cool climate), weeds, pests, diseases, health and safety, machinery paperwork shuffle and in that three years, one year of soils study.
The fourth year would be an optional year, depending on just what you wanted to be when you grow up. Golf, Cricket, Football, Race tracks etc. That time spent working on technical details and also practical work in your chosen area.
More or less something akin to a double apprenticeship.. three years with one and then a year at the specialist place.
Some of it could be made to work, while for many the costs would outweigh the benefits..
I have some good friends in government soils departments who still want to know more about the practicalities of growing grass in concrete.
Just my thoughts
Good points Anthony, i feel that the NVQ scheme is sufficent as a entry level qualification only, i dont think the current NVQ is the place to learn specifics about individual sport ( hence the generalisation of the course)
What i think is needed, is after the NVQ is a specific course designed for specific sports, so that all the relevant information to that sport can be digested. Not the normal " level 1 IOG course" an intermediate course specific to indiviual sports, that could be attributed to a HNC / HND or Higher Education qualification.
This has 2 points;
Individuals will " specialise" in specific sports turf, so even though they may lack experience, they have a theory specific to that sport - this is where detailed information can be given.
Employers can identify individuals at interviews and match them up specifically to there needs.
Whether there is enough demand for specific courses for speciific sports is another question, but even if the courses were run as " clay based pitches" or Sand based pitches it would be a start.
I have always been a little critical of what NVQ's offer. In areas like plumbing, electrical, brickwork, mechanics etc. there are hard and fast rules that must be followed due to building regs, manufacturers specifications etc.
Sports turf is much more diverse, golf adn cricket surfaces are very different, tennis and horse racing different again.
It is true to say that some of the techniques are transferable, but why and when to aerate, reseed etc can be quite different. Growing grass could be aligned with working on different engines essentially it needs the same things to help it grow but different grasses for different applications.
I learnt what I know from our old groundsman and by attending the ECB IOG course. Now I probably have huge holes in my sports turf knowledge but I feel confident enough that my knowledge and resources can cope with most conditions.
I think the NVQ will provide most people with the general skills, knowledge and techniques, but the specialist course like the IOG courses will help fill some of the gaps that are specific to the industry.
I think wothin the NVQ 3 that you should be able to specialise on one or two sports surfaces rather than some of the more general topic areas covered. If this make the course longer or more difficult then so be it. It is the perceived simplicity of the work we do that drives the low pay scales and peoples perception of groundsmen. If the NVQ modules could be aimed at specific sports then the modular style could allow individuals to extend there knowledge bit by bit.
sorry didn't mean to repeat what Neil said
The basic skills are the same regardless of the surface. NVQ's are designed to ptovide the baiscs. When you want (or rather are ready) to move beyonf that what we need is a modular hnd/degree level course. there could be optional modules dependant on the sport you want to specialise in.
Serious courses are something I need to look into more once I got my house sorted - looks like a busy winter.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
6 Dec 2007 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 6 Dec 2007
Great imput guys
When i think back to when i was at grass school there was nothing in the course that related to managing high colloidal soils and even ryegrass which was pretty poor considering it was a sports turf course.
Anyhow if one wanted to learn about clay minerology etc where is this taught? there is nothing around to cater for such subjects, it's certainly not taught and understood in the colleges the summer sport boys attend but where is it taught then?
I agree with you neil and peter about the structure of the courses and maybe 'specialist' teachers should be introduced 'as and when' such as a wicket specialist who understands the minerology and dirt and just how to produce a pitch to 'first class' standard.
Maybe it's an idea for pitchcare to think about?
Hem Hem pokes dave saltman.
Or send young wicket guys, day release or something to the workplaces where high standard wickets are produced and learn, learn and learn!
I think the biggest way of sourcing information is to talk to groundsman and wicket makers not just in england but worldwide and it's this networking which will bing the best out in all of us.
I'm extremely passionate about cricket soils and clays and it's a subject close to my heart!
Cheers for all the excelent responses
Anthony, speaking to other gm's is about the only way at present. From that you get an idea of something you want to find out more about, then you hjave to be willing to trawl the net to find the info - or spend a fortune on books.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
6 Dec 2007 by vid
I will reiterate what I said earlier - is there enough applied knowledge out ther for such a subject to be included in cricket/tennis specific coursework. There is certainly enough expertise on pure minerology but is there any at all on the applications for cricket vis a vis plasticity and resilience / rolling and ball bounce. It normally takes someone to have studied this at degree level as a specialist subject for this information to become more widely available - has anyone done a soil minerology / cricket specific thesis for their degree
6 Dec 2007 by Anthony Asquith Last edited 6 Dec 2007
Hi mark
Yes i know individuals who's done research projects (me) and part of degree courses but ofcourse for the majority to learn such a subject will take a number of years and some probably can't care less!
The main part of understanding is how these phylosillicate internal structures behave in relation to producing cricket wickets and how this affects preperation.
Some will probably think it's irrelevent as they can produce wickets without having a great understanding of 'the dirt' but i'm the other way as over the years the art of producing wickets has become easier through studying and understanding what your dealing with.
I find most i've come across don't understand even basic minerology which is poor but it doesn't mean your not an excelent curator/groundsman and it doesn't mean you can't produce good turf wickets.
Maybe we need a education course at a university that offers such a subject for those who want to understand about clays!
A lot of the work done at cranfield is excelent but as you say there's nothing much done with this out there on the field which is subjected to actualy play.
Again i think cricket is more about experience but put this with understanding about grass crops and and colloidal soils and your on to a winner.
So much more comes into it when talking of turf wickets such as BD, humidity, moisture, shearing effect and temperature but behind all of that relates to a litle chunk of rock called clays!
Anthony,
Are you fishing for a job offer here?
To me there is something obvious, but perhaps I'm missing something.
All appear to agree that cricket is very much about experience - so to prepare and present a higher level training in cricket wickets you need an experienced cricket groundsman. The experienced groundsmen are, presumably, not in the HE establishments.
Perhaps you need to discuss with your employers the possibility of a sabatical.
Perhaps another issue is that, I suspect, there are many times more full-time professional football and golf groundsmen than cricket groundsmen??
The ciderman rolls
The IOG courses and STRI use people with turf management qualifications and experienced cricket groundsmen. Attendance on my IOG course was "made" by being alongside 15 other people who looked after cricket pitches.
I would say that both elements are equally important.
You have got to understand the fundmentals and science of sports turf - horticulture, soils etc - but you need the practical experience and knowledge of cricket tables etc.
One without the other and we would still be using rotating drum spikers or dressing with marl.
Most/many still are using rotating drum spikers. Not always because they do not know any different. Usually because they do not have funds available. I totally agree with previous post on importance of education. However, you do not need a degree to manage a cricket square and very rarely are the funds available to allow you to put your knowledge to good use.
The level of education (and thus indepth scientific knowledge) should depend on the level you're wanting to work at.
What is needed to work at the local village club should be different to that needed at an international venue. Experience matters, but experience backed by knowledge ha sto be better.
just cos a club might be short of funds shouldn't stop you from learning more.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
I am somewhat in agreeance with jlawrence ..and others..on this point of relative knowledge.
For me it is a question of just how little knowledge should be required by a potential employer..and that can be volunteer groundsmen as well.
In many ways I think that Dave Saltman began with just such an idea...a source of information that would cater for the masses in general.
As PC grew so too would its knowledge base and so more pertinent information would become available to those who do have higher levels of skill and knowledge.
Ah ! there is that term yet again.. Skill (as in practical) and Knowledge (as in technical).
For groundsmen, no matter the standard of the pitch, I totally agree that both words need to go together.
For AA and perhaps others, there is a "need" to know more and so I agree that there should be a resource or school , whatever, that caters for those who wish to know more of the soil (ok AA dirt) science involved in the sport of cricket.
Sheer strength, BD, etc. etc. ..why does any grassgrower need to know such things ?
The answer is.....they don't.
Shock horror..someone supports further education and then says you don't need it ?
My meaning here is that..if you are a volunteer or a new groundsman (person.. another topic) then you require the two factors..technical knowledge and practical experience to achive the minimum standards of wicket preperation.
And dont get me going on "Minimum Standards"
Should you be at that level you can find sources of information..hence Saltman and PC. ok ok and of course IOG..or other such organisations..... then.. go talk to the local groundsman who tends a pitch of a higher standing in the system.. and they dont necessarily need to be in your own county or even country.
The next level is the semi to full professional. It is here that I think that we are discussing the education of these folks.
Now having said that PC provides peer responses..it does not..and at present cannot..offer all knowledge (technical) nor in the conceivable future, be able to offer practical assistance...[ mmm N.B. Dave Saltman.. PC offers consulting groundmen to those who require such..for a fee ?? ]
I digress...
For those like AA and Mick and Andy et al there is always something to learn or perhaps a need to understand more of the technicalities of soils, herbicides, chemical balance etc. But where do they go ?
ok I have mixed and matched thoughts here, but I would like to think that by just throwing in these thoughts it will promote further thinking and discussion on just how do we, as groundsmen, offer suggestions to schools etc. on just what should be in a curriculum and then how those subjects could be taught and to what level.
And yes indeed...learning can be free..and lack of funds should never prevent any of us from learning
I suppose I'm fortunate in that there are plenty of people on here who I can learn loads from and still more basic level knowledge for me to get.
When (if) I get to AA's level of knowledge then it will be much more difficult to find applicable courses.
I think that more on basic plant and soil science should be available on the basic courses, but again the soil science has to be specific to the sport in question.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
I am just starting & as a volunteer gaining as much info as possible learning all the time especially from AA, I have taken IOG level1 courses but will look to take further courses in my development I am gaining the practical experience but would like courses & more infomation higher up the chain maybe the IOG should have a course like AA suggests so that I can improve my technical knowledge as far as possible. As cricket is a specialist surface we require our support/ expertise. If we hadn't had research where would we be playing on surfaces with planes of weakness using different grasses as seems now a given that we use 100 ryegrasses we need this research & to learn how to use this in practice, anyway we can improve knowledge will improve surfaces which is what we all want to achieve.
6 Dec 2007 by Peter Leroy Last edited 6 Dec 2007
As a follow up...
When I began in a country far far away..the greenkeeping course, as it was called, was done at a Horticultural college with specialist lecturers. None mind you had ever worked on a ground and yet were "consultants' to grounds..go figure huh ?
The course was then 1 year..yes thats right folks in 3 - 8 week terms, we were taught all there is to know about every conceivable turf situation.
The students, usually apprentices, were then 'expert' and given their own grounds. Mind you 95% were from lawn bowls or golf sections of the industry.
Turf ident, Weeds, Pests, Diseases. Turf management in warm and cool climates, machinery operation. (the school had two cylinder mowers and a tractor..woohoo
Years passed and I enrolled again..this time it was a 3 year course.
Soils were now thought to be essential. Again the golf and bowls industry supported the school but this time only 90% were from that side.
Again time passed and it took a seminar to get me thinking.
An "expert" turf man from the U.S.A. was keynote speaker..steps up to the rostrum, drops a lump of Monmorilloinite (Smectite these days) on the floor and utters.. "you cannot grow grass in this crap"
80% of those in attendance were groundsman and so much laughter ensued.
So even so called "experts" can get it wrong at times and that boys and girls is when I began to push for more practically experienced former or current groundsmen to be employed by educational facilities.
Today we are supported by agronomists, consultant soil engineers, fertilizer company backed experts and I find myself wondering why ?
Surely the education of current and future groundsmen is of such high quality that they do not require such support ?
Should the basic technical training of a groundsman be sufficiently high enough it will save the employer large sums of money in not having to use a consultant, except for those special occurances where it just all goes pear shaped ?
No I am not anti consultant at all. Indeed I happen to be one these days but am becoming curious as to why the local groundsman does not know some basic things about his or her profession.
I notice that UEFA or the FA do offer some minor support to football groundsmen ?
Perhaps it is coming closer to that time when the ICC give thought to offering a similar service to groundsmen no matter the standard of the players using the pitch.
Now before Andy jumps in and says they do :)
Or before somebody mentions the ECB, ACB, NZCB, BCCI et al...... how much money and resources and training is provided to the schools who are supposedly educating the future groundsmen ?
Who are the lecturers and what specific skills do they have ?
Again, I am do not have the answers but strongly believe that much of the needed suggestions and changes can come from right here on PC.
ok that's it..I shall shut up now and look forward to some thought provoking ideas on how and what and when for the education of groundsmen
6 Dec 2007 by Cranfield Last edited 7 Dec 2007
Some interesting posts here, there are plenty of challenges facing our industry with regard to education / training within our industry.
The thirst for knowledge is very evident with the amount of traffic we get on our message boards.
I for one, am constantly looking at ways and means to promote our industry and get appropriate information and training opportunities for those who work in our wonderful industry.
The opportunities for dedicated , committed grounds professionals is immense. They now have a chance to work in many wonderful countries thanks to the popularity of televised sports coverage.
The demand for better quality playing surfaces has led to development of new and challenging pitch constructions which in turn are expected to deliver high quality playing surfaces whatever the demand and weather .
Which in turn further challenges and tests the skills and knowledge of our grounds staff / managers.
There is definitely a need to bring together appropriate soil scientists, agronomist and practitioners along with educationalists to meet and fulfill the needs of our ever changing sports turf industry. I am sure we at PC and many other interested parties will endeavour to support the needs of our industry.
6 Dec 2007 by jlawrence Last edited 6 Dec 2007
Peter, you bring up some interesting ideas.
I'm from the IT industry, and we think nothing (or think little) about spending 5K+ for a ONE week course and they'll be sold out with 10 applicants and many more hoping for cencelations. These courses are full on (12 hour + days) delivered by recognised experts in their field (both technically and practically). The attendees often also have to contract in replacements for themselves whilst they're away on these courses, so a 5K 5 day course can easily cost a company 7.5K + expenses.
Compare that to the turf industry. I know people who complain about the prices of the IOG courses (or indeed something like the NPTC spraying courses).
OK, so the industry isn't such that it's going to cost 1000's per day to contract in the 'teacher'. But attitudes in general need to change before any 'experts' are going to start offering their time to teach.
Courses cost money, especially if you want it delivered by someone who really knows their stuff. These people are employed elsewhere as well, so you're not only paying for their time but also for someone to stand in at work and for the hassle factor.
Let's take some VERY rough figures:
Expert = 45K per year or approx 125 per day. Contract out rate is likely therefore to be at least 200 per day.
Decent venue is likely to come in at 1K per day.
Hotel + expenses for teacher another 200 per day.
course materials possibly a couple of 100.
accreditation costs likely 100 per entrant.
Total (very approx) cost for 5 day course = 9K
Assume 10 people attending a 5 day course that's 900 each + accommodation + any profit. So you're looking at a minimum of 1750 for a 5 day course.
Given that people winge about paying £65 for a one day course they're unlikely to want to pay 1750+++ for a well delivered 5 day course.
So Peter, the first thing that needs to change is that people need to be willing to pay what it costs to receive this sort of training.
It also needs a commitment from the training providers. If I pay 1500 (or more) to book on a course then I 100% expect it to go ahead regardless of how many people apply or turn up.
This doesn't happen in this industry even at the £65 for a one day course level.
If you're going to offer courses then run them, else quit wasting my F'in time advertising courses that will only happen IF you get enough people. If you can't give this sort of guarantee then no one is going to commit to spending the amounts that it takes to go on that sort of course. Let's say that I organise things such that I can do one of these courses then they get cancelled - great, no course and now I've got a penalty clause to pay to my now no longer required stand in.
It may be different if you're targeting ONLY the fulltime groundsmen - perhaps they can be allowed to go for 5+ days on a course without too many additional costs being incurred. BUT, for the volunteer they more than likely will need to at least book time off from work - to then have the course canceled only a few days before simply ain't good enough.
NOTE: I'm not having a go at any specific training provider here. It seems to me that it is the same across all providers within the industry.
To sum up my thoughts:
1) It needs commitment from the trainee to be willing to pay quite serious money to be trained by 'experts' in a given subject.
2) It needs commitment from the training provider that the course will actually happen.
3) It requires more than a certificate of attendance, for a price of 1000's the training must culminate with an accredited award - I can't see that this industry is such that people will pay the required amount for a c.o.a.
4) Venue doesn't really matter - for courses at this level and price people need to expect to travel.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
AA. what is the chance, seeing as you opened this can of worms, of you "inviting" those of us (within reasonable numbers) who would wish to share your extensive knowledge, up to you for a few days to watch and learn. im not suggesting you promote it as a course, but as an "informal gathering, where you get many willing hands and many a beer thrown in"........ just a though.
im now an ex groundsman but hey old habits die hard
6 Dec 2007 by Peter Leroy Last edited 6 Dec 2007
Some very good points jlawrence.
Money being the root of all evil will be a part of the entire equation.
As to where that money comes from is , for the moment, besides the point.
For now it is more is there a need ?
If yes, then what is the need ?
But while mentioning costs and value for money.. a major cricket venue could be valued at lets say about...300 million (whatevers)
The event, and here lets assume an International fixture, say an ODI..... television coverage = global = revenue to the venue of 2 million.
The groundsman make an error of judgement and a delayed game or even cancellation.. poof go 2 million just in television... add to that catering, temporary employment, normal running costs, marketing etc etc.
Groundsmans error = 3-4 million.
Did the groundsman know how thermosmosis works on cricket clay soils and if not , then why not..he was not educated at school sufficiently ?
The above is simply an example of how values in monetary terms is often understated by managment of a venue.
And yes it is a long stretch but had the groundsman been taught about such and clays soils and covers he may not have applied as much water during preperation or taken some other action.
And so using the hypothetical 1700 course figure.. to spend say 10 times that on making educational resources available to either management or the groundsman could have prevented a multi million loss of revenue and the accompanying embarassment.
At the other end of the scale... the numbers are different of course. But the effect is the same. The local lads after game function costs money to put on..the pub down the road loses money due to a cancellation...etc etc.
My point... spending money for a finacial return greater than that being spent is often good business practice.
Who pays ?
Now that is the tricky question... for me it should be at government level..i.e. taxes to Sports ministry to local government and to education facilities.
OR
The groundsman... and is that a scream of indignation from the corner ? "Why should I pay anything ..I pay me taxes and so I should get free training"
For some cricket facilities this may be a posibility. Investment in staff is a good investment.
For some, such a costly investment needs to be compared with return of investment.
Some educational facilities will plead that it cost money to do research and so their fees are scaled for cost recovery.
Great stuff and I appreciate that.
If the groundsman were to be provided a resource or school to better his understanding of his chosen career then he would not require at times some of the costly research as he would understand the vagories of ..lets say soils a little better.
Return on investment.
So far we seem to be all agreeing in one way or another and by doing so there is a general acknowledgement that there is indeed a problem and a mjor problem within the industry rarely discussed.
So!..how to go forward ?
We as groundsmen have chosen to sign on with PC. And so is it possible that we as groundsmen with the assistance of PC could actually come up with a draft curriculum for the teaching of Turfgrass Management ?
(have to have the course before you have the teachers...who they are is a step further down the track)
That draft could then be forwarded to a government sports secretary who could then consider its value to the sports industry as a whole and so take up further discussion with the minister for education, or whatever the position in your country is titled ?
Great to have ideas..no point in beating ourselves up if nothing is to ever come of the suggestion or enquiry that AA first put forward in this thread ?
And I said I was going to shut up ..geez
hmm great idea dave r-b and AA can foot the bill for beers and munchies and transport ;)
6 Dec 2007 by Peter Leroy Last edited 6 Dec 2007
Just as a starter...
there is an article on PC Oceania http://www.pitchcare.com.au/index.php ..search Education ..titled Magazine: Diploma in Horticulture (NSW, AUSTRALIA)
It outlines the subjects required for a Diploma in turf at a state government run college (school) in NSW
Makes for interesting reading.
Would someone be able to post the curriculum for the equivalent course in their country here on PC ?
Having this information may lead to some ideas or suggestions ?
not so sure AA would go for that, but i for 1 would be willing to work my butt off pushing and carrying, if at the end of the day i came away with just that little bit more knowledge. Then at night we all pull up a sand bag (as it always rains in Yorkshire) have a few beers. what better
im now an ex groundsman but hey old habits die hard
Some excellent typing skills displayed by many verbose contributors to this thread. Do your your job, enjoy it, learn from success and failure, if you've got time to read all this waffle your not doing your job. My honest opinion. PS I've not read it all, why should I?
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother
7 Dec 2007 by vid
........expert £45k, courses £1700 per 5 days per head...... Anthony Asquith pie and chips and a pint of beer or two. Over to you AA the offer must be tempting as recompense for your expertise!!!
As a matter of interest, is there a big shortage of top class people to fill the very top jobs? whatever the sport.
I appreciate there is a shortage of skilled labour down the levels, but not i think a shortage of triers. At this level i understand there is a big turnover of staff.
Low pay, many unsociable hours and poor ongoing education are probabley three of the major causes of this turnover. Does the industry care? the paymasters that is, while the top positions can be filled with well qualified staff.
If you speak to soccer and rugby clubs, bowls, tennis and cricket clubs at the recreational level, many will tell you that the members will not or cannot contribute any more finance to the cause. Even groundstaff with limited knowledge very often cannot put there limited knowledge into practice for this very reason. So again, do we need more highly qualified personel? or is it the dream of a few?
With my contractors hat on, i am involved with a company sports ground that has, soccer, rugby, bowls, tennis and cricket. I am responsible for every thing with the tennis, bowls and cricket, very limited involvement with the soccer and rugby.
All the specifications are very limited, but the company are very pleased with the turn around in the condition of there facilities.
One day this week, the manager asked if, without ruining my reputation, could i cut some work out that would not have an impact on the sports surfaces, because he could not afford to carry on paying, and needed to cut the bill. Being better skilled or more knowledgable will not solve this scenario.
An earlier post referred to IT and the cost of courses etc. Nearly every living soul in the country, and in many others, has access to a computer at home and at work. The demand for skilled labour therefor is far greater, hence higher wages at the top and much importance put on training. Many end users of IT will only earn national minimum wages.
I am not against us all learning more, far from it, but just giving my view as to why the industry is where it is.
My schooling over 8 years, 4 for Turf management 3 for the diploma, 1 for Horticulture.
I can say 98% was on golf, I hardly know a thing about preparing a wicket, yet I’m qualified to do so.
I have to say the sports turf qualifications are 100% biased towards golf.
Not that I saw anything wrong with it until I had to work on bloody oval's and wickets then I wondered why my teachers had forsaken me!!
More needs to be taught about managing a turf wicket or someday this art may be lost. Our class was made up of about 70% golf 20%oval/wicket 10% racetrack. Yet I learnt nothing about managing a racetrack or oval.
If it wasn’t for my time in England I would still be clueless.
Couldn’t agree more AA
How do greenkeepers earn a living!!! ;-)
I'm available at the right price vid 
That is totaly my point rob!
I'd love to take hold of the reins and educate these young wicket makers and i think in 'sports turf' colleges just about all should be learnt how to prepare wickets.
As said i'd be happy to talk and share my ideas and expertise with anyone.
7 Dec 2007 by jlawrence Last edited 7 Dec 2007
Yes Peter, ultimately the groundsman should pay - or at least be willing to. I'm responsible for my own education - if I can persuade the club to contribute then all well and good.
If you can identify a course that is relevant for your position, then the club may well pay. But, more than likely you'll have a hard time doing a justification to the club - especially for a high level course. It's all about preparing yourself for what you want to do or furthering your knowledge.
Some clubs are pro-active enough to try and look after the education of their staff (paid or not) but most simply can't afford to.
ADDED:
There is of course the possibility that the groundsman in question can try and find sponsorship (or funding) to pay towards courses.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
AA isn't it about providing the skills to an individual so he can prepare a wicket in the given conditions. Not all wickets are county standard, not all need as long a period to dry out etc. Some wickets will be as good as they can be aftera couple of hours rolling preparation others will take longer.
Alex Vickers has done some extensive reasearch work at Cranfield on moiture levels, rolling etc. the only thing that was missing was the affordable way to employ his findings in every day cricket (that is my opinion and may be wrong).
How much detailed science does one need to prepare a pitch as opposed to construct it? Does one need more science knowledge to rectify problems? Answers I can only guess at.
I rthink the answer has been outlined by several people in that a modular approach needs to be made to specific sports.
As with the rest of business JL ongoing training and development should be the top of list. Companies should be paying for it. We have fallen behind the rest of the world because this isn't the case.
Unfortunately the amenity industry is probably the worst offender, some contractors are making huge profits and not reinvesting in the staff. Local councils seem to, on the whole, provide minimal training required under the H&S requirements.
So it has been left, wrongly in my view, to the ambitious individuals to develope their own skills - and this when most feel the pay is inadequate, and such training is expensive.
ember243, it could well be that you're correct and at the 'general' level people don't need more knowledge.
But, and it's a big but. How can we say that wickets at lower levels wouldn't improve if someone with more knowledge worked on them - with exactly the same amount of time available to work them.
My own personal belief is that it is the lower levels that would benefit more.
The premise is that at the lower levels the groundstaff (or person) is more often than not a volunteer and often can only spend 2 or 3 hours a week prep'ing tracks. It is these people who would benefit most from having extra scientific knowledge and methodologies. With this knowledge they could ensure that their time is spent on the things that would make the most difference to the quality of their surface.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
7 Dec 2007 by Mal
I've read some of the threads here with some interest. There is gaps in the teaching system and has been rightly pointed out most NVQ, HNC and HND courses are all tailored to the golf course environment but then is that because of:
a) that golf courses are more proactive in their training resonsibilities to their employees and have better monetary resources
b) When it comes to a grounds manager or head groundsman looking at the training needs of his team, will he be likely to send a trainee or another member of his team on a course if he has knowledge that the course is more biased towards green keeping? Probably not.
In terms of b) I have heard the argument before on this and sugest that the problem is self perpetuating in that the colleges will taylor their courses to their intake. If for one year that a class is made up of 80% groundsmen and 20% green keepers then I guess they would need to address the problem of course content.
Certainly a larger organisation is better able to financially support a groundsman on training courses than a small club that may be struggling on finances. however sometimes funding can come from other sources they just arn't advertised.
Geography is everywhere
Mal, I think it depends on how much the groundsmanager interacts with green keepers. I've learned plenty from the many green keepers on here, my thoughts would be that they got their information from somewhere so why not take a look at their courses.
OK, the ins and outs of maintaining a USGA spec green may not help me prepare better cricket tracks, but how they maintain their fairways would likely help me maintain a better outfield.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
7 Dec 2007 by vid
I think we are all going round in circles, we all seem to be agreed, actually, that there is a level of groundsmanship below which this knowledge would be wasted if not unnecessary, and frankly there is an educational level that this sort of subject would require. On top of that there is the desire by the individual to gain this level of knowledge, without that the subject would be difficult to take in.
Having said that there should never be a bar to any level wanting to gain this knowledge, those with real desire will seek it out anyway.
I think where we are at is we need the knowledge of soil minerology and mechanics as applied to our profession to be formerly available, threfore it needs to be available as either a separate module or as part of a 'higher' qualification. I think it is wrong to say that there is little need for it - yes groundsmen can learn to prepare their grounds without an in depth technical knowledge of what they are doing - relying istead on practical demonstration and experience.
However without the input from reserach and inquiring and dynamic thought there would be no advances in the way we do things - not everything is achieved by trial and error and/or experience. Without the thorough technical understanding of a subject it is difficult to teach with any form of consistancy, mainly because you need as a teacher/lecturer to be able to answer the question 'why', without resorting to 'because thats the way its always been done.'
 |
madgeorge - that sounds great for new comers to the industry.
For those already in the industry it isn't really what we need.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
That sounds brilliant George, i really hope it works. I shall be watching with interest and badgering my CDM to see if our association might be able to copy.
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
