Just been listening to Giles Clarke and I have to say, as one not normally keen on ECB, he spoke with a lot of sense and a fair degree of passion when questioned about the state of discussions with the davies report abouut having cricket on terrestial tv.
he made the point that if the ECB was forced to give rights to BBC (maybe channel4) at a much lower rate, grassroots cricket will suffer greatly. He said county cricket would suffer to the point where some counties would cease to exist.
My worry is that the government will go with anything that they think will gain a few votes. Everytime a Government interferes in sport it is because of political motives and never for the interest of sport. this government in particular has a history of reducing sport in schools and has done nothing to encourage kids to play sports. I fear for our game.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
I must confess that I did not hear the interview, but in reality how much hard money makes its way to the small recreational cricket clubs who coach all these youngsters, very little is the answer, without an army of volunteers these clubs would not exist, the important thing is for youngsters to watch cricket to see their heroes in action
Yes, he spoke with passion - and said that the England team costs as much as the ECB puts into the whole of the recreational game.
I thought that was an interesting split of spending.
The ciderman rolls
Not suprised that the England team cost as much as the ECB puts into the whole of the recreational game. You only have to look at the none playing staff, they far out number the players. I wonder if they employ anybody to wipe the players a---s its a load of s---e.
But 48% went to everything county cricket, now generally that is a waste. Far to many of them to have good honest top class competition.
Guys, you can argue about the split as much as you like. The fact is, grassroots will get a hell of a lot less if the dear old boring BBC gets the cricket back. 25% of 20 million is much more than 20% of 10 million, the figures may not be accurate there but the idea is correct.
Richardb, sorry mate, you are speaking from a position of ignorance. The important thing is not just to get kids watching cricket on tv, it is to have decent facilities etc for them to play on and enough coaches for them to have etc.
In any case, how many families could not afford Sky sport if they really wanted it. Maybe if some Parents had one packet of fags less a week they could afford it anyway.
Im not saying the ECB puts the correct percentage into grassroots but if their pot gets less, then so will the monies coming down into grassroots.
The fact that the 2005 Ashes was on Sky didnt stop the biggest increase in colts numbers did it?
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Barry
I aint got sky and I smoke im out all day working so is my wife my son is 16 he comes home from school straight on x box this is winter, in the summer im doing ground after work wife does refreshments son is playing or training 4 times a week, I do admit I like a pint when can I watch it,
Was the 2005 ashes on sky only I thought thats when Ritchie Benaud retired but I will stand corrected
Just saying Paul it isnt that expensive.
Anyway, BBC were complacent how they spent our money.Channel 4 took the presentation to a new level and Sky have taken it on from there
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Minnd you, the way "Team England" is currently performinng, you have to wonder what the money is being spent on. I think they should get some IQ testing involved, KP,Prior and Broad all seem to have the inability to make adult decisions re their profession 
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Guys,
All those who think Sky is so great for cricket should consider what is going on with football.
A few great players earning tons of money along side a load of crap players earning tons of money.
Clubs going bankrupt, season ticket prices going through the roof.
There have clearly been some benefits but lets not be too naive.
Greg
The point is Greg, do you think there would more money or less money than noww coming into grassroots if the BBC get the cricket back?
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
17 Jan 2010 by pacman75cricket
On the flip side it would only be one test series every 4 years on free to air tv(not necessary BBC) surely if there would be that much interest in the series there would be advertisers queuing up for the ad breaks where incom could be re-couped.
Maybe we need to look at grss roots cricket to make sure we are producing the cricketers who can play for england concern seeing trott, peterson who weren't produced by our system.
How are we improving/ cricketers of becessary quality as straus & cook from schools(Radley College & Bedford School)
has funding made a difference.
How do we produce the next flintoff etc.
Pacman
It to some degree is a case of damage limitation. Funding will make a difference but it takes time. The increased revenue from Sky to the ECB has not been around for that long. It will take time at current levels things to come through.
It is not easy getting what financial help there is now but if the pot is much smaller it could be much worse.
Even if channel 4 could make an offer,a) it would be much less than Sky and b) advertising revenue would go to the televison company and not in any way to the ECB
In any case, channel 4 has no money and BBC would offer peanuts, albeit our money!
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
17 Jan 2010 by pacman75cricket
Barry was just trying to put an alternative that wouldn't necassary be all dome & gloom would need number crucnching from someone far better than me.
But for the benefit of kids seeing idols play maybe their could be a balance.
Especially in this day & age where there are so many things kids can do in their leisure time. The sport needs to inspire.
advertising revenue would go to TV company who would pay for rights.
Agree Sky money has helped ECB funding that has seen imporvement in grounds & facilities. And long may it continue.
Pacman
problem is, the TV company and we are only talkiing about channel 4 here, would not pay anywhere near as much for the rights. If the BBC got it, it would be even worse.
As for seeing their heroes play, after our performanc in S.Africa, Im not so sure how inspiring that is!
We need financial support in grassroots to help clubs get kids into cricket cos its only clubs that will do it. The Government has no interest in sport for kids generally but even less for cricket cos most Sun reading Parents are not interested in it and its all about votes for them. Ive seen successive Governments over the last 40 years, all reduce investment for sport in schools.
Sport is vital for kids and cricket imo, is the best thing for all the things that it can teach them. watchiing a load of over paid, foreign football players roll arounnd the ground and disresect the referee is no role model
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
I think we are all missing another point here, no matter how much money filters through to grass roots cricket and if we are being honest, apart from private schools and the odd state school with a sports teacher who's interested, then this means club cricket, it won't make one jot of difference if the coachings crap, the ECB have now dumbed down the levels 1 and 2 so they can get as many people through as possible, a box ticking exercise that looks good when they are approaching the sponsors. I still see many so called coaching sessions where it's, OK lads get the nets out so and so get some pads on and then the others que up and bowl 1 ball every 5 mins and yes I know not all sessions are like that, but far too many are and a lot of these are run by level 2 coaches!. So untill the majority of coaches are prepared to run sessions based around improving techniques of batting bowling and fielding, the vast majority of kids from the housing estates won't achieve their full potential.
(Puts soap box back in cupboard 
)
Andy,
Agree with a lot of what you are saying but would like to hear where you consider the blame to lay. Is it with the governing body, who are qualifying lots of coaches or is it with the coaches themselves who are not preparing challenging and interesting sessions for the children to learn from?
Vic.
Vic I think it's a combination of both, the current level 2 is barely more difficult than the old level 1, my mum could pass the current level 1, it seems more aimed at helpers than coaches, the new level 2 can be passed by anyone no matter what their level of cricket ability, (it still by the way doesn't qualify you to run net sessions, or it didn't it might have changed) whereas for the old level 2 you had to be able to perform the various aspects of batting and bowling to pass the exam, therefor you had to have some cricketing ability, therefor a proper coach, by which I mean someone who had played the game at a reasonable level and was therefor able to appreciate and coach the appropriate skills for a decent level of cricket. The current level 3 is out of reach for all but the rich and talented!.
The coaches themselves are also to blame, the level 2 does provide you with good ideas and good skills to carry out good quality sessions no matter what ability the group is, but if the coach can't be bothered to do some planning and just gets the nets out every week, then they might as well not bother doing the course. The clubs also need to realise that 1 coach for a team isn't enough, there must be at least 2 and more if possible to run the sessions and allow small groups to be formed, if you have 2 coaches for each team and you have the 11's followed by the 13's, then if each coach can stay for 2 hours then you can have 4 coaches per session, which is ideal.
So am I just on the soap box, NO, I have implimented and done sessions in this manner for the last 5 years, the indoor winter sessions especially are run in this way, out of 10 weeks the nets won't come out for 6 of them, on arrival the dividing net in the middle of the hall is got out and the players split into three or four groups, they will spend a set ammount of time at each station working on a batting, bowling or fielding skill, the feed back from both the boys and the parents has been very positive. I ran a league reprosentitive side last year and had boys at 11 years old turning up for trials with awful stances and not holding the bat right, it's very frustrating.
Andy, I'm liking your style and hoping that Barry has left for his well earned holiday by now. Believe me your last comment about holding the bat was also true of 17 year olds when I used to coach.
I used to teach Level 1 & 2 courses in Oxon & Bucks but gave up when we had to retrain every year and had to talk from a book rather than put a bit of ourselves into the course. The qualification imho was given to all who attended rather than those with ability to teach.
Clubs need to put people through to have a chance of getting their hands on any handouts but often these people are not the ones who understand the game fully.
I was fortunate to do the Level 3 pilot course a few years ago and are far from either rich or talented!!!!!
Net coaching is the easy option for coaches, they need not plan or execute the session. Watched a bloke last season who was well paid, turn up in shorts and flip-flops, pull up a chair and conduct a 2 hr session without standing once. Also anymore than 6 in a net is too many and the coaches insurance goes out of the window.
Keep up the good work, keep drumming home the basics in their skills groups and they will keep coming back.
Instead of complaining about this that and the other, we as coaches should take a look at ourselves and ask are we doing our best for the kids? If not it's time to pass it on to someone else.
There's a difficult balance in all this. Several of the above comments have been referring to 'getting handouts' but of course the pressure on clubs even if they do not seek handouts is to have sufficient 'qualified' coaches to cover their backs according to 'Safe Hands' to be able to run youth teams at all.
In the old days the best players would do the coaching based on their extensive knowledge. Now to have 2 coaches per team may mean some 'pressed men' (or Andy's Mum) going on courses to become qualified. Some of these may turn out to be better at managing youngsters but lack knowledge and this is where the use of others with knowledge is needed. (If they've been CRB'd, vetted, or whatever else is thrust in the way next.)
Clubs need to look at what they really need to ensure their youngsters are looked after properly, shown the basics correctly and safely and enjoy themselves enough to want to come back and improve.
Having given up PE teaching 5 years ago after 29 years I see it from both sides and don't actually see the ECB as just wanting to impress sponsors - central government is behind the 'covering your back' emphasis on getting people qualified and insured. The ECB is putting money into getting people qualified - although it might not seem like it when clubs or individuals get the bills for going on the courses.
Getting the right sort of person to take on the coaching will continue to be an issue.
Proud to serve grassroots cricket
Vic
Im back!! Im beginning to think you dont like me!
In an ideal world, we should have people going on coaching course that are experienced cricketers but that isnt always possible and often the keen ones come from colts parents who have little practical experience. To make up the numbers that required these days if you have a large colts section, one cannot always be that choosey who you send on courses.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Welcome back Barry, hope you enjoyed the holiday, I love everybody.
Vic.
Had a great time Vic. Met the great Joel Garner, there was a cricket club behind the hotel much to my Missus delight. He is their patron. Just one strip in the middle of the football pitch. Baked clay, with a bit of dead grass rolled in and played fine!
Mind you, I had a word with the groundsman and he was moaning abbout the footie, groundsman the same the wworld over eh?
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Welcome back Barry, the board hasn't been the same without you, hope you feel fit and refreshed. I'm sure Vic admires your enthusiasm after all this time really.
As was once said it's not necessary to agree with all your views, but I'd always defend your right to express them!
The light at the end of the tunnel is not a train
Then i guess you were South coast of Barbados Barry can't think of hotel name, but near the lighthouse (try silver Sands). Did you go and visit the equally great Malcolm Marshall?
Vic
Indeed, St.Lawrence Gap, hotel "Escape at the Gap". Club behind the ground was the Dover club.Didnt get anywhere else, wanted to go to bridgeton and have look around the oval but with only being there a week and already dragging the Missus to watch some cricket( she aint a lover of cricket) I didnt want to push my luck.
Great place though and the Barbadians at least seem as cricket mad as ever. lovely people.
All inclusive job at the hotel so I managed to pack on nearly half a stone in a week! But that will soon come off when the workload picks up at work soon. Got a little project building a roof to put the roller under to do in the next couple of weeks.
My.Loamy, cant understand why you cant always agree with my views wwhen I am obviously right all the time
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Know the area Barry, the hotel, dover cc and the delightful beach across the road. The Ship Inn just up the road. Used to be a great steak house just next to the cricket ground with a pizza place underneath. The locals are full of advise for the players.
Vic
Yep, still there all that. Great chat from the locals as you say.
Lovely place, seems a lifetime away already.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
29 Jan 2010 by paul.
All
Sorry so late on this but could not let it go!!!!
Sky being "not that expensive" is for another time!
Lets assume for the moment, Sky costs one pence a month!
What we are looking for here are tomorrows cricketers in numbers !
Tomorrows Cricketers don`t know yet, they are tomorrows cricketers!!
Tomorrows cricketers are not young cricketers who have sky because Dad has it,and its in the blood,they are today`s!
How many of tomorrows Cricketers will pay one pence,not knowing what cricket is?None
The more new Cricketers the more Flintoffs/ cant think of another english example!
How many Flintoffs/Bothams have ECB level 4 coaches made?None!
Would English cricket be better off with more english new players playing the game at grass roots and very average players at the top getting paid less,overseas players not taking money away from the system/country,and Ex players having to get a job,not commentating or coacing ?Yes
Is the games future at grass roots or at the top?
Where does the money go? County cricket and lots of ECB coaches!
Someone disagree with me here,coz it aint looking good!
Paul
What exactly are you saying? Tomorrows cricketers dont exist because currently it is today?!
ECB coaches are a waste of time?
Lets suppose you are in control, what would you do with revenue?
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
29 Jan 2010 by paul.
Barry
More people playing mean more quality through out and more international standard players at the top!
Cricket is different to football in that the idea of standing around for hours dressed in white, does not connect with youngsters who know nothing about the game!!!!
These youngsters need to see it,and be pushed to play to a certain extent at schools etc, (as we all were),before the cricket bug bites them!!!
Hence the money would be spent making sure youngsters see it and exposing them to it at schools,youth clubs etc!!
Once you have the foundations, the game at the top will look after itself and of course have more quality!
As it stands it looks more like a tall Palm tree !!
Coaching helps people improve of course it does,but you can`t coach talent!
You`re go!
So lets say you re right, would you like less or money to do it?
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Hi Paul, interesting comments as always. Can you just clarify for me what you mean by "you can't coach talent"?
I meant less or more money. Also Ive seen lads who looked hopeless but have ended up good players. You can certainly nurture talent
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
30 Jan 2010 by paul.
Barry
Agree you can nurture talent!
However it seems to me there are almost as many coaches as there are players!
You dont need to be a great coach(of course it helps) to get youngsters playing the game, enthusiasm and effort is what is required!
Vic
Was speaking to an average county pro just last night,who was trying to convince me that the game was so much better for the money to pay for full time profesionals,so that they can work on fitness and extra coaching during the winter!!!
Yes they should be better players for it,
However if i took a side of average county players and put them against an Australian state third eleven most of which would be amateurs !They would get thumped!why Difference in talent!
Barry
what money i could find would be spent on sending people into schools at the bottom of the pyramid ,and making sure they see the game on tv, to increase numbers of kids playing!
More people play, the more good players there will be!
There arent too many coaches. How many coaches do you think a club should have if you have 150 colts?
Cricket, like it or not, is a technical game and needs a lot of teaching.
How do you think you discover talent in cricket? You just dont get a kid who rocks up without any coaching and wipes the floor with everyone.
As for an Aussie state 3rd X1 beating a team of English pros, thats ridiculous, unless you are an Aussie of course cos they would say that! One reasonn thaat Ausie 1st graade is so strong is that they often have pros playing for them!
And one reason thaat Aussie cricket has been better form the grassroots is that they have a better and more serious form of coaching!
It is true that most top Aussie grade cricket is probably stronger than an average counnty second eleven.
Ofcourse we want more kids playing but putting the cricket on the BBC wont so that because they wont put as much cricket on for a start and getting back to my original point, there wont be as much money to invest in grassroots even if less was spent on the England team or proping up county cricket.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
30 Jan 2010 by pacman75cricket
Think you can coach talent, but can't coach natural ability( hand -eye co-ordination etc.
Need to attract this natural ability into the sport which is a problem due to profile & rewards of football, if a talented sportsman could choose between football or cricket would choose football nearly always so need to attract as many youngsters with natural ability into the sport.
In an ideal world would have both but for now will be a balancing act.
Sorry pac but beg to differ over the hand eye coordination. Many years ago when a kid at junior school, we did gym involving air flow balls, hoops, small sand filled bags etc. We learnt balance and coordination, we learnt how to throw and catch. A few years back, I questioned a current teacher about this and was told the three R's are more important. When coaching the Bucks juniors a few years ago I was appalled at how little coordination these guys had. Put a ladder on the floor and not many could skip through it.
Would however agree that what you cant teach is flair, individuality. Coaching is all about repetition, teaching the body and the brain how to recognise and cope with a particular skill.
Paul, pro's will be happier under the current system, they have full time jobs rather than having to find work for the winter. Sorry but still don't see what you mean by "you can't coach talent".
30 Jan 2010 by pacman75cricket
I bow too your experience on hand to eye co-ordination knew it could be improved but still thought amount is natural ability. The old debate whether its nature or nurture.
I cany fanny about with this anymore.
Paul, so the answer is to put cricket back on the BBC, have less coaches and persuade the Government to do what no succesive UK Government has done for the past 50 years and that is to invest and encourage kids into sport at school, specifically cricket?
You are having a laugh mate.
In Oz, most people are into sport, its an outside, work to live culture. You talk about role models, they star at home. And if a kids early role model is a fat tatooed obese Sun reading vicious dog ownning chav, what chance do you think that kid will have of getting interested in cricket?
The only way forwaard is for clubs to do it and that meaans investment yes but also more coaches.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
30 Jan 2010 by paul.
Barry
Be very interesting to see how many clubs get grants this year???
And you are right about Clubs having to take over from schools!
All ways nice to lock horns Barry!!Debate apart, You obviously put alot of effort/ passion into your club and i wish you well with it, as the game really would struggle without people like you!
No i am not Australian,but have played there for a few seasons!!!!!
Paul
And i thought it was South Africa that you played around Paul !!
Paul
Always good to debate mate
My original point was that clubs stand more chance of getting money if ECB has more money and it will have more money if the cricket stays with Sky.
Passion is what it is all about mate!
I have no time for the likes of Murdoch but also have no time for the slack d*cks who run the BBC and waste our money on period dramas that no one watches and come dancing c*ap.
Anyway, lets hope we hold on to the Ashes to encourage the kids.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
You will be right behind Adam Crozier then at ITV Barry.
30 Jan 2010 by paul.
Thank you Gordon
Im not fussy in which hemisphere!
Opportunity dosn`t knock at this door very often these days!
Yes Gordon
Cricket on ITV, that ll be the day eh!
More chance of seeing Surrey pick a young player who didnt go to a private school.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
I thought Surrey only had private schools. ITV, pay to view soon then !!
Surrey does have a lot of them. Cricket in state schools in Surrey in non existent, exactly like it was over 40 years ago when I was having to play in mens sides at 12 to get a game, makes me sick. A few years later when it was too late, I was playing against some of the privalidged tossers who had played for Surrey twos etc and werent as good as me but by then I was already bowling on one leg due to football injury.
Come to think of it, has ITV got any sport at all now? Cant think of any at all.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
31 Jan 2010 by pacman75cricket
Similar here barry to a certain extent, junior county sides a few sides dominate & apparently if your not in the setup from early age groups your not looked at.
I too went to state school played very little cricket, would only be because I went every weekend with my dad to cricket & mum did teas that I fell in love with the game as went to secondary school & was the only non-asian in the after school cricket.
ITV have a bit of sport Fa cup footbal champions league,(mind you remember them missing the only goal in an fa cup tie with everton as they went to the ad break)
Same as me Pacman
Taken by my Dad, goes back to my earlier point about tatooed football shirt wearing apes as Dads, what chance of their kid getting into cricket eh? ( What possesses a grown man to walk around a football shirt with his favourite players name on the back of it? I can understand a 10 year old doing it)
Yep bit of footie on ITV and thats it, really sad. They ve never really been into it though, cant really count the British wrestling on saturday afternoons as sporrt or horse racing.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
31 Jan 2010 by paul.
Barry
Thats where i`d spend my money, on state schools in Surrey!!!make sure we dont miss out on the barry`s and pacman`s of tomorrow!
Paul
Dont crawl!
And you gotta get it before you can spend it!
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Barry, horse racing is the "sport of king's", also watched by a damn site more of the public than cricket, also employs more British subjects than cricket, from feed merchants through to jockeys the like of A P McCoy, who risk life and limb everyday but never get a mention in the dear old sports personality awards. Don't see many state schools teaching jockey skills either.
31 Jan 2010 by Mike
Apologies for taking this thread backwards, but I found some of the comments re training methods interesting.
Pac - re your comments referring to being unable to coach hand eye co-ordination and such like. Have a read up on proprioception, dynamic vision and central peripheral awareness - these methods are what many top level coaches in all sports use nowadays. Skills that were once thought of as 'natural ability' are now achievable to those who were born with two left feet, so to speak, by embracing these training methods.
Mike
Vic
Yeah you re right, lets start a campaign to get the ECB to give all their money to the Irish so we can have more jockeys.
I was wrong, the ITV has indeed a great history of promoting sport, I mean at one time they championed pool
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Thank you Mike but my point would be, why should the skills you mention have to be taught by sports coaches, when 40 years ago, they were all part of primary school education albeit under less glamorous titles, and a natural part of growing up?
Vic.
1 Feb 2010 by Mike
I agree hole heartedly, Vic.
The training protocols that I mentioned are mainly focused on in top level sports, but that is not to say that they are not taught in schools. Some of the drills that you mentioned like airflow balls, hoops etc are some of the best developers of proprioception out there today. These drills are still used in schools, or were in my day anyway, and are still used in the schools over here. In my opinion, children should have these skills developed in schools, and therefore will have a base of skill, agility, coordination and balance when they do go into club sports, at which point the coaches can then develop the specific skills for their chosen sport.
It would then only be a case of developing these areas further if the players were particularly talented and wanted to enter the professional arena, at which point they would be privy to full time coaches, and would the protocols that I mentioned would be re-introduced to their training programmes.
Mike.
Vic/Mike
Succesive Governments have all helped to stop sport at schools which is one problem.
if yiou do back 40 years os so ago, cricket waas still badly organised n state schools but kids generally played sport all the time. I grew up in inner city london but was playing football and criccket all the time either in the road or over the park. Of course kids cant do that today on the whole.
Personally, I didnt mess about with airflow balls and hoops much at school but played games all the time inn my own time and in the playground.
Ok we didnt have distractions like computer games etc.
I think talking about having to teach kids coordination is both sad and a nonsense. Kids just dont move abut enough these days, thats one reason why there are so many little lard buckets about,that and the proliferation of junk food and Mum having to work and not having time or the energy to cook proper food.
Does that sound like the witterings of an old man? Well, yes it would wouldnt it!
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
1 Feb 2010 by Philmort Last edited 1 Feb 2010
Trying not to get too emotive the terms ability and skill are often misused. Whilst teaching A - Level physical education up to 5 years ago I had to make it clear that skill is learnt and ability innate. Balance, co-ordination, reflexes etc are part of the biological makeup of the individual and using those abilities in general or specific activities to improve performance is acquiring skills.
As Barry so eloquently puts it in days gone by, children (such as myself in those times) lived outdoors when it wasn't raining, playing 'war' on building sites, scrumping in orchards and then practicing our aim and throwing the smaller inedible fruit at each other, etc. That was when we weren't playing modified games with whatever implements came to hand, foot, etc. How many parents or grandparents would allow many of these activities to go ahead now, let alone the restrictions imposed by officialdom.
As now, curriculum PE was a minor part of our school time and the skills were not 'taught' much there, in primary school, and secondary PE games time was just that - we did few 'drills.'
The Public school ethos is such that more time is given over to curriculum PE and in a residential setting the 'captive audience' gets extended opportunity to improve performance usually with a good ratio of coaches/teachers to give maximum feedback and guidance.
I think this goes a long way to explain some of the trends and resulting nature of the participants in our glorious game.
Proud to serve grassroots cricket
Indeed Philmort
I spent many a happy hour leaping about bomb sites in Hackney as a kid in the fifties. You had to learn balance or you got hurt.
In my secondary school, PE did not amount to much and cricket was non existent but one naturally and subconciously aquired certain physical skills that are necessary for playing some sports or,"proprioception, dynamic vision and central peripheral awareness" to use the modern vernacular.
Nothing stays the same forever, its just sometime, in some cases, its a pity
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Erm, is it only me that thinks this, or do most cricketers come into the sport because their father/grandfather plays. I can think of only a handfull of players who I know who just fancied trying it.
Schools, hmmm. We had a few cricket teams at school. I can't recall ever doing cricket during PE lessons and the only ones who played in the teams were those of us who played for local sides anyway. Cricket is certainly played in schools around here. There is a schools' competition annually and it took 2 clubs (4 grounds) to host it last year - that was over 4 days iirc - I was amazed at the number of kids.
"proprioception, dynamic vision and central peripheral awareness". Barry, if I hadn't read the rest of the post I would have no idea that those words had anything to do with playing sport.
At the end of the day we are supposed to live in a 'free market economy' - either we do or we don't it's quite simple really. In a free market economy the market decides not the government.
Phil, like you, when I was younger we'd be out running around the fields or generally creating mayhem somewhere. My eldest is 7 and there no way I'd dare let him out and about nowadays.
Barry, personally I don't think I'm old (though I feel it the morning after nowadays) but I agree that kids need to get of their butts and do something. We go out of our way to ensure our kids eat correctly and do plenty of exercise - but I do realise that for some families that simply ain't an option.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
Jon
Those words meant nothing to me either. Its just gobblegook speak for something we are all born with to some degree. Kids could still naturally develop those skills but it is a bit harder but life style does now make it harder. As you say, cant let young kids round around the streets etc, or at leaast you shouldnt. The ones I see doing it nowadays are unfortunately probably the same ones who are on a cr*p diet and whose Parents dont give a damn.
Governments do decide things like what resources are put into schools sports. Imo they have created a huge problem fo the future. They spend fortunes telling us how to live our lives but dont do the basic things with kids. if I see another advert telling me that I am an alchoholic cos I like 2 glasses of wine a night and how I must drive 5 miles less a week to save the planet, I am in danger of putting my foot through the screen.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
2 Feb 2010 by Mike Last edited 2 Feb 2010
I wouldn't say those phrases are "gobblegook". What they are in everyday terms is simply what we all do on a daily basis - or those of us who are moderately active. Proprioception is basically what the friendly plod have people do when they suspect somebody has been drinking and driving, and ask them to place a finger on their nose with their eyes closed - everyone knowns of this test, but many are just unaware of why it works, much in the same way as us groundsmen aerate, but few outside groundsmanship know why we do it. The terms that I mentioned are simply the science behind what we all do, or should be doing throughout our childhood. I won't bore everyone with the science behind it, but I will provide a link for those that are interested in some of the methods used to improve the performance of people who are potentially good at sports, but often fail to reach their potential, so for those interested, have a look here:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0143.htm
Personally, I know just about nothing regarding cricket coaching, but what I do know is that eyesight training is overlooked in a lot of sports, and contrary to popular belief, eyesight, or more to the point, sports vision can be improved with simple drills.
For info, I have used these methods with boxers and javelin throwers in the past, and currently with a mixed martial artist that I coach. Many of these people have improved their performance remarkably by doing simple drills, and have surpassed what they once thought, or were told what was their maximum potential.
I won't go on and bore everyone any more!
Mike
Interesting link Mike. I would argue with one claim where it says colour blindness can be improved, it cant, I know from personal experience.
I would have thought we were talking about such exercises etc as improving performance for very small amounts. In athletics for example, these very small improvements can be important.
I still suggest however that if children were playing sport from an early age, they would develop and improve their coordination in a natural progression and far better than a kid who did no sport but was subject to such training as on that website. They would also be a lot healthier.
Such training as described on that website are for athletes etc that are looking for a fine edge and already probably have high levels of coordination.
We were basically talking about kids living sedentary life styles and not playing cricket at schools. Paul waas arguing that we have too many coaches and the money could be used better else where. He said more money should be put into teaching cricket in schools but he seems to forget who would be teaching kids the cricket, yes, coaches!! Most PE teachers have little skill if any in teaching cricket. Im talking about state schools here
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
2 Feb 2010 by Mike Last edited 2 Feb 2010
Barry, many of the exercises quoted are used either as a corrective means, which usually applies to the sedentary kids that you speak of, or as a way of maximizing the potential of top level athletes, where you are striving for an extra 1% improvement. We are actually in agreement in what we are both saying - any well developed child, barring any physical conditions, will have developed a good level of sports vision through basic childhood activities like climbing, skipping, juggling (which is a remarkable drill btw) - take catching a cricket ball drills in lessons - this is developing pursuit eye movement ability!
Imo, the onus should be on the schools to ensure that children develop these basic physical skills. Club sports, be it cricket, football, rugby or whatever else should be coaching the skills and techniques specific to their chosen sports. If basic physical conditioning drills are not taking place in schools, and particularly state schools, then the system should be looked at. I can only speak from working in a public school when I say that a great deal of time and effort goes in to developing basic physical skills into our children, many of whom go onto play sports for local clubs. It is no coincidence that the children who are taught the basics of physical preparedness at school, and attend clubs for further coaching are always the ones who perform the best.
Mike
Sorry Mike but you are in different world in a public school. You say the system should be looked at, it wont mate, it never has and it is getting much,much worse.
Non competitive sports days in state schools was the final straw. We musnt have poor fat little Johnny being embarrassed by comiing last in the 50 yard sprint, oh no but its perfectly ok for a kid to come last in maths and feel like sh*t.
The state school that both my sons went to, ended up without even a school football team, cricket was completely non existent.
I tell you something else, not only do public school boys get the chance to develop and play whatever sport they are good at, when it comes to cricket, they get an unfair advantage over getting picked for rep sides cos the counties, well in Surrey anyway, never look anywhere else apart from the public schools, it stinks the whole set up, always did and probably always will.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
2 Feb 2010 by Mike Last edited 2 Feb 2010
That is very sad to hear, Barry. I'm really keen on sports, always have been. I think that my view may also be slightly 'off' as where I live, state schools do still put a fair bit into sports, but much of that is due to our government (we are independent of the uk gov), in addition to some really enthusiastic teachers. If things really are that poor regarding sports in state school education, then we don't have a great future to look forward to.
Mike
No we dont Mike. To be honest, especially compared to the private sector, it has always been poor.
I love most sport but especially cricket. We also have the problem of the national team being made up of lots of player who are not English and the county scene is packed with kolpack players, being temporary stop gaps for counties desperate for success rather than develop their own home grown talent, its a vicious circle im afraid.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
2 Feb 2010 by vid
To drag things back to the main theme of this thread then, I would say that we should enthusiastically back the best income stream for the ECB. Only with precise directed funding will children get the initial training and enthusiasm needed for an introduction in to cricket. As these independantly funded facilities increase, as they are at the moment, so will the interest in the sport and as a result government will become increasingly interested as well. I dont believe that televised cricket coming back to the BBC will make much difference to the uptake by children. Introducing high adrenaline new variants of the game such as 20/20, and increasing possibilities at clubs has made a difference, and I have seen kids who previously shunned the idea of cricket now really excited by our sport.
The only true way this is ever going to get to major levels again is for it to be back on the state school agenda as major summer sport. On that front I hold out very little hope indeed!! but you never know.
I agree Vid.
Clubs are the only way and that needs as much funding as possible and that means cricket staying on Sky. The government should keep its nose out of it, they ve only poked it in cos they think they can score a few voting points.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
