Mastering the basics” is a long-standing pillar of cricket coaching. I want to challenge the idea because I think removing it will lead to more effective cricketers.
Most of us have been brought up that nailing the basics equals success. I remember being a kid reading and re-rereading my coaching manual, knowing it contained all the answers.
The idea is simple and intuitive: the basics provide a template. Copy what works. No need to reinvent the wheel. Play straight. Sure, there is some natural variation but the basics are always at the core. They are the spelling and grammar of cricket.
We can see this at the highest level. TV commentators criticise technical flaws (against a template) in every player. When they fail we see this as the cause. When they succeed we see the player as finding a way to compensate in spite of this basic error.
We also see it when coaching. We use the basics template to tell players how to bat, bowl and field. If they get it wrong, they need to identify and correct their errors through hard work. You can add flair, but not until these basics are firmly in place and the flaws ironed out.
For many of us, these basics - and the underpinning assumptions behind them - are so ingrained as to be self-evident common sense.
The problem is, we don’t know if there are any basics.
Templates
Basics can be thought of as fixed, universal templates: by their nature they exist outside of any context. They are supposed to work all the time, that’s why they are called basics.
This is also the problem. Skills don’t ever exist out of context.
Every time we play a match, there is an ever-shifting context: Format and stage of the match; tactics, mindset and form of players; type and state of the ball; and conditions including pitch, weather and boundaries.
Can you see the problem?
There are no basics that apply in all possible circumstances.
And if basics are supposed to be fixed and universal - or even close to universal - then how can they exist?
Of course, not everyone agrees with this logic. There are valid counter-arguments. Let’s put those aside and commit to a thought exercise: How do we coach if it’s true there are no fixed, universal basics?
It’s here the constraints-led approach (CLA) to coaching becomes compelling. Instead of correcting errors against a template, the CLA focuses on players exploring different possibilities, then honing in on what works in their context.
Sometimes this approach can looks very similar to “coaching the basics”. Often it looks very different and it always feels different to the participants who are no longer instructed towards an ideal, but instead invited and guided to develop a solution that works in context.
How do you coach if basics don’t exist?
So you have a group you want to coach and now you are struggling to know what to do because you have been convinced about no basics.
What the heck do we do now?
First we ask,
What does success look like?
What can we realistically shoot for?
What might stop us getting there?
Unlike fixed templates, intentions are one of the core pillars a constraints-led approach. An intention may look very much like a basic, especially if it is a movement such as “have a balanced approach to the crease”. The difference is that adaptability is built in, not added on.
Next we establish where they are at the moment.
Play some modified games and see if they need to establish a technique (probably if total beginners) or adapt what they have. Different players will likely be at different stages.
Based on this we decide on the practice options:
Representativeness and variability?
What constraints?
How we will measure success?
At early stages, success may be as simple as bowling with a straight arm and making contact with the ball, but this will quickly change. The factors above need to change with it.
Incidentally, constraints are ways to direct attention towards available opportunities to act. This is “constrain to afford”. Constraints can be points systems, types of bat and ball, verbal instructions, pitch length and surface type. Tweak them towards your intention.
From these options we choose the actual practices.
With beginners this will likely be simplified versions of the game that contain variability (repetition without repetition). They likely won’t contain broken down skills in isolation, unless there is a very strong reason.
One example is “catchy shubby”; a game that looks a lot like cricket that rewards effort and gives players repetitions in batting, bowling and fielding. You learn a lot about skill and motivation levels if you play this for 15 minutes.
If we are thinking more technical, rather than drilling movement we can net and use points to direct attention: a point for contact, a point moving past a chalk line to illustrate not “getting stuck on the crease”, a point if you can hold the finish position for three seconds.
Don’t like the outcomes? Work with the players to adjust the constraints and try again.
This manipulation of constraints affords players the option to explore and adapt without a specific template. The more tightly you constrain, the more it helps beginners.
As we move through our practices towards our intentions, we assess each of these stages and adapt the environment based on success. As we remove constraints we get closer to the full game with players with robust, adaptable skills.