Game Notes: A Bizzare Season Continues

West of Scotland 85. Weirs 55. West of Scotland win by 30 runs. 

What a strange, interesting and exciting season this has been so far. And this game, West's fifth win a row, was the strangest so far. The scores say most of it: Winning by 30 runs after scoring 85!

It was an away game at a ground notorious for low scores. No one was expecting great things. However, the warm up was focused. A few guys did seem a little off their game despite lots of enthusiasm. There were more dropped catches and misfields in the warm up than I have seen all year. I don't think we managed a single direct hit when warming up throws at the stumps. 

After losing the toss and being inserted, we were confident. The opposition looked weak. They had not warmed up at all and there were a few guys who looked pretty unfit. Yet the openers bowled accurately with seam movement and there were precious few chances to score runs. We ran well, making several singles. One opener decided to use his feet and make things happen, playing well a couple of times to score singles from length balls he had turned to half volley length. Despite some poor fielding, It was still slow going: 18-1 from nine overs. It looked like if they were going to get wickets it was more likely LBW and bowled than caught or run out. 

After 20 it was 55-4. This is low for West, but still only slightly behind the average of 62-3, and ahead of the slowest start (48-2). The best 20 is 77-2.

We thought there would be more bad balls and bad fielding to exploit. When that wasn't forthcoming, we lost focus and got out. Two mistimed shots to safe hands, one playing into the leg side and bowled off stump, two going back to full balls and trapped LBW, another LBW playing no shot. None of the top six were got out by magic balls.

The real failure was from overs 21-23, where we lost four wickets for five runs. Two were top six batsmen. This exposed the lower order early and two guys playing for the team for the first time this season went in quick succession to defensive shots.

Number seven knuckled down to bat with the last two. He scored 22 in 55 balls and farmed the strike away from the number 11 so well he only faced one ball in a stand lasting 19 runs. You might argue the 11 was not poor enough to be protected, but considering how well everyone else did, it was not a crazy decision from the better player to face as many balls as he could. He did turn down a few runs in the process, but that stand of 19 proved crucial. 

As as you would expect, control was the lowest of the year at 74.22%. Remember, the trend is to lose when control drops below 77.5%. 

However, at the break, the talk was not as depressing as you might imagine. 85 is a terrible score, but we have bowled out teams for less and knew they did not have much batting. We knew there was a chance, even with one bowler missing due to injury.

The scoring intially followed the same pattern: 20-2 after nine over but with Weirs having less control than West  (71.31%). The game was in the balance already. Then, in the last over before tea, a spinner came on and took a wicket to take Weirs into the break three down. West were back in the hunt.

After the tea break, only three bowlers were used. There were a few tense overs as Weirs moved to 37-3 in 12 overs. Then a wicket from the opening bowler was followed by a wicket maiden from our main spinner. It was 38-5 in 14 and the danger batsman was out. 

Nevertheless, 47 runs needed is very tight indeed, even with poor batsmen. The fifth wicket pair moved to 46-5 and every run seemed like a tiny cut that would eventually kill us. In fact, two wicket in two balls finished Weirs chances. 46-5 became 46-7. The last three got to 55-7 before collapsing. Five wickets had fallen for eight runs, with one run scored for three wickets in the last 15 balls.

Clearly, it was terrible batting, but the types of dismissal also tell a story: four catches behind the wicket (and two dropped at slip), three LBW and two bowled. Coupled with three wides bowled (two by a stand in seamer) you can see what a good bowling performance it was as well. 

So what are the lessons? 

First we can take confidence that we can win tight games. Yes, the opposition were very weak, but we gave them a chance to beat us with a weak batting performance yet still won with ease.  This is a marked difference from the Greenock game were we posted a defendable score and bowled poorly to lose.

Finally, when we get in a pickle, we need to learn how to manage the risks we take. The openers were right to look to rotate and increase the scoring rate. When it failed, two or three of middle order needed to dig in and be sure they were around to post a total. 160 was probably the upper end of what could have been scored, with 120 closer to the par. That requires top order guys to get 30 or more runs at a slow rate. The aim is still to bat with intent to score and thrive under the pressure of dot balls, but not to worry if you don't score for a few balls. The bad one will come. Patience.

This was an ugly win but a show of great character. I count it as progress from earlier in the year, but certainly not anywhere near the finished product. With two big ties to come, we have to lock our minds onto being at our best.

Game Notes: Thumping Weak Opponents

Hat trick ball

Irvine 75. West of Scotland 76-4. West win by six wickets.

With last week rained off, the aim was to get back to winning ways against Irvine, who beat West earlier in the season. This time there was no mistake. Irvine were terrible and West easily took them apart.

Conditions were bowler friendly. The ball both turned and seamed throughout the match. Irvine batted first and it was clear they were not the side we faced earlier in the season. One of the openers tried to play a forward defence to a bouncer, a batsman was rapped on the pad before his front foot had landed another could hardly put bat on ball. 16-3 from 10 overs.

The batting was so poor, all we had to do was put the ball in roughly the right area and watch wickets tumble. Only one player looked like he could score runs, and the tail was a shambling  combination of blockers and sloggers. Their number 11 looked like he had never played cricket before. He would not have got into our third team. That said, everyone bowled well. This team managed 215 against us earlier in the year so it wasn't a total shoe-in. West still needed to bowl well, and we did. There was almost a hat trick with two in two and the third ball running close.

There was precious little fielding skill needed as Irvine took no quick singles at all. West did drop a couple of catches and misfielded two so it wasn't perfect, but it was far better than the average for this year. 

The party was interrupted with Irvine having a couple of decent bowlers. A big hitter was promoted to opening: His mission was to win the game in short time as rain was about. I approved of this tactic as winning quickly is the sign of a strong team. Sadly, he was out first ball defending onto his ankle and the ball spinning back into the stumps. Ridiculous and freakish.

The other opener was sublime, looking like he would never get out and, with precious few boundaries available, looked to pick up quick single aplenty (16 in total). At the other end, our number three got a bad LBW (I know all batsmen think they get bad decisions, but even the umpire admitted a mistake on this one). Then number four seemed to get a good ball from the opening seamer and nicked off. We were three down in the first 10 overs. Every wicket was from a defensive shot, rather than a poorly played attacking stroke.

I was still not concerned. We were ahead of D/L and had plenty of batting to come. Even when we lost a fourth wicket, West only needed 30 or so runs to win. And this pair saw the game home in 26 overs. The rate was slower than I would have liked (2.89) but when you look at the difference in control (79% compared to 60%), I don't think we missed out on too many scoring opportunities, it was just difficult to bat even against average bowling.

Despite it being a comfortable chase in the end, it wasn't fully convincing. One player said he thinks we are not good at chasing. Looking at the stats, I disagree. When West bowl first, we have won five from seven, losing an average of six wickets per game. The average chase is 132 - a testament to the quality of our bowling and fielding - so getting there six down makes it seem like we are struggling, when actually we are doing the thing that matters; winning. 

Could we chase better? Of course. Our best chase was 162 and both losses came when the target was over 200. Are we doing well at it at the moment? Good enough to get the job done. It's a skill to develop for bigger challenges, but right now we are still going the right way.

Game Notes: Another Stunner

West of Scotland 118. Stirling 69. (32 overs rain reduced match). 

Despite forgettable batting, West showed mettle in the best bowling performance of the season so far.

Stiling are one of the sides in the better half of the division, so the game was set to be a challenge. In wet conditions, the game was reduced to 32 overs. Unlike last time, we handled the delay well. Most players had an impromptu game of football in the wet while we waited and I didn't hear one complaint. The warm up was focused. 

West batted first. The pitch was slow and the outfield was long and wet. We knew batting would be tough. It turned out to be the case as Stirling turned to seam and swing, taking three wickets in the first 10 overs. There was a recovery in the middle order and an acceleration from 2.2 an over. At one point West were motoring at 6.1 (between overs 18-24). 150 was quite possible with even 180 on the table.

Sadly, a poor decision from one player led to a run out and then getting bowled the next ball. From here, with only a few overs to go, the lower order struggled to pick up the pace. 87-3 became 110 all out with 28 runs scored in the last eight overs.  

Overall control was the lowest of the year at 75%, SB% was down at 28% (compared to 41% in the last rain reduced match an 31% on average) which tells a story of poor conditions. We managed 30 singles, 9 stolen (compared to 41/18 in the last reduced overs and 45/19 average). We hit seven boundaries. These stats was a consequence - in my mind - of tight bowling, ring fields, a big slow outfield and few gaps to hit. So, it poses an interesting tactical question on how we play in these conditions, when you have fewer balls you can score from and you can't hit the bad ones for many boundaries. The foundation is staying calm and keeping frustration out of your head, then building a method that allows you to break the shackles. We did this well in a couple of patches but still need to work on with individual methods.

Nevertheless, it was the bowling and fielding that won the day. West were simply better than Stirling. Four bowlers were used and all tied down the runs and took wickets easily. 23-2 from 12. 44-6 from 20. 69 all out. It as easily our best performance with the ball and those numbers tell you everything.

Catching was at 57% with the slips the culprits for the drops. It was made up in some good outfield catching and stopping. The fielding difference was -1 overall showing both sides did well. However, we bowled half the number of wides as Stirling.  Essentially, we out-bowled them. I was most pleased with the approach: no complaining, just positive and focused. We knew we had to bowl the, out and we did it by executing on the basics very well. 

Pleasingly, the seconds also won easily but are working hard to improve fielding standards too. The Development team also won playing on Sunday on the same wicket. Although a lower standard of cricket, the scores of 56 all out and 57-6 show you just how much the wicket favoured bowlers! 

Game Notes: Clinical Victory

St Michaels 91. West of Scotland 92-1. 

West are back on track with a stunning victory over a weaker side.  

At home, the conditions looked great for batting. St Michaels, who had a strong start to the year but have tailed away in recent weeks, decided to bat first. Sadly, their hopes were dashed with a combination of good opening bowling and poor batting. Our strike bowler was essentially too quick for them and at 25-5 the game was already over after nine overs. 

The ball swung. West's control was excellent and the fielding was the best of the year. A direct hit run out from about 40 yards was combined with a brilliant one handed diving catch from the keeper to crush opposition hopes. There were no recorded misfields and seven good stops. One dropped catch prevented the perfect game. We are now so good in the field I feel slightly disappointed when a full stretch dive to get to an unreachable ball is not snaffled. Outstanding overall and improving all the time. 

There was a rally, with the number six scoring a well-considered 52 in 89 balls. No one could give him much support though and, despite lacking our number one spinner, the spinners got rid of the danger man and cleaned up the tail. They scored at 2.4 an over with an SB% of 21%. That fifty prevented it being a farce.

One opener developed a migraine while on the field so decided to push someone else up the order so he could rest. West went out before tea to bat for 15 overs. In my ideal world we would have won it before tea. 

Instead there was some accurate if danger-free bowling and a few nerves from the openers meaning the start was far too slow. Nine runs in nine overs was very flattering to a bowling attack who needed our batsmen to make mistakes to get wickets. One opener tried to move the score along, but the other decided to defend everything, scoring three in 21 balls and blocking 17 in a row at one point. I looked back at the video and I'm confident not all of those balls were good ones. What I saw was nerves from a naturally attacking and stylish batsman who wanted to "not give it away because we had plenty of time". Instead he started to feel under increasing pressure that no one trusted his plan. We had a chat afterward and he listened when I said I thought he was so concerned with taking his time he forgot to play his natural game. Had he played his normal way we would have sailed along at at least threes if not fours. He said seeing off the new ball was his plan and everyone should trust him, I advised that he needs to forget about what everyone else thinks. If he is confident in his plan he needs to do what he needs to do. He's the one with the bat in the middle! I think if he had ignored the situation and batted normally he would have been fine.

It showed a little once he was out. The pair came together on 29-1 from 14 and won it in the 29th by batting as normal. They rattled along at five an over with almost zero danger, both finish not out in the thirties.  

I think we can learn something from that as a team: Players need to feel confident in their games, and we need to support each other even if we disagree with the tactic. The time to discuss it is after the match or at training when we can review. Otherwise, like this opener, we risk putting them under extra pressure when they are most doubting themselves. 

Nevertheless, overall it was a complete team performance and great to see. We should take a lot of confidence that we performed our skills as well as possible. We will come up against stronger opposition, but if we play as well as we did in this match, they will also struggle. We did the basics well, and threw in some world-class moments to top it off. The second half of the season looms with positive signs. 

Training Notes: Yorker Drill

I love it when players innovate by themselves. 

Last night - while the 2nd XI put a strong GHK side to bed in the T20 - a handful of bowlers decided to practice their yorkers. The problem was that we only had a few yards to practice in and no pitch. 

So, we found an old crate that was put on a yorker length, set up the stumps (and a marker cone for a good length for variation) and tried to bowl the ball under the crate for instant feedback on hitting the length. Boom!

This was entirely self-directed. Brilliant lads, brilliant. 

Game Notes: Mid Season Review

 West of Scotland 196-9. Glasgow Accies 118. West win by 78 runs.

Against weak opposition, West put in a strong all-round performance to win easily. As always, there were strong areas and areas of improvement.

However as we are halfway through the season I thought it would make sense to look at the state of things on a broader scale too.

First, the game.

The pitch and outfield were slow after a week of rain. It was hard to hit boundaries. West won the toss and batted and made it look tough going from the sidelines for a long time. 24 from 10 overs, the same rate for the next 16 overs until a boundary showed the way and the rate climbed between 26-37 to 4.3. 

At 109-4 by this point there was work to do, but we had wickets in hand and a top four batsman at the crease. This platform, although a little behind where I hoped (perhaps another 20-30), was solid enough to allow some attacking cricket. West scored 82 in the last 12 overs with number four not out on 80. Yet again, the lower order were at the crease for 46 runs. This time their company was a top order batsman.

The anchor role was played perfectly, coming in at 43-2 in 18 over, he accelerated through (first 30 in 50 balls, last 30 in 20 balls): An overall SR of 96 and SB% of 48% with five boundaries tells you how much running was needed. It also tells you how well-judged the innings was, with the next best SR of 66 and SB% of 37% (team overall was 31%).

10 boundaries was the lowest number we have scored this season in 50 overs (although we did hit six in 30 overs in a reduced match in similar conditions). Surprisingly, we only hit 48 singles - about average - but this was because we hit 36 doubles. That is much more than usual. Control was the highest of the year at 81%.

In the field it was clear early that Accies did not have the resources against a consistent bowling attack. West have five genuine top quality club bowlers. When on form on a helpful pitch they can bowl out any side in the division. The difference showed in the second half.

Accies were similarly placed on 22-1 from 10 and 51-2 in 22 (West were 52-3). However, when they tried to push forward, the ball went up in the air (mistimed shots on a slow pitch). West caught 8 of the 13 chances that went to hand. Not perfect but plenty good enough to close out this match.

Speaking of fielding, with just 4 misfields in the innings, this was West's best performance. The fielding difference was +11.

Now onto the mid-season review!

Season so far
 

The batting this year has been improved greatly from 2015. One batsman retired but two have come back (one from finishing University and one finding more time to play). We have a replacement overseas amateur. A new player arrived fully formed and a talented youngster has embedded himself in the order after problems last year.

While no one has shone consistently, the batting unit has scored more runs than any other team in total (over 100 more than the next team so far in the league). The balance has been interesting: 

• Three players have scored over 240 runs and five have scored over 100.
• The SB% of the top six is 34% striking at 65.
• Attacking batsmen are averaging 35 runs at a strike rate of 76 and SB% of 38%. 
• Anchor players are averaging 18/53/31%.

This is excellent overall and what I would have hoped for at the start of the season. 

The top six score most of the runs but the bottom five are massive contributors, managing to score almost a quarter of the runs. To know that, on average, 150-5 mean 200 all out is a huge boost. Naturally, the ideal is for a top order batter to score more than fifty and be still in at over 40. However, as this has not happened so far, it's also not crazy to leave the last 15 overs to numbers seven down, meaning we could go a little harder up top. The lower order have scored at an impressive 43% and SR of 85.

You can't ask for much more than that without a superstar.

That said, I would like to see the anchor batsmen, who score fewer boundaries, to have a better SB% to show they are rotating the strike more effectively, especially in the first 10 overs. This would also give me the extra 1-2 runs an over I feel we can try and take early on.

I have been tracking both singles and quick singles this year as a rough measure of how well we rotate. We average 50 singles a match (57 batting first), 20 of which are "stolen" through quick work or opposition fielding errors. I would like to see this number rise, but has remained fairly constant so far. The best game has been 79 (26 stolen) in a total of 200. I think we can push the average up to 70+ when batting first.

To compare, average boundary count has gone up from 14 early on to 18 in the last five weeks. I don't think there is much point in targeting boundary hitting though, unless we are looking to develop the power game of players.

I have also introduced a new stat this year: Control.

Control is the percentage of balls that are played the way the batsman wants. A ball hit in the middle is controlled. A ball played and missed is not controlled. There are some grey areas, but generally most cricket watchers can tell you if the shot was in control or not. However, as we have never kept this stat, I was interested to see what we could find from it.

• West average 79% controlled shots (best 81%, worst 77%)
• The opposition average 74% (best 81%, worst 64%)

There is no correlation - so far - between better control and winning games. West have had better control in seven games. We have won four and lost three of those seven. We also had worse control in two games, winning one and losing one. There is also, as you would expect, not a huge relationship between control and number of runs because you don't take into account conditions. 

There is a relationship between total control and victories: When West have more than 77.5% control, the number of wins is three from five. When it is below 77.5% there have been no wins. This is a small sample, but would make sense that the more balls you control the better you do.

As you can see, the range is very small (just 4% between best and worst), which surprised me. Opposition control is a much wider range (17%). I suspect that shows good consistency of batting in different conditions and against different standards of opposition, which is a key sign of success.

I'm still not sure what these data tells us about how we train and play, but I will continue the experiment. Perhaps it can become another KPI alongside the usual averages.

The bowling has also changed this year from last year. The seam attack is lead by the same three bowlers and we have added two reliable spinners. There is an extra seam bowling all-rounder who provides a sixth option.

The five main bowlers have all taken more than 10 wickets so far, with the top sitting at 25. I consider an average of 15 or lower to be excellent in this league, and under 20 acceptable. One bowler is under 15 while three sit at just over (15.5-16.4). The other main bowler is averaging 19. He makes up for fewer wickets with the lowest RpO (3.2). 

As a team West average nine wickets a match and always take at least seven. When we bowl a team out, we always win (six in six). One wicket makes a huge difference; we have only won one game in three when taking nine wickets, and none from two taking seven.

It's good to see players have done well in different phases of the game too. 

One bowler excels at opening up (taking more than half his wickets in the first 10 overs) then coming back at the death: Going at just 4.6 an over when the next best is 5.7.

A new spinner who bowls with a lot of pace does a great job in the middle overs (17 wickets at 3.5 an over) and death (getting a wicket every 10 balls, if slightly expensive at 6.1 per over). His foil is a more orthodox spinner who gets traditional flight, dip and turn and can bowl long spells in the middle overs (17 wickets, 3.3 per over). When these two are on together they turn the screw, take wickets through errors and offer no respite for up to 30 overs.

That said they are both young - still teenagers - and learning the art of spin. Some days it doesn't work for one or both. This is best illustrated by wides. Between them, the pair have bowled half of all the wides. But I am not too concerned, they bowl better more often than they bowl poorly and they are both still learning.

This takes me nicely onto fielding stats, where I have been keeping a much closer eye than last year.

I have used three measures of fielding effectiveness:

• Catches to drops (53%)
• Direct hits from throws (32%)
• Misfields (6 per game)

Of course, we have no numbers to compare against, but within season we can look for trends.

Catching has stayed at around 50% all year. Direct hits fluctuate greatly as there are so few chances. I suspect there is not much more we can do to increase these in the short term. We already do as much practice as possible. However, I continue to search for innovative ways to test guys in training and make game catching easier.

Misfields are any unforced errors that are not dropped and leads to a run. They hovered around the 6 mark for a while until we had two poor games in a row (11 and 10) then dropped back. I think of them like wides: You ideally want zero but you can tolerate a few. Once you get more than five, you get people complaining about how poor we were in the field.

I think we could practice ground fielding more often as we tend to focus on catching way more. If we do this, my secret aim is to get the misfield average for the season below five. It's currently at six.

I also keep track of any good stop that save at least one run. We average seven per game. Strangely, the good stops always seem to track against the poor ones. For example, the week West had the worst number of misfields (11) was the week we also had the highest number of good stops (12). It has happened very time! The good stop average is rising over the season from six early on to eight in the last few games. 

If the good stops continue to outperform the misfields, we have had a decent year in the field.

What about the rest of the squad?

We have been able to pick a consistent team all year, 19 players have worn the Baggy Roon, 16 on Saturday (the rest in the Sunday cup matches). I would count squad players as those who are not an automatic pick but can contribute if required. We have a dozen of those guys.

There are five batsmen, two spin all-rounder, a spinner and four seamers. They are mostly second team regulars and it's why the seconds are so strong in their league. A couple of them also play Sunday League cricket too. As a group, they train as hard as the first teamers. 

The main issue is how to handle them when they come into the first team. Chances are they will go from being a key member of the twos to doing nothing in the ones. The average balls faced from these guys per game is 11, and the average overs bowled is 2.6. This is a common problem in club cricket, and the only way I have found to handle it is to rotate the "TFC" players between the group, trying to pick someone who might be useful on that particular day.

This is a minor issue. Overall, the team is strong, the squad is deep and things are progressing well.

While I can - and do - pour over stats to find little ways to improve, the really important one is the result. Here we have played 11, won seven and lost four. 

I argue that this ratio will improve further if we focus on improving those basic details: strike rotation, control, catching, stopping, and bowling good areas. These can all now be measured and assessed as we go to allow us to reflect game to game and laser in on the details so the broad stroke look after themselves.

It will be fun to see where we go in the second half.  
 

Session Notes: Adapting, Committing, Communicating

Training has been progressing smoothly in recent weeks. We are in a nice pattern somewhere between honing the basics with a small set of drills, and trying new things.

It's tough to have any structured progressions with the sessions as players availability is so variable. We have a lot of midweek cricket and most players choose to play their midweek game rather than attend training. Alongside unexpectedly good weather, players are looking to manage fatigue, with some players hitting four games a week.

For those who do attend, I do my best to provide an environment where player-led improvement is the cornerstone. My philosophy is to learn how individuals work, analyse what they need, allow them to guide their own progress and avoid the pitfalls of just doing what they want without any specific focus (see; taking high catches over infielding and "having a hit" with the bat).

Sometimes I provide more structure, depending on the atmosphere and players. For example, most of the first team players are very focused on their game plan and know what they need to to in any session to be ready for the weekend. There is little I need to do in terms of games and drills beyond the usual stuff.

In the last session, where it was wet underfoot but dry above, we had a small group of mainly younger players (13-15) with a few recreational seniors and two regular first team players. So, I decided we would have a little more structure to set an example to the juniors: A few minutes focused fielding followed by a high-intensity batting drill in nets.

Sadly, the two first team guys - who should have set the example - decided they were not up for anything I suggested and had a general mope about: Complaining they didn't want to field at all and taking 20 minutes to get going, putting in a half-hearted effort in the field, and finally refusing to participate in the game I set up in nets. At one point a player said to me "I can do what I want" in front of the juniors.

Naturally, my pride was a little hurt, but mostly it made me sad for those two players. They got nothing from the practice session. Worse, they showed the juniors that first team cricketers are unenthusiastic and disrespectful. They message they sent to those boys was you don't need to try very hard at nets, you just hit a few balls and go home.

Working with players to work out what they need to do is a huge part of my job. telling them what to do is a rare thing. Yet if players have no goal and are not prepared to have one, then I will step in to create one. Otherwise we are spinning wheels.

The batting drill involved a lot of running. I chose it specifically because energy was low and I wanted to boost people up and enthuse them. I wanted to see how they responded to the extra pressure of batting with heart rate up and I wanted to see if they could get focused rather than having a hit. On all counts, both 1st XI batsmen failed. What does that say about their character and ability in testing circumstances?

As I always say when someone objects to a drill; I can't force them. You have to commit and if you don't commit you better nail your skills on a Saturday afternoon. I hope both those guys bat brilliantly at the weekend. My question is, have they given themselves the best chance of that in the time available?

If the answer is yes, and they got exactly what they needed from the session, then I have the ability to admit my ideas are wrong. I fear the real answer is "I was going through the motions". Even if they won't admit it out loud.

The good news is that the junior guys did commit to all the drills and vastly outperformed their seniors. That made me happy. I will work on making sure I get my message across better to the senior guys so they understand what I am asking of them.

Game Notes: We Didn't Believe

West of Scotland 189-9. Greenock 191-7. Greenock win by three wickets.

Before the match, my girlfriend asked about our chances for the game. 

I said it was going to be a tough game. Greenock are a good side. Yet they are also beatable. The challenge will be for us to believe we can perform against good opposition. If we have that robust confidence, we will plough through to victory. If we don't show it, we have a lot of work to do.

We lost. We have work to do.

Worse, we lost with the worst overall team performance of the year with both bat and ball. Following on from a double defeat the week before, West were challenged and found wanting in many areas.

We can track it back to belief: As a team we didn't believe we can win a tight game against good opposition. But let's put some analysis on that narrative to show you what I mean.

West batted first on what looked like a decent pitch with a wet outfield. Classic UK club cricket. Greenock's bowling was lead by a nippy overseas player, but otherwise the usual club medium pacers and spinners. The ball swung and had slow, tennis ball bounce. It certainly was not a road, but was possible to score if you play well.

The first seven overs were slow going with just 17 runs scored for one wicket. It seemed to me that we were not rotating the strike as well as usual, with the ball being hit to fielders and not much quick single work being done. We did manage a respectable 65 singles across the innings so perhaps it wasn't quite as bad as I saw, but most of them were at the back end.

However the pace increased to a more acceptable 46-2 in 14 overs, meaning we were moving at 4.1 an over in this phase. We were looking to accelerate with the opening bowlers both off.

West then lost another two wickets for 10 runs in four overs, putting the score at a precarious 56-4. Two of the top order were unlucky to get out and two were self-inflicted errors. These things happen. The overall rate was still over threes but with four top order players out, we needed to consolidate. Moments like this happen and are a good test of the character of the team.

The two batsmen did well, taking their time and creeping along at two an over for the next 10. Caution was paramount. It was good that we focused on staying in the game here, but also a small sign we have not as much confidence to go hard, even when wickets fall.

However after this period, we started to accelerate again, scored 57 in the next 10 against weaker bowling and getting up to 133 in over 38. The stand was 77 and set up the chance to score more than 200. That was a challenge well met.

It was here that we also had a bit of luck with a batsman getting to fifty after being dropped, having a stumping missed and a tight LBW shout turned down. I'm a big believer that luck is not a reason why you win or lose as it evens out over time. In this game we had good and bad luck, and so did the opposition. There's not much you can do about it best thing is to ignore it when you feel hard done by, and ride it when you get it. It goes back to believing in your skills because those are the things you can control. It's funny how often a confident player gets "luckier" than someone with less self-belief.

But back to the game: The death was not a success. West scored 56-4 in 12. With the field back we should score more. This was our worst death phase of the season. Previous games have seen over 90 runs scored and our last 12 average this season is 70.

However, West finished on 189, which was defendable, if below what we hoped for. We have defended less on a better wicket this season.

The bowling started poorly. Despite one opener bowling a wonderful new ball spell (2-8 from five overs), we were on the back foot after two overs when a pinch hitter scored 14 in seven balls. Greenock were ahead after seven on 28-1.

The rate continued at this pace after the openers came off. A stand-in seamer from the seconds (in place of someone on holiday) went for 14 in 18 balls and our main spinner went for 18 in 24. With no one to build pressure, the score was 69-2 from 16. There were 14 boundaries scored in this phase (compared to West who scored one) Greenock could see the finish line already, knowing they needed just 3.5 an over but were still going at over four. Wickets were needed.

At drinks it was 109-2, ahead of the rate and no wickets falling. The Greenock overseas batsman was in control. While we had dropped him, it would have been a good chance to take. He was supported by an aggressive number four who played "stand still and hit through the line" well. Both waited for the ball they thought they could hit, and they got enough to keep going. They put on 96 in 19 overs (five an over).

West's opening bowler returned in the 27th over and took two wickets in two balls in the 29th to make things interesting again. However, 60 were needed in the last 20 over by this point and with six wickets in hand, this was Greenock's game to win. Despite another three late wickets falling, Greenock got over the line in the 43rd over. 

The fielding was fine. There were no horrible errors and the fielding difference was -2 overall. 

Greenock only scored 35 singles in their innings but the four balls were plentiful enough as they hit 33 compared to West's 15. That's 70 more runs. The main difference.

Why so many four balls? I put it down to belief. One opener believes he is in the form of his life and he bowled like a dream. Every other bowler had a reason to not believe: injury and age, first game in the 1st XI, "not coming out right" and "full tosses are better than half-trackers". All of these are valid reasons not excuses, but they all come from a lack of belief that we can do the job when we call on ourselves.

We need to find a way, as a team, to believe in each other, and believe in ourselves, even when we are under pressure. Even when we make mistakes or have bad luck. Even when we are carrying a niggle or not feeling right today. In those moments it's fine to fall back and focus on doing what you know you can do. That's a skill good players must have and hopefully we can reset to that before next week.

Game Notes: Not All Bad, But Pretty Bad

Great weather, great ground: Arbroath United. 

Three competitive games and three losses this weekend. Here's the summary: 

The league game against Poloc was won by their pro, scoring 127 in 119 balls to chase down 240.

West had shown up well in our innings with two top order fifties, two fifty partnerships and the tail chipping in again with a valuable 41 runs in five overs. SB% was a solid 37%, with 68 singles hit. There were 27 runs stolen.

Poloc were poor in the field, letting 18 byes and dropping nine catches. They only saved 8 runs in the field too. Compare that to West: four drops, 12 runs saved. Overall West came out seven runs on top. It just shows how important getting the right player out becomes. The pro was dropped and he won the game.

The West bowling might have been better in one respect: Wickets. Seven taken was the lowest of the year so far, despite Poloc having a no greater control percentage than average. 

Again, all of the metrics we use to judge the game were won by West and, for the second match of the year, we lost. A positive sign for West, and a sign that cricket is never predictable! The lesson I take from this is that it's not enough to be better at running, bowling straight and fielding that the opposition, we need to be so good at those things that even a professional cricketer can't get away. It won't happen every time, but it is the benchmark we should set ourselves.

The second XI - who have destroyed all comers this year - also lost. Reports from the captain suggested there was very poor bowling (50 extras) and a batsman who got lucky to give the opposition a reasonable score. However, the batting fell apart under moderate pressure and the twos were bowled out. With a side this strong, I'm hoping it's a glitch that can be corrected quickly. 

In the cup match on Sunday, there was a huge gulf between the teams that showed us up. Arbroath played well to score 310 on a featherbed pitch with lightning outfield. However, West's batting fell to pieces. At 44-4 the game was essentially over. There were three run outs, one was so horrifyingly bad I struggle to believe it happened.

A batsman was playing nicely but hit a ball straight up to deep midwicket. The fielder dropped the ball but the batsman had not moved. Instead of the usual "jog to the other end in vain hope" he had been ball watching. Both batsmen were at the same end. By the time he reacted he was run out. Insane times and one of the main errors that cost the game.

There was a sprightly effort from the middle order and tail but it was too little too late. On the easiest pitch you will ever bat on, we barely made 180. It was the worst batting performance this year by some margin.

Stats from the game:  

• West saved six runs in the field and took four catches.
• West dropped six catches and misfielded 10 balls (most of which went for four).
• Arbroath stole 18 singles through good running. West managed 11. 

It was our first "minus" performance in the field for the year. Arbroath taught us a lesson that no matter how well you play, someone is better than you. I hope we see this as a way to motivate ourselves to further improve. 

Game Notes: What is Success?

  West of Scotland 200-9. Renfrew 183-9. West of Scotland win by 17 runs.

Another win in the league for the first eleven keeps the momentum going. It was closer than previous matches, but West always had a nose in front.

After a few post game conversations, this game got me thinking about what we define as success. More on that later.

After losing the toss and being put in, we expected it to be tough going. The pitch was not true (some balls popping) and the ball swung early. Thanks to some excellent drop and run tactics and patient batting, the score was 35-1 from 10. I thought this was partially down to the poor fielding of Renfrew but also good strategy to stay patient.

The next 23 overs saw a big stand with few boundaries but continued singles (we scored over 80 in total, our best of the year by some margin). 90 runs were scored, pushing the rate up to just under fours. There was some luck here too. Several dropped catches and a missed run out allowed us to plow on. A couple of batsmen were disappointed to go at a slow rate at this time. It's true a few runs were missed out but I'll take that rate if it means we get some luck!

However, as has been the case this year, none of the top order pushed on. This would have seen 25 or more on the board in the last third of the innings. Wickets fell regularly, and West's batting strength showed as 75 runs were scored in 17 (4.41) with six wickets falling. This was the least impressive phase. I would look for more runs, but it was understandable that the rate could not climb when wickets fall. It could have been much worse had the last four not added 55 while at the crease and got through 10 overs. You can't expect that every week.

In the end, whatever way we got there, 200 would be a challenging score for Renfrew. They have a reputation for playing higher risk cricket. This might mean they easily knock off scores if the "hit out" tactic pays off, but West knew chances would come. I said at half time that if we "win" the fielding (hold catches, save runs) we win the game. It would take something brilliant to do otherwise.

In fact, Renfrew started with extreme caution. West fielded well and bowled a length that the batsmen found tough to get away. Renfrew did a lot of defending and rarely took risks. However, they also were unable to rotate the strike meaning they spent 25 overs getting to 50. The control was over 80% and only two wickets fell in the first 35 overs. We assumed "block or hit" when they mostly blocked.

From here, you know risks have to be taken to get back in the game. This is where to show the difference: You take your chances and stay patient when opposition risks pay off. Again, the difference is about fielding.

The rate increased. The next 50 was scored in 11 overs with only one more wicket falling. Chances were hard to come by. There were two difficult chances dropped, but the tight fielding helped keep the score under control. Despite going at almost five an over, the rate was getting away. There was 101 needed in 14 overs, more than seven an over.

Wickets in hand meant that Renfrew still felt in the hunt. The fact was, no one had yet scored at seven an over in this match. And West were better in the field, meaning Renfew would need to be bang on. It would take an extremely cool head to do it for 14 overs so West were on to win.

Naturally, overconfidence is costly. Yet on the other hand, it's a powerful position knowing that, to win, all you need to do is the basics well; something West had done all game. 12 runs were saved by good fielding and seven were lost to unforced errors. With over 20 runs lost by Renfew, you can see the difference.

This panned out in the death as the rated climbed. Eight an over from 10. Nine an over from five. 23 runs needed from the last 12 balls and 18 needed from the last six balls. There was no stage in the innings where Renfrew were favourites. That said, there was no stage where the game was out of reach. It just became increasingly unlikely.

The result went with the odds. It was a solid victory.

Some other KPIs:

• Both teams had 80% control. However, West scored off 11% more balls and scored both more singles and boundaries.
• West stole 26 singles to Renfrew's six. West saved 12 runs in good stops to Renfrew's six.
• West bowled three fewer wides.

In other words, it was victory in every area.

After the game, there was a lot of talk about how the win should have been more comprehensive. One person even suggested we should (not "could" but "should") have won by 200 runs. Although there were also more tempered opinions. It seems that there is some disagreement about what success looks like. For many, it's outplaying the opposition enough to win. For others only demolishing a weaker side is enough.

The general consensus as to why the win was closer than hoped was that the top order were not scoring fifties and the bowling was too focused on defending rather than taking wickets.

The question I asked in response to this is, "what can be done differently?"

No batsman goes out to hit twenty or thirty and get out. So, any accusations of "not wanting it enough" is vague and lacking a practical element. Similarly, in the field the accusation of "sitting back and not trying to take wickets" has no practical point. I wanted to know what we should actually do.

We didn't come up with much other than to change the bowling.

My thought was as it always is; keep focusing on process. Bat and bowl to your game plan and look to hone it at training as best you can. See it early. Play it late and straight. Pick up singles. Bowl dots. Field like every run is the one that wins you the match. Catch more than you drop. These are basic things but if you do them better than the opposition you will win most games.

There will be times where a flash of brilliance takes a game away, but this is a rare thing. It's far more likely that the team with fewer mistakes is the winner. If you have fewer misfields and drops, if you hit the target more (with bowling and fielding), if you bowl fewer wides, if you are in control of more shots, you win.

It's not glamorous. You don't win many games by 10 wickets or 200 runs. However, it is realistic and you do win more games overall. It's this consistency of performance based on good processes that is what I consider success. So far this season we have been consistently better in all the important metrics. And we are looking to improve further. That's exactly what I want.

Game Notes: Improving in Tough Conditions

West of Scotland 144-5. Weirs 89. West of Scotland win by 55 runs (match reduced to 30 overs). 

The only game to be staged in the division (due to rain) saw West put in the best performance of the year to win easily against Weirs. 

The weather had been bad all week, meaning the chances of play were low. The 2nd XI game was called off early. The pitch was green and wet.  The morning rain cleared and the sun came out to dry the outfield quickly. However, the scheduled 12pm start was never an option and there was a lot of waiting while the umpires inspected, waited and inspected again.

This is a huge challenge for cricketers used to playing at 12. We sat. A few grumbled about the conditions. We didn't know when we would start and even if we could get the game on. That causes your energy to delplete. You feel like you are running on sand and start assuming the pitch will be unplayable. You think about other things you could be doing. I told one of our batsmen that he had to get his mindset into playing in these conditions because he said  the pitch was impossible before we had even bowled a ball. Negativity is a huge danger of waiting around. It leaks into your performance.

Eventually, we got the call the game would be 30 overs starting at 3pm. We had an hour to get the game mentality right.  Tellingly, our opposition did a quick knockabout, while we went through all our warm up routines; pulse raising, mobility, throwing, catching, stopping and bowling through. Most importantly, we pulled the energy levels up by the bootlaces. This reenergising effort was the best post-delay warm up I have ever seen in a club side. One spectator said to me we looked "very impressive" in the warm up. Now that's a great start!

Of course, warming up is nothing without a good performance. We were put in to bat and still manage to start slowly. Good bowling saw off a new opener and going was slow on an outfield and pitch that offered little value for shots. The bowling was accurate. After 10 overs West were 26-1. 

The rate was just beginning to accelerate when three wickets were lost in two overs leaving the score on a precarious 46-5 from 17 (just when the last five overs had seen the rate rise to a better 3.8).

However, this was the last wicket to fall. Second string bowling, some poor field setting and terrible fielding allowed the seventh wicket pair to hit the ball into gaps and run hard. They put on 98 runs at 7.53 an over (and that was with just three boundaries). A wonderful 45 ball fifty was the highlight.

From here, it was going to take an exceptional innings from Weirs. They did not seem to have the batting. It was a the same score after 10 (30-1) but when Weirs looked to push on, wickets fell and didn't stop while the rate climbed. West's twin spinners and ring fields with the slow conditions saw Weirs have no answer and creep to 44-4 from 16. The rate needed was 7.2 but the rate in the last few was 2.5. As you would expect, the batsmen tried to hit out. It was to no avail as West kept the screw tight and bowled out Weirs.

From my point of view it was satisfying that the fielding was nailed on. Six catches (two drops) and overall evens on runs saved (we saved four, but misfielded three). Weirs only stole one single compared to 14 for West. I'll take an overall plus 14 every day. That wins you games alone.

It was our best performance to date. 

Finally, a quick note on Sunday where we played an official first XI 40 over knockout cup game with a team of mixed ability players (three first teamers only). West lost by one wicket in a nail biter. We were let down by poor fielding from weaker players and a horrible batting collapse despite having a decent batting line up. We still got close, taking them to the last pair despite only having 116 to defend. There was also a much needed fifty from an out of form new player. While you hate to lose any match, if I had to choose one it would be this game. The competition is almost pointless and certainly a game too many for most first team players who need to rest. Next year we may field a second XI side as it provides much needed higher standard practice for guys wanting to force the way in.

Game Notes: Bouncebackability

West of Scotland take the field at Irvine

Irvine 215-9. West of Scotland 193. Irvine win by 22 runs.

Despite a good overall performance, West were outbowled to lose the first competitive game of 2016.

Winning the toss, West chose to bowl on what looked like a seamer's paradise: uneven, green and soft. It looked like another low scorer, especially when an early wicket fell. However, due to a short boundary on one side, there were a lot of boundaries scored.

Additionally, several Irvine batsmen played the situation well. An opener dug in to make a fifty at a strike rate of 50 and SB% of 34%. Others attacked around him at faster rates including a 19 ball 28, 49 ball 43 and 10 ball 15.

Despite this, The overall Irvine control was just over 71%. West wrestled control back several times by bowling tight lines, beating the bat between the boundaries and good fielding. This made me confident. In the first game we won with better overall control of the match. I felt with the different conditions, 215 was a challenge but possible to get. Irvine could have got 240 if control was better.

Fielding stats showed us on +3 for runs saved vs. runs lost to misfields. They pinched 10 runs with good running. We dropped four catches. One is too many, but four was costly. We also took four catches and executed another direct hit run out.

The chat at half time was confidence. One player was vocally determined to win it for us because he had never got a fifty. There was a general determination in the ranks. The talk was about how we could win rather than what we did wrong.

We lost the openers cheaply. This caused a wobble in confidence on the balcony, especially as both shots were poorly executed. However, number three and four settled the ranks with a stand of 64 in 84 balls. At 25 overs West were 92-2, compared to 104-3 from Irvine. 4.9 per over needed and we had been going at 4.6. Additionally, control was 79%. Looking good, and the atmosphere was still of determined confidence.

However instead of maintaining this, the next 12 overs saw 45-4 runs. 3.7 per over is understandable with wickets falling, but this phase made the challenge much greater. Overall control also dropped. One of our attacking batsman was tied down by the Irvine bowlers bowling at the stumps. Other middle order guys were bowled and LBW, telling a story of how straight the bowling was (and Irvine bowled half the wides of West).

From this point it was going to need something special from the two at the crease. It was possible with those two batsman - who can both go big - but the chance of winning felt like it had ticked over to Irvine. As it turned out the lower order had a go with some big hits but with 85 needed from 78 balls, it needed magic we didn't find. Most teams would struggle to do that with numbers eight to jack at the crease. Overall control was 78%.

West pinched 29 runs through good running and misfields (compared to Irvine's 19). Irvine saved nine runs through good stops or poor running from West, meaning the overall fielding difference was +1. That means for the match, West were +4. That's not enough to make a difference to the result, but good to know.

So we fielded slightly better and were in control for more of the match. We lost out on the bowling side, with Irvine's tactic of tying down batsman and taking wickets through errors working well.

In review, we could have won the game playing exactly the same way (either bowling them out for 170 or maintaining control between overs 25-35). I feel the tactics were basically sound, it simply needs better execution by bowling more straight balls and keeping control with the bat.

That said, we could further tighten our fielding to save another 10-20 runs, especially the catching. The batsman can start to consider how they will play under the pressure of a chase and tight bowling. The bowlers can reduce that wides number.

Scottish Cup: Stoneywood Dyce 161. West of Scotland 162-7. West of Scotland win by 3 wickets.

On Sunday, there was a three hour drive to play the first round proper of the knockout cup. The game was won by a superb, controlled 87 not out from West's number three.

I was playing so didn't do a full analysis. The ball swung early on a good wicket with a short boundary and we quickly had them 29-4 after 10. We were a bowler short so looked to find 10 overs and this gave a recovery to Stoneywood, digging in to get to 117-4 from 27. Partially, this was a gap in bowling, partially it was some fielding that was a little loose and partially it was some good batting from a Stoneywood overseas player.

However, the next 13 overs saw 44-6, which was a collapse in any language. Stoneywood seemed to not have a lot of depth, and after the middle overs slowness in the field West tight end up, bowled good lines and let the batsman get themselves out.

The batting again wobbled up top. There was some poor calling and a run out. An opener and the number four were tied down by excellent seam bowling for a long time. Number three also looked to survive for the first 30 balls he was on, scoring just 11, while the score crept to 23-2 from 12.

When the second string came on, the rate improved, getting to 75-3 from 23 (4.7 an over during this phase). Number three was looking more comfortable all the time, and he had good support from both five and eight. There was a phase where two wickets fell quickly, and an end was open (98-6 from 32). It could have been scary, but the generally feeling from the sideline was nervous excitement. We felt it was close but we had the game if we stayed strong, and with the anchor role being played to perfection, all was required was for the guy at the other end to nip a single and watch.

The game was essentially won when West hit the returning opening bowler for 15 in 12 balls, taking the score on to 147-6 in 39 overs. The game was finished in the 42nd.

It was a very similar situation to the previous day, even down to the short boundary. However this time the plan worked much better in the field and the batting had an anchor role that went the distance.

Yet again, my main area for improvement is the fielding. Standards are high, so players can be harder on themselves over diving to stop the ball or putting a body behind it. We also could bowl fewer wides (9 bowled costing 25 runs). However, I think we should continue to set high standards and be able to "switch back on" when we make a mistake. We did that very well in this game.

Naturally, I would also look to the top order to tighten up the basics. We had two run outs, both unforced errors rather than excellent fielding. There is a batsman with a technical issue that has crept in. However, the example set from such a well paced innings is something we can continue.

Overall a positive weekend, with the seconds smashing another opponent too. (putting up over 300 before bowling them out). Despite the league loss, we have shown we can bounce back and are keen to learn from it. And we even played well in that game! Nine wins from 10 and still full of positive vibes.

Session Notes: Relax, But Not Too Much

Late evening nets in Glasgow

Thursday sessions seem to have settled into a far more relaxed practice. There are fewer players and the first team guys tend to stay away, leaving room for new members and guys hovering around the second and third teams. This naturally gives a less intense feel to things.

However, it is still enough of a mixture of guys that you can get something done. I wouldn't want it to get so relaxed that it is a social event rather than practice. And the guys all have a focused approach, even those not getting a regular game.

We did a couple of fielding drills and then had nets. I tested out a new sensor for PitchVision just to see if it worked (it did). I ran the drills, focusing on ground work of course, and asked guys again to self-manage nets with the instruction of fielding when not bowling. 

Naturally, the fielding idea fell apart quickly. I am still experimenting with what kind of self-policed training works and what doesn't. Most things just don't work with these club guys. No one takes responsibility to manage it and it stops as soon as the coach looks away. This is frustrating to me, but there is little I can do. I can't manage two or three separate groups at once so must rely on players self-managing and people taking leadership. I am still thinking how we can change this.

That said, players are starting to get the message that they can do stuff without needing a prompt from the coach every time. In this session several guys did their own thing with fielding drills while I was otherwise engaged. The bowling in nets did not become a free for all with the bowling. Guys helped each other out by hitting balls and bowling past when they could have stopped. It was an encouraging environment.

Oe of the down sides of the "self-sufficient" approach is players use it as an excuse to do nothing. One guy arrived early at nets but did not emerge from the changing room until around 20 minutes after training had begun. He was fully padded up because a young bowler had decided to get a quick bowl done alone in nets. The batsman in question had not warmed up with the others because he is resting a sore shoulder and bruised hand. However he did still participate in things later when it suited him. 

He might argue he just wants to bat due to resting his niggles. It's a good point. It also looks terrible when a first team player saunters around like he owns the place. He is creating a reputation as someone who is only out for himself and doesn't care about with his own team mates or other club members. People notice this and naturally give you less of a chance as a result. It's human nature to want to avoid people you don't like.

However, I was glad to see that he helped out later, throwing and hitting balls for others and even bowling a few in nets when I know he genuinely does have a bad shoulder. This is good to see and I hope it came via the example of others who threw themselves into helping out.

Also, despite the lower overall standards, I kept insisting on maintaining the basics to a high level. I have taken on feedback about being a touch more serious about the standards I want to see. Now I am pushing people to go for and take catches, throw themselves at the ball and return throws to me with accuracy. I disapprove when it goes wrong much more vocally, and maintain the positive reinforcement when it goes well.  

Im personally learning that to get the best from people as a coach, I need to understand each person individually and adapt. There are times when a group needs a leader and some direction. However, the less I do that, the more likely it becomes that training does not go as planned. My job is to better design the sessions so they better match the player's personalities. I'm slowly learning what that is for each person. Meanwhile, the ultimate aim is to push at their limits to help them get the best from themselves.

Training Notes: World-Class Basics

Outdoor net practice with first team players.

One theme I thread through training is that of becoming exceptionally good at the basics. If you can catch, stop, throw, bowl a good length, drive and pull you are going to be a success! 

So, with a smaller group due to a third XI game, we focused on making sure these basics were honed again and again. By the way, the thirds won. That's six wins from six competitive matches.

We warmed up with the new drill from last week to get everyone running around. I focused on slightly altering my tone after getting feedback that it could be less "jokey" and more "intense". I'm a happy guy and I love cricket - even when things are going badly - so I'll never totally lose the jovial nature. However, I can slip into headmaster mode when needed. This trial run saw me offering plenty of praise and encouragement, but also a sharp word to those who didn't get standards right. 

After this, the new coach and I reiterated that everyone is trusted to do what they need to do to succeed, but that is not an excuse to be half-hearted. We split into two groups for nets and fielding. I asked the nets group to do something slightly different; bowlers who were not bowling fielded at mid on and mid off. I told them it was in their interest to do this at match intensity because this is practice for matches.

However, one guy bowled in a cap and barely fielded. Others sort of did it to start with, but by the end it was a free bowl with no fielding. This was not a great upset as the guys at the end were less serious anyway. However, again, these guys can all benefit from being focused at practice. In this session we were not at the level of intensity we needed to be to make improvements. Players need to understand that this impact on others when you bowl or field poorly. I will continue to stress the need to take responsibility for others as well as yourself.

Fielding drills at West of Scotland

Meanwhile, the fielding was self directed. Naturally this means lots of high catches and some ground work. I would still rather see a higher ratio of lower catches, but the volume is vey high and every catch makes a difference to players chances in matches.  

I tried to compensate with some work using the Katchet  (throwing onto it with the Sidearm ball thrower for extra pace and carry) to give low catches to a few guys. This worked well and is now a 100% staple drill for better fielders in the squad. 

Finally, I did my secret favourite thing: keeper work. I worked with our main keeper on standing up to the stumps. I gave a few pointers on leg side work and threw balls like a spinner to practice staying low and moving quickly. We even got a batsman who was hanging about to do some shadow batting to help. I was a fun way to end the session. 

For future sessions, I plan to keep pushing up against players intensity levels. I also want to put pressure on the players by challenging them with things like running between the wickets and playing under pressure. These things can be done with the right focus and every session feels more like people understand the way I do things, just as I am beginning to learn how the players respond to things. It really is true that the coach is the student of the players and not the other way round. 

Game Notes: 100% Record

West of Scotland took the weekend apart, maintaining a 100% win record for both 1st and 2nd XI sides. This included a win in the Scottish Cup.

West of Scotland Cricket Club 1st XI in the pre-match huddle. 

Hillhead 103. West of Scotland 104-6. West of Scotland win by 4 wickets.

Saturday's league match was a strong performance against a weaker side. West bowled first on a difficult wicket where some balls popped and others kept low. The first two wickets fell quickly. However, as always happens, a pair got more settled and put on a stand. Once this was broken there was another flurry of wickets followed by another stand where batsmen decided to hit out and got away with a few hits. Eventually this was broken too. The number eleven hung around while the number five looked to get as many as he could, but 103 was not enough even on this poor wicket.

My main learning point about the innings was how hard we are on ourselves. There were very few mistakes yet the tone from the loudest voices at the break was how we should have bowled them out for 50. If everything had gone well, then this was feasible, but to beat yourself up for imperfection is foolish. Perfect games come about very rarely. It's not an indicator of future success to be perfect or imperfect. We put in a very strong performance and it was more than enough with the ball. You might call it a B+ rather than an A+. 

Of course, there are areas to work on. We gave away five runs in misfields (but even there we saved three with good stops, finishing on only -2). We dropped two tricky but possible chances (and caught two, one very good one). It was a good performance in the field that can still be taken up a notch.

There were 13 wides, which is also acceptable with room to improve. The Hillhead SB% was 22% which you would expect for a low score on a poor wicket. The RpSS was 1.98 (37 singles). The control was 64%. This shows how West dominated with the ball.

West's stats with the bat were different; 77% control (excellent on a poor wicket) and SB% was 26%. RpSS was 2.38 (21 singles). It is encouraging there were more boundaries scored and yet the SB% was also higher. When you see that West also stole 14 runs (losing 5 to poor running or good fielding), you can easily see how dominant a performance it was. 

The runs were scored in 27 overs. This was due mainly to aggressive play from two batsmen after a solid foundation was set in the first 10 (30-1). From 10-18, another 29 were added, and with the addition of an attacking batsman, the last 9.3 overs saw 45 runs.

However one stat that is most worrisome is wickets. Six were lost in the chase.  With such a high control and good RpO, the thought is batsmen were getting themselves out. However, analysing the wickets reveals it wasn't so bad; an LBW on a ball that nipped in, bowled from a ball that went away, and bowled from a ball that kept low account for three wickets. On all three the batsmen might have been lucky but didn't do too much wrong.

The other three were a technical error (caught leading edge), shouldering arms caught LBW (poor judgement let's say but it could have been a good ball too), and bowled after being distracted. The last one the batsman should have pulled away but decided to continue, so although the distraction was not his fault (and an external mistake), he took responsibility. On another day, at least four of the six wickets could have gone the other way and did not fully involve batsman error.

It meant the negative view could be taken that West did not finish clinically. While this is true, it also need to be mitigated. The stats were superior in every department and even in wickets fallen there was a 40% improvement on the opposition!

As always, we take what happened at the weekend with a "stop, start, continue" view and work on processes at training. With the ball we can sharpen the fielding further, maybe even pulling off some better dives and stops. The bowling can improve in accuracy but the tactics are working so it's just a matter of confidence and fitness unless a bowler has something extra he wants to try. With the bat, we need to individually review game plans and decide if it's working at the moment. Just because you got out for a low score doesn't mean your plan failed or you didn't try hard enough. If the plan is wrong, change it. If the plan is right, work on honing it further at nets.

A note on the 2nds who also won on Saturday (but I was not there); They are playing a strong side against terrible opposition. A 10 wicket win on Saturday is no fun or practice for anyone. The big challenge is to keep everyone interested and competing for places. However, two new batsmen got runs and will look to challenge for a first team place. 

Hanshakes after West of Scotland's win over Irvine in the Scottish Cup

Scottish Cup: Irvine 91. West of Scotland 92-3. West of Scotland win by 7 wickets

Sunday saw a cup match for the 1st team. I played and so did not do a full match analysis. However, you can see from the score that the match was even more one-sided.

It was the same pitch and so scoring freely was always a challenge against good first team bowling. West had a close to full strength team against a clearly weakened Irvine. Yet again, there was some frustration about the fielding and, while I don't have the stats, it was almost always West in charge. The only tactic that worked for Irvine was for the tail to block to try and use up the overs. SB% was 19%. However, at least no naysayer was complaining about how were should have done better. 

With the bat, it was all over in 21 overs. 27-2 from the first nine and 65-1 in the last 12. Five an over on such a poor wicket shows the power of being on top in the match. Great credit goes to West's number four who scored a run a ball 31 to close out the game. It was also nice to see a senior batsman who struggled last year to find a role make a cameo 5 not out when in other times he might have either blocked too much or got out after putting himself under pressure to finish the game. Progress. 

What made me happy was that the games were very similar yet we showed a marked improvement in the second go. Certainly an A-. If we improve by this much every game we will be invincible. However, more likely is we will come under more pressure from stronger sides. We need to use the confidence gained in these games to get ready for harder challenges.

Train hard to play easy! 

Training Notes: Middle Practice

Middle wicket practice at West of Scotland Cricket Club

After an indoor session on ​Wednesday, we had a wicket and some warm weather to have a rare middle practice on Thursday.

Indoor nets​

​The rain forced us entirely indoors on Wednesday. Numbers were down and it was mainly club guys rather than performance players. However, with some ambitious guys eager to learn we used the bowling machine and PitchVision to do some technical work on various things.

An opener worked on hitting the gaps, a lower order player tried his hand at coming down the wicket to seamers and another opener looked to develop his skill at leaving outside the off stump. A few others did some work while the rest had a net in the other lane. Standard stuff​, but it was something productive from what would have been a cancelled session outdoors.

Fielding drill​s

When the sun came up the next day, our wonderful groundsman sidled up to me and asked me if I wanted an old wicket rolled so we could use it. I jumped at the chance! So while I drilled the guys he did his magic.​

The warm up drill we tried was a new one to me and I was concerned it wouldn't work. However, it was a great success, mainly due to one of our senior guys throwing himself into it and motivating everyone to do it. It's called the 4 stump game and you can see it here (honestly, it's easier than it looks).​ It warms up pick ups, throws, catches and backing up in one go.

As the middle practice went on later​, I asked guys to do some self-directed fielding drills. I popped in once or twice to help a bit but generally some guys just took leadership roles, moved players between practice groups, worked on different skills and kept moving.

I was delighted to see this, and feel like my mantra of "work it out for yourself" is getting through.

Middle practice​

Video analysis during middle practice

The main practice was a middle practice with the throwdown net string up on the leg side to save fetching balls. The off side was open and guys took turns to field there while two batters took runs.

It wasn't perfect: the fielders were not as serious as they could have been, there was no specific planning or pressure on the players and the balance between bat and ball was not always right. On a more high performance session I would like to add better focus to improve it further.

Broadly though, the learning opportunity was for guys to feel comfortable batting in the middle and running rather than being in the safety of the net.  This worked well and players got a more realistic session than they would in a normal net. We also had a researcher in to do video analysis on some players backlifts and he was more than happy to make a few pointers to players on technique.

And yet again, some senior guys took it upon themselves to manage the players and make sure everyone got a go. 

I don't think this kind of mixed ability session could have gone better in the circumstances. I am sure everyone got something from it. The next step is to get something even better done at a higher level on the Tuesday session.

Training Notes: Energy and Assistance

There was a strange energy about this session, but a new coach to help me kept things going.

Fielding drill for the infield. 

As it was a wet day (although a dry evening) I decided to have some fun in the warm up and get people throwing themselves around. We did some warm up stuff that was slightly silly but also useful for diving skills. My idea was scuppered when several people flatly refused to do it. Reasons ranged from "I'm here to play cricket" to "I've got a bad back". Nonsensical in my mind, and also disrespectful to the coach. I wasn't happy.

After a short stand off where some people insanely stood still and watched others warm up, I gave in and tried something else. It was equally silly yet everyone did it and enjoyed it. I will have to think how to deal with this petulant nonsense. I'm all for people doing their own thing, but when they decide their own thing is nothing, something is not right. Perhaps  I will reiterate that if people don't want to do my warm up, they could do something else. After all, "standing about" is seen as a major sin usually.

Fortunately, I had a new coach to help me this week. He is a senior player and talented cricketer. He took the pressure off me quite a bit by making sure a group got a good batting and bowling session in the indoor nets, then ran some high intensity fielding drills. I trust his skills and it allows me to do other things.

I would like some better planning done with him, but I sense he is not the planning type. This is probably a good thing as I tend to over-plan. However, we barely got the chance to speak at all and I would have at least liked him to understand my focus for the session. We may have to do that via WhatsApp in future as setting time aside to meet is not an option. Nevertheless, that is a minor point. The fact he is there to hit balls and advise on batting tactics is plenty awesome. 

Indoor nets

We split into two groups. One indoors to bat and bowl and one outdoors to field. I stuck to fielding while the other coach did some batting. I asked the guys to write down their outcome for the session. This is the lightest touch I can possibly ask for focus during a session. Here's what I got (I smudged the names):

As you can see only eight people did it from a group of twice that. I'm less concerned with some of the third team level guys doing it - although they still can and should - but was again disappointed by the approach of some senior first team players who didn't even bother to write down a word or two. Additionally, no one wrote down if they succeeded.

I appreciate habits are hard to change. Yet, this was so easy, the gains are so good and was even under the supervision of a coach. I must admit this - combined with the warm up - got me down a little. I am supposed to be there to help people, but how can I help them if they won't even do the absolute least they could do? I realise this is a bit of my ego talking so shouldn't let it get to me, but last night it certainly did. I'm compromising on my measuring outcomes mantra severely and I am getting about 40% success back. Work needed.

I will persevere and ask players to keep doing this until we get it right. It's not hard, shows people are listening to me and will help them improve. I'll draft in my new coach to help with this. And try to not let my pride feel hurt.

Fielding drills

Meanwhile outside, we worked on requested skills of pick up and throw in the ring, stopping the firmly hit ball and high catching.

We had a set of stumps with the middle stump half height to aim at for the throws. I coached trying to hit the middle stump and drilled the guys from both the right and left hand side. I let them know that this drill is tough because there is a high failure rate, but if one person gets in right one in the season, it's worth the effort. 

We had another minor "weird energy" moment during this drill where a player missed his throw and had to get the ball. Everyone else had run quickly to get out of the way but he decided to walk like it was a thousand mile journey. I tried to energise him to go quickly, which seemed to slow him down further. So we had to stop the whole drill while he sauntered past. I could have kept the drill going (it was safe) but I wanted to make the point this was meant to be high energy and he was the opposite.

Other odd moments: One player not taking part in the fielding section after having a bat. One player claiming he had an injured arm for throwing nicks to a team mate but was fine throwing at the stumps in a drill. One player complaining a drill should be more high energy when that wasn't the point of the drill. Like I said, an odd feeling.  Maybe all these things had valid reasons, but from the coaches' viewpoint it looked like a few people were half-hearted.

Still we finished with some ground fielding and high catching work while three guys did some throwdowns on the outfield. That was all energetic, especially when run by the new coach. One upgrade I must remember to a fielding drill is to combine a volume section (lots of hands on the ball quickly) with a focus section of the same skill (less volume, more realistic). This should keep people moving but also get the realism in.

Overall, despite the lower energy and lack of focus, we had a session where people got things done. We have a great opportunity to keep this improving this season if we get out processes right. Today was not that day, but it gives me hope that even a low session can be productive.

Games Notes: League Opener

West of Scotland leave the field after victory over Stirling County

West of Scotland 176 (48.1 o). Stirling County 141 (47 o). West of Scotland win by 35 runs. 

It was a satisfying performance for the first game of the league season, as West overcame Stirling despite a game that ebbed and flowed. Last year we would have lost this match, but this year we held firm and stayed confident in our skills.

The batting was typical for early season rustiness. The pitch was good and the bowling was below par. 27 wides tells the story there. The batting saw good starts that didn't quite turn into match winning innings: 23, 14, 17, 13, 17 and 36 on the card sum it up. 

Our control percentage was 75.24%

One batsman was ill but played and aimed to occupy the crease. His 91 ball 23 was crucial to us posting a decent total and his next aim will be to improve his scoring ball percentage when back to full strength. A couple of guys got out to "early season" shots (mistimed shots to ring fielders) and clearly need more time on outdoor pitches.

The stand out innings was a well-paced 36 from number eight who was happy combining strike rotation with lusty blows. It was his game plan, and he knows it well. In this match it paid off, and generally it will because it's a well furrowed plan.

i was pleased with the strike rotation as well, stealing 24 runs in the innings brought by either good running or opposition misfields. We only missed three runs in our innings and only conceded four runs through misfields when we fielded. A +17 finish.

The only criticism laid at anyone was a lower order batsman who also likes to play his shots. He came in, hit some nice shots to get going and mis timed a pull shot to expose the tail with his partner going well at the other end. When this happened we were bowled out in short time. A couple of people mentioned this was a poor choice as he should have focused on rotating the strike and staying in. In my mind, this was not an error. The batsman in question is a powerful striker of the ball and could have scored a lot of runs in the last couple of overs. He had a plan to hit the ball hard and he went for it. On this day it failed. But who's to say thing to pinch a single would have worked either? It's also not like 10 and 11 were rabbits. Both could hang around and score from the friendly bowling. You have to play the game as you see it. If this happens again, I would encourage the batsman to do what his best plan suggests, not what others think is his best plan.

At the break a few were overly critical of the score. It's easy to let emotion get in the way and get disappointed about "not getting enough" because we feel we could have scored more. However, to win you don't need to get as many runs as are in the pitch, you simply need more than the opposition.  We went out with a plan, adapted when it didn't go perfectly and kept driving towards a total. Fortunately, our captain has a level head and said to me calmly at the break "if we concede fewer wides and bowl dots we win this game". 

He he was right. 

In in the field we looked very strong.  Here are some stats:

• Seven good stops (against four misfields)
• Four catches (Three drops).
• Two direct hits on the stumps from five attempts (one run out) 
• Stirling's control percentage was just 66.17% (compared to 74% for West)
• Stirling had 67 scoring shots (23.8% SB%) compared to West 76 (26.3%)
• Stirling scored 39 singles to West 39
• Stirling scored nine boundaries to West 15
• 16 wides (compared to 27) 

Even when the score was 29-0 from six, I felt like we were on top. The control was around 50% at one point and it felt like a wicket was going to fall for a long time, despite boundaries being hit.

We slowly squeezed with good fielding and accurate bowling, reducing the scoring rate to 84-3  from 25 (West were on 80-3 at the same stage). The two spinners turned the screw in the second half with combined figures of 18-3-39-3 and an SB% of 17%. This was combined with focused fielding including a fine over the shoulder catch and direct hit run out. We should continue this trend.

On the improvement side, we could do even better by cutting down on the couple of mistakes we made with ground fielding. Two drops would have been stunning catches but I believe we can take those with focused work. One drop was a regulation slip catch. I put it down to cold and illness, but we should practice slip work even more too.

16 wides is also still a few too many. The main issue is knowing what a wide is, as different umpires interpret the local rules differently. The solution is to bowl tighter lines, staying on or just outside the stumps. We can use PitchVision at outdoor practice to assist with this. We must also be careful to remember length is more important than line. I would rather see a bowler hit length more often and bowl more wides than bowl no wides but keep missing length. A wide is one, a half volley or long hop could well be four or six. 

Looking forward, there will be times were a very skilled player takes the game away. In this game, the opposition batting was not deep and lacked a superstar. In other games, we need to be sure we can handle someone who is capable of winning the game with fast, free scoring. Good fielding and tight lines is a great strategy, but when you are being smashed you must be able to keep your cool.

After the game, the changing room review was brief. The captain had a few words, as did a senior player. I tried to drop on my "stop, start, continue" mantra but heads were already turning to the bar. Fortunately, I could chat to guys over a drink to stress my point: We should enjoy every moment of the win, but never assume we are doing it all right because we won (same as never spend too long in the post mortem when we lose). There is always stuff to improve and always strengths to maintain.

But that talk was for Tuesday. For now, let's enjoy the win, sing the club song and recover sore muscles. West of Scotland 2016 has positive signs. 

• Stop: Throwing away a good start. Bowling wides.
• Start: Preparing for strong opposition. Slip catching, reaction catching. Ground fielding. Better SB%.
• Continue: Catches and direct hits. Bowling tight line and length.

Session Notes: Snow Can't Stop Play

West of Scotland use a lot of nets at cricket practice! 

The last session was strange, but it ended up being rescued with some adaptation.

We had several flurries of sleety snow and superb sunshine between. That put paid to my original idea of middle practice. It was too soggy an outfield and an uncovered wicket.

Several people dropped out, as per usual in the wet, some were super late and several others didn't turn up. Naughty.

Of those who did turn up, we started with some basic fielding as it was so wet it was hard to do too much until things dried a bit. Plus numbers were low for the first 45 minutes. Oddly, two people arrived and sat down to watch the fielding rather than join in. I was too busy with people practicing to question it.

After a while, the pitch dried enough to attempt bowling. We had a quick net, getting through eight players of various standards in an hour. I managed to let two first team batsman face only decent bowling for 15 minutes, then threw all the guys in together for a hit. Most of them were new faces so I have not sussed out fully their skill level or commitment yet. Signs are good though.

Making the most of the sunshine. 

With a negative approach it could have been a disaster. By "getting on with it", we got something useful done for a range of player skills. Even though it snowed! That's a win.

Session Notes: Outdoor Nets

West of Scotland and Western Warriors player, Gavin Smith at cricket nets

This session was made super good with the introduction of an outdoor net.

Despite the cold, and breaks for rain, sleet and hail at various points, the sun mostly shone and the guys threw themselves into the session. Bowlers got full run ups, the pitch was realistic in pace and bounce and everyone played hard.

As it was cold, we kept the high catching to a minimum and warmed up with a few throwing drills. One, "scatter throws", descended into hilarious chaos, was fun and worked on hitting the stumps. Win.

As we only have one outdoor net, I knew not everyone was going to get to practice. So, as per my orginal intent at the start of outdoors, I sent people off in small groups based on ability. This meant the best bowlers could bowl to the best batsmen and no "training down" could be seen.

The down side was that we only got through 10 batsmen in two hours. At least half a dozen missed out. I encouraged them to use the indoor nets instead and said I would work hard to get them outside another day.

For the first team guys, I wanted them to focus on something specific in nets. We had a whiteboard to write down the goals. Sadly the rain hit the board and stopped the pen working and I didn't want to wasted time. We abandoned the idea. I will make a mental note to make the next session more focused. Although, the benefit here was built-in; practicing outside!

For those waiting to get in the nets, we had three areas: low catches, over the shoulder catches (and boundary ground fielding) and the throwdown net. I left people to do their thing themselves and flitted between groups, helping and trying to communicate the need for people to tell me what they want. It worked well.

Simon and Craig Brown take advantage of the West of Scotland Cricket Club throwdown net. A fielding drill goes on in the background

I'm starting to hear people pipe up when they have something to feed back rather than just be a bit grumpy and say nothing. This is good progress. In this case there were two comments;

One player told me he didn't understand why sessions were labelled "batting focus" and "bowling focus" when there isn't much difference. He's right because at the moment there isn't. However, it give me freedom to prioritise if I want. I told him not to worry about it as long as he was getting what he wanted from the session. It was a fair point though. I'll keep thinking about that.

Another player told me he didn't understand why he didn't get to use a bit of specialist bowling kit we have. I told him it was available for him to use any time he wanted to use it. He mentioned he had not been told how or given permission. I said he always has permission to use any kit and if he need to know the details to simply ask.

This is a source of slight frustration to me. I buy the kit from my own pocket, make it available to players, explain how to use it and it gets ignored. Then someone new fancies a go and instead of asking, they get cross. The solution to my frustration is better communication: I will continue my mission to convince players to just ask for help!

However, I would much rather players bring these gripes to me than keep quiet. I can make changes based on feedback or clarify things if no change is needed.

We finished with me doing my new favourite drill: using a Sidearm thrower to feed a catch to a fielder off the Katchet board. It goes very fast and, with deviations from the board, means players have to really watch it all the way. It's a powerful way to overload slip catching.

Overall, we covered a huge amount of fielding, kept the batting and bowling at the right level of challenge and maintained the "self reliance" mantra.