What Did You Notice?

Take a look at this great video from Stuart Armstrong about asking “what did you notice?” with players:

This is a powerful question and it works to gain insights. You should ask it if you coach cricket.

You’ll often be surprised by the answer. 

In a school setting - where I mostly work - there are pitfalls with the question. Often, kids find the open ended nature a chance to vent about distractions. Here is how I deal with them.

“The teams are not fair”

Fairness is easily the most common thing that is noticed at all ages. It’s a distraction because the teams are not unfair. It’s being used as an excuse for losing usually because the opposition has the best player.

I deal with this in one of three ways,

1. Coach changes the teams. I rarely do this as no matter what you change, someone will complain. That said, sometimes we need a quick rebalance.

2. Players change the teams. I build team changes into the games we are playing in various gamification ways. For example, players can call a “pause” in play once per game and ask for a team change. Or players can trade game points for transfers. This is more tricky and takes longer as negotiations happen (often leading to arguments, so needs very careful management). 

3. Change focus. The cause of the complaint comes from wanting to beat the opposition above all other aims (like, say, learning the skills of the game). So we change the focus. For example, in the V Game the mission is to lock all the fielders, something you can do regardless of team fairness. I find the “unfair” complaint vanishes once the focus is reset.

“That was good”

This is a vague reply that shows the mindset of the players. If they say “that was good” or “that was rubbish” they are broadly in a fixed mindset. But the question is designed to encourage a more growth mindset by focusing on what we need to do to improve.

If the answer is “we were amazing” or “I was terrible” I follow up by saying “what was good/terrible and why was it good/terrible?” Which usually elicits some thoughtful analysis.

I can then say “What do you need to do differently?” and whatever they answer, tell them to go and do it.

This works because any unfocused answers quickly fall down in the game. 

I also encourage players come up with changes to the rules in the game to help them focus on the aspect they need to focus on. For example, if there are a lot of wides bowled, shorten the length of the pitch.

“They are cheating”

Blaming leads to instant defence. This then turns into an argument about who’s right. No one backs down and no solutions are sought so the row goes on. It’s destructive to a session.

For this reason, I nip any blaming or accusing in the bud quickly. It’s not helpful and wastes time. It’s one of the few times I will intervene almost instantly. If it’s a new group I take it as a learning moment and teach them how to give feedback helpfully. 

Of course that’s rarely the end, especially with teenage boys who might have a long term feud. It takes a few goes before they are communicating better. In the meantime we head back to they question “what do we need to change?”

In this case I’ll give players time to think about it by breaking them into smaller groups and giving them some options: make a change to the rules, give one side an advantage or ask the coach for advice. I then get them to give their ideas to each other and pick an option they can all handle.

When it’s an argumentative atmosphere, it’s tough to manage. The situation often need direct intervention to get things moving. However, my aim is still to provide opportunities for the players to learn how to communicate effectively. I only lay down the law it if they are not making progress.

“That doesn’t make any sense”

The final difficult answer is actually a group of things: Kids who stay silent and never answer the question, kids who disengage and start talking to each other about something else, and kids who answer but with something silly.

If a group is dominated by a couple of chatty kids and some easily distracted ones, I get them together in smaller groups (maybe in their teams) and get them to talk about it themselves before delivering the answer to the other groups.

It works to get disengaged or confused kids to contribute more, but it also leads to more opportunities for one of the other answers above. Yet again it takes delicate management and patience that some will get it wrong for a few tries. 

Perseverance is key as there are few instant upgrades.

Overall though, the question “what did you notice?” is superb and worth asking regularly. Just be ready to have to spend time helping players get used to answering it. It takes effort and patience.

All Training is Compromise: Don't Let That Fact Ruin the Session

No one has full control of their environment, but your individual mindset is not only controllable, but also essential to flourishing as a cricketer.

This thought crossed my mind last night at a training session. It was with good standard schoolboy cricketers in a sports hall.

To illustrate I’ll explain the game and how it went wrong (Spoiler: it was more about mindset than game design)

Cricket noughts and crosses

We played using the whole hall, indoor cricket style with two batsmen a bowler and fielders.

However, instead of a “most runs” game, the winning team had to win a game of noughts and crosses. every player was either a “nought” or a “cross”. To put their mark on the board, they needed to achieve a skill in the game. For example batsmen had to hit a four, bowlers had to bowl no wides in an over and fielders had to take a shy at the stumps at the right end.

If you achieved your chosen skill, you make a mark. If you get three in a row, you win the game. 

The benefit of the game is giving the players a choice of what to focus on in game context and breaking the “just having a hit” mentality of nets. It makes you hone in on specific skills.

In the game we played it went a little wrong due to not everyone buying into the idea. One player said “I just want to hit balls I don’t care about the game”. We had to stop and reset and discuss why. In this case the player thought it was a waste of time to put the cross on the board instead of getting extra balls in. This caused further disruption as all the player’s immersion in the format was broken.

You could argue he was right, and we talked about the pros and cons of changing the format. This is a trick I try with players who are not engaged and it often works to reset motivation by getting to the root of the complaint. 

In this case, it took a bit longer so we talked about committing to the game as it was.

My point was that all cricket training is a compromise.

We are constrained by being indoors with artificial light, only having an hour and a small group of players of different abilities. If we decide it’s not worth the effort any game will fail. 

So, we have to commit fully to the game, or change it and commit to the change.

After this, the intensity shot up, players got into the game  and there was real execution of skills under pressure. 

The only difference was mindset. They found meaning in what they were doing and went for it. But without meaning, anything becomes pointless.

When you feel that energy drain, try to reset the meaning, commitment and mindset and see what happens.

Applaud and Reward the Fancy Shots

I always applaud kids when they attempt “fancy shots”. These include reverse sweeps, switch hits and scoops.

But this is unusual. The default is coaches who implore young batters to play straight. To learn the basics first. Don’t get too clever. Get to the risky stuff. They might even punish any attempts to get creative.

I disagree.

For several reasons,

• You’re allowed to hit the ball anywhere so why not try it? 

• If a kid attempts a scoop and fails they have learned something. If they succeed, it’s another area to score.

• It’s fun to challenge yourself to hit the ball in a different way. Cricket has enough of a reputation of being “boring” let’s not give kids more excuses to think it’s dull.

Context is still important. Scooping a 12 year old spinner when you need 5 to win in 3 overs is a high risk and has a low reward. So, it’s important to be reflective about why those shots are being attempted. Trying something new under match pressure is different from exploring a possibility and seeing if you can learn to do it.  Understanding a player’s motivations is a crucial part of how you deal with any decision they make.

However, for me, practice doesn’t need to be as linear as “master the basics first”. Life’s a lot more messy than that. Take a moment to enjoy the glorious chaos of the attempt and see if it helps the players you coach.

Building Sandcastles

Analogies are very useful in coaching at a number of levels. (And if you want to really get into why, pick up The Language of Coaching)

One I have used recently is “building sandcastles”, to help some of the young cricketers I coach get to grips with how they approach training. Many of them have learned training is about error identification compared to the perfect model. This can lead to a mindset where anything less than perfection is seen as failure.

If I see this frustration, I’ll ask them to imagine being a kid playing sandcastles in a sandpit. 

When you played in the sandpit you didn’t care about errors. You just made something and played around with how it looked. If it wasn’t working out you didn’t get frustrated with the lack of perfection, you just started again. 

This is a reframing analogy. Thinking of training as playing in the sandpit and building castles means you stop worrying about comparing yourself to a model of perfection. Instead you enjoy the process of exploring.

I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather coach people who were having as much fun as they do at the beach.

How Much Philosophy is in Cricket Coaching?

One thing cricket coaches are encouraged to develop these days is their philosophy. I’ve been thinking about how important it is to have one.

On a practical level, it’s easy and perfectly possible to “just coach”. To treat is as a purely practical endeavour. But really, I can’t imagine a coach who doesn’t at least briefly ask “why do I coach?”. For me that’s the start of a good philosophy.

That said, it’s easy to go deep into the weeds when it comes to answering the “why” of coaching. Philosophy is endlessly ponderable with different theories and areas of study. It’s an area I’m interested in but by no means an expert.

My compromise is to do two things; first dip into philosophy with half a mind on how such ideas influence my coalface coaching. Second, keep and regularly review a short philosophy statement that tries to explain why I coach and how I coach. Once every three months seems to be the sweet spot, and I usually find I have a small update on last time.

You might find that too much effort. Or you might think it’s not enough. What I would recommend to every coach is to occasionally reflect on both “how” and “why” because we all need to create meaning to stick at this wonderful, yet often tricky job.

Why Explaining Cricket Activity Rules Needs to be Fast and Messy

When coaching cricket to kids, the explanation of an activity is one of the most tricky parts. 

Explaining rules is essential but it’s also downtime from the action. Most kids get distracted easily, which then takes up more time.

My current solution leads to some messy initial outcomes but getting to the action more quickly: 

Spend as little time as possible explaining, just sticking to the absolute basics, then start the game quickly.

It is surprising how fast people learn when they have to; like learning French by living in France. That said, there is plenty of chaos. People shouting rules at each other, standing looking confused, making up their own rules as they go and so on. 

For example, a net game like “21s” can be explained quickly like this:

1. The aim to be the first to 21 points between batsman and bowlers.

2. Bowlers get 10 points for a wicket, 1 point for a play and miss and 3 points for a ball hit above head height.

3. Batsmen get a point for a cross bat shot contact, 3 points for a straight bat shot contact and 5 points for surviving 10 balls.

Then you start. Use a whiteboard or tokens to keep score if needs be.

In my experience, glitches iron out fast and naturally within the basic framework of the game. Anything that doesn’t work needs a reset from the coach, but this is rare.

Once the game is running you can build up extra rules. Deal with wides, give batsmen an aerial option, encourage riskier play from the batsman or give bowlers more points for wickets. Design the game to meet your needs.

But the key point is to crack on and be comfortable with it not being perfect. After all, cricket matches never happen perfectly so why should practice?

Is Verbal Instruction Overrated?

Andrew Wilson makes the case that it is here.

Of course, “overrated” does not mean “dead”. But it does raise a question for cricket coaches. Do we need to stop comparing those we coach to perfect models (that don’t exist) and instead start helping them to get to a method that works for them in their context?

if so, how does verbal coaching fit in to this way of thinking?

Motivation 3.0 in Cricket Coaching

I just finished reading Drive, the book about motivation from Daniel Pink. It's well worth a read if you want ideas on how to motivate others. Here are some of the practical take away points from a cricket coaching angle.

• Old school motivation of "carrot and stick" only works for routine tasks. Anything else needs people to be internally motivated (motivation 3.0 as Pink calls it).

• Intrinsic motivation depends on people having choice over what they do (autonomy), a Goldilocks challenge (not to easy, not too hard), and a reason to do it (purpose)

• Coaches can help players find their purpose by asking why they are playing and what they want to achieve. Then checking in regularly to see if they are on track.

• Players are more motivated if they involved in the creation of goals, ideally deciding them for themselves with some support from coaches.

• "Deliberate practice" is important. For almost all of us, the cornerstones of practice are a clear objective, immediate feedback, repetition, and is an appropriate challenge.

• Autonomous practice is also important. Give players space to decide what they want to do. This could be "free play" for 10-20% of training, or a bigger project where players plan an activity then put it into action.

• Rewards for performance are much more motivating if they are given by peers.

• Activities can be more motivational if they are novel and engaging, and have a clear connection to a deeper purpose.

Although not quite a checklist, these are some useful ideas to frame practice. Are we offering up autonomy, mastery at some level every time we coach? I know I could do this more.

The Place of Direct Instruction in Cricket Coaching

Way back in 2008, I had a conversation with an internationally renown coach about instruction. His idea was simple, “if you tell them what to do, and they do it, they get better”

It’s a compelling argument that makes sense, and direct instruction remains at of the core of the UK Level 2 cricket coaching badge. It's the established method.

However, even back then a debate had begun about other approaches. It was why the coach and I were having the discussion (he was frustrated by the trend to take a more guiding and questioning approach). In the following years, this debate has fallen into two broad camps who argue ceaselessly on social media. The approaches take different names but are broadly split by how much direct instruction is useful.

Where does this leave the coach who doesn't want to enter the debate or delve into the literature; they just want to do a good job?

Unfortunately, the answer is not as simple as sticking to command-based, as the coach told me, or switching totally discovery-based.

While the debate rages on, you can read this short article from Ed Cope and Chris Cushion. It neatly skips the polarising arguments and looks at how there are ways to be adaptable in our approach to direct instruction.

And if that fires you up to look more deeply into direct instruction, you can listen to Ed Cope on the Talent Equation podcast for a longer discussion.

The Two Skill Acquisition Approaches: Key Differences

Who’s right?

There’s a big debate in coaching about how we coach, with two (or three) schools of thought about the underlying assumptions we all have as coaches. Thanks to the video below from Rob Gray, we can question those assumptions and decide how we want to coach:

Outlining the key differences between the Information Processing and Ecological Approaches to Skill Acquisition. Is this a useful dichotomy?

This video certainly made me think about how I coach, especially around batting. With batsmen I have always assumed an Information Processing (IP) method of; see the length and length, choose the shot then execute the shot. However, in other areas I have assumed an Ecological (E) approach. This video makes the point you can’t combine the two approaches, so I will need to rethink.

Coaching School Cricket in COVID Times: Reflections

My main role is now coaching school cricket. In this post I will reflect on the experiences of coaching 11-16 year old pupils in this environment after school came back from UK COVID lockdown in September 2020.

On returning to school it was agreed a short block of cricket would start the term. School games sessions, due to COVID, were 55 minutes long - really 45 minutes with travel and cleaning time - and were split by year group. Group sizes were in the twenties to thirties with two or three coaches. Ability and experience varied within the groups.

The parameters were tighter than ever, but my main aim was to give every pupil experience of success at cricket, given there were no matches.

We were lucky with space; a grass pitch, four net lanes, and a big outfield. Balls and other equipment had in plentiful supply. We had to be outside, but the weather was kind during the four-week block in September.

As lead coach, here was my approach, and my reflections on how it went.

Behaviour

I decided to focus on behaviours first because I wanted pupils to be clear on expectations. Agreeing behaviours gives the players more agency over their sessions and the freedom to play and explore within boundaries. Additionally, performance stems from behaviour (although this was a secondary aim).

In the first session I introduced how we would define expectations using the UAE system. Simply, I asked the players what behaviours they thought were:

• Unacceptable

• Acceptable

• Exceptional (The aspirational behaviours)

I let the children lead this (with some scaffolding around the inevitable silly answers) and, of course, they all came up with plenty without much prompting from me. Clearly, they have been well-drilled in the past, which made my job much easier.

I insisted behaviours were clearly defined around verbs not nouns. “communication” is not a behaviour. Calling when running between the wickets is an example of communicating and could be an acceptable behaviour.

I got them all to agree.

Which of course they all did because the Head of Cricket was telling them. Some found it more difficult to stick to these behaviours when the action started.

The main purpose was to remove the grey area around what is expected and create a feeling of agency by getting the players to define it themselves. To be more specific, I tried to co-create expectations as most of the players were not developed enough to do it totally on their own. This was followed up by providing support and challenge to individuals to grow into these minimums (acceptable) and beyond them (exceptional).

Mostly this process of defining expectations was effective. Pupils greet me with “Are we doing UAEs?” even if we pass each other outside of games lessons. Of course, as teenage boys they are mostly trying to engage in sarcastic banter. Nevertheless I am delighted it has become ingrained.

On reflection, the thing that got the most pushback was the session where were outlined how it worked. We did no activity. Pupils complained for weeks afterwards that we “do too much talking” even in later sessions where I encouraged them to take some responsibility and start a session with no input from me. Perhaps a better way would have been a “lesson 0” in a classroom away from games time to set up the expectations. Unfortunately, time did not permit, so given the constraints I would do the same again. Ideally, players will be more used to me next summer term and we can get straight into things with little explanation.

The second piece of behaviours is accountability.

As we know, deciding behaviours and then not following up on them is a waste of time.

So, I also introduced the Rule of Three (R3), gradually rolling it out when learning opportunities came up. As a reminder, R3 kicks in when any agreed behaviour standard is not met:

1. Player realises their mistake, acknowledges it and self-corrects.

2. Player does not realise and a team-mate feeds back quickly. Player acknowledges and corrects.

3. Player and team-mates both miss it and the supervising coach feeds back. Player and team-mates acknowledge and corrects.

Broadly this worked with most players being able to define UAEs quickly within a couple of sessions of trying, then cracking on with working on improving skills. However, it was not without issues.

This was one of the more difficult principles to implement because of,

• Lack of self-awareness.

• Deliberate disruption.

• Weak peer feedback.

• Weak Rule 3 feedback.

Kids are kids, so a lack of self-awareness was expected but not tolerated. Levels varied between individuals and ages. For example, we all agreed to listen when a member of staff was talking. The deal was there would be no long lectures from the coach in return. However, without fail someone would talk to their friend or shout an answer at every huddle in every session, then look surprised when it was pointed out. Sometimes multiple times in a row.

This led to the unhelpful circle of;

1. Pre-agreed error, not self-corrected

2. Stop session and correction under R3

3. Continue session

4. Error

5. Repeat

Which then leads to pupils complaining they want to “just play”. This triggered me to say “If you want to play, then behave in the way you agreed you could. If you can’t do that, we need to change the agreement”. Which I feel like fell on deaf ears even though no one ever tried to seriously renegotiate the agreement.

To practice self-awareness behaviours, I introduced simple activities. These were easy to understand, quick to define UAEs, and simple to start. They could also be stopped if a breach of agreed standards were ignored. I was surprised how often a task like running round cones had to be stopped, but by the end there was clearly some learning happening. This seemed to extend into more cricket skill based sessions.

Tied to this was the effort some boys took to be deliberately disruptive. These boys were so creative you must admire the effort. Often the goal of such players seemed to be to kill the session with multiple R3 resets, even when the task was as straightforward as running or counting. The basic forms were:

• Ignoring pre-agreed behaviour rules, then claiming “I didn’t know” or making up an excuse and saying “but I just...”

• “Lawyering” UAEs by coming up with a behaviour then finding a loophole so they could break their own rule and saying “but we didn’t say anything about...”

• Calling out unhelpful comments during defining UAEs.

Had these pupils directed as much mindful energy into cricket as they did causing issues, they would be top of the form. It was not hard for the loop of behaviour to roll on for great chunks of the session, which is frustrating because when asked, the “assassins” always said they wanted to play. Yet they were the ones preventing play.

Why did this happen?

Possibly it is tied to being a teenager who doesn’t want to be told what to do. The resistance goes up as they fight for identity and agency. While not a psychologist, I would turn to self-determination theory to provide an educated guess into their thinking.

According to SDT, pupils are motivated by a feeling of making their own decisions. As don’t see themselves as cricketers and the don’t want to be forced into doing things. My style of coaching gives them agency if they want to take it, yet they don’t want to take it because it will mean they are being “fooled” into being a cricketer (and they don’t like cricket so they can’t let that happen).

Possibly this small number of pupils have already decided - whatever I say - they are set on disruption as a way of getting through the lesson with agency and identity intact. I don’t know if this is true, but if it is, perhaps the solution is,

1. A better justification of “why” upfront. It’s not about making you into something you are not. It’s about using sport to work out who you are.

2. Getting everyone into the habit of pupils speaking first and last when called together.

3. Giving the worst offenders more clear roles, especially around review of behaviour

Disruptive pupils aside, most pupils also struggled with the peer feedback (rule 2) element of R3.

 Remember the basic principle is to give peers time to correct each other’s behaviour. When it worked players start giving each other feedback based on trying to help. For example, a common behaviour is trying to hit the ball through cones when batting. If a player deliberately hit the ball into the banned area, his team-mates would remind him he’s trying to hit the cones. Next time he would try. No coach intervention.

When it didn’t work here is what happened,

• Players shouted “unacceptable” or “exceptional” anytime over anything. Unrelated to the pre-agreed behaviours.

• Players either didn’t notice or ignored behaviours, requiring a “stop and reset” from the coach.

• Players could not give helpful feedback, instead resorting to blame (“what ARE you doing?”, “You need to change your mindset”), excuses (“they have a better team”, “I have a sore leg”) or calling on the teacher as police (“Sir, he cheated, it’s not fair”)

Of course, this is part of the learning process and every chance I got I introduced tools they could use to be better at R3 feedback. The most effective advice was,

1. When communicating - on or off the pitch - tell the other person something they can do which is specific and helpful.

2. If you receive helpful feedback, accept it, acknowledge it and act on it immediately.

The more pupils did this, the better they got at doing it. However, it did take me a while to realise this approach was the solution. It took a few weeks longer than I hoped, with more disruption at first. However, as the kids picked up on it, the work rate went through the roof.

The final issue with accountability was staffing: I was the only cricket specialist so led every session. All the staff assisting were experienced, competent coaches and teachers in other sports. However, they had not been fully briefed and had not had time to pick up the ideas of UAEs and R3. As a result, there were occasional times when R3 didn’t work. For example, one game involved counting tokens. Players had forgotten to count tokens and the supervising member of staff had not picked up on it. At the end of the session the players had no idea how many tokens they had. While it would not be fair to put everything at the feet of the supervising staff member, it’s also true they could have picked up on it.

This example is not a criticism of that staff members behaviour management skills. There were times I did similar: Sometimes your focus is somewhere else. However, moments like these highlight how difficult it is to support intentions. In hindsight it would have been better to brief staff before the start of the cricket block. It also would have been better to do more reviews and reflection around implementing the behaviour rules. However, time did not allow. Next time I will make more time.

Despite these issues, I did see stronger behaviours coming from both players and coaches over the period. There were some real success stories, including one boy who was totally disengaged and disruptive the start and transformed into a highly engaged leader by the end. There was another who went from being distracted and unhelpful to his team mates to genuinely helping others. Most groups showed overall improvement even if some individual didn't progress as far as others. As a result, I strongly recommend a core of establishing behaviours at every session, then getting R3 nailed down to enforce those behaviours.

Session Structure

The cricket was based on developing understanding by learning in the game. I wanted to encourage:

• Batting: Hit the ball hard, into gaps.

• Batting: Run between the wickets.

• Bowling: Hit the stumps.

• Fielding: High catches.

• Fielding: Fast and clean pickup.

• Fielding: Throw at the stumps.

Additionally, if players learned some of the traditions of the game along the way (respecting the umpires and opposition, padding up and taking guard, playing in the spirit of the game and so on), all the better.

The basic structure was modified games.

The structure of activities evolved over the sessions as I got used to the challenges of a relatively large number of kids in a relatively short session. I broke the groups into three or four small teams who stayed roughly the same through the block. The teams competed against each other and against themselves with different challenges set at every session. Teams rotated around the activities.

As much as possible, the challenges were designed to reflect the game experience. For me that meant bowlers bowling at batsmen, ideally with fielders (perception-action coupling). The latter was not always possible with numbers, meaning nets and cones were used for convenience.

However, there was barely any non-fielding activity used that was not bowler vs. batsman. I avoided - but didn’t totally ignore ­­­­- isolated skill activity.

On the field we could play hard ball activities, but we didn’t have time for matches (something I learned in the first round of sessions). The activities were based around everyone bowling and everyone having a shot at hitting the ball into gaps.

For example, the “V game” challenges players to hit straight and be rewarded by fewer fielders in that area.

I experimented with hard ball games on the pitch but “time on task” was so low - and dominated by the best players - I adapted and played small-sided and fast-moving games with windballs. This removed the need to pad up and gave everyone more goes.

The downside of this compromise was two things:

1. Some pupils complained they wanted to “do hard ball”.

2. Some pupils were demotivated by the soft ball activities.

Neither of these were deal-breakers. Usually a quick word with the pupils in question redirected them back on task. In the occasional case of repeat offenders, I gave them a job as a an R3 scanner, so they had responsibility for the behaviour of their peers.

It’s jarring that some pupils are perfectly happy to have a net with a hard ball for an hour but don’t want to play a modified game with a soft ball for 20 minutes. Neither is ideal, but at least the game is a game with opposition and scores. Some kids need some convincing to get into it.

Regardless, it was necessary to use nets. Space didn’t allow more than one game on a pitch, so those who dreamed of hard ball nets got their wish.

Nets always contained a focused activity around,

• Bowling the ball in a target area (bowl at the stumps)

• Hitting the ball in a target area (hit the gaps)

I mixed this up with other elements like points for behaviours, working on review and reflections, and making it competitive (points for success).

The challenge is to make such a repetitive task engaging to both experienced and inexperienced players. I tried to get boys to keep score with tokens, but this had mixed success. Some kids really bought into the idea while others forgot or were not motivated to try. The basic challenge of bat versus ball kept most going without the need for additional games, score keeping or tricks. Perhaps the lesson is to keep it simple if simple works.

I avoided the common “everyone bats for 5 minutes then bowls” nets. This is easy to set up and run as a coach but I’m not convinced how much learning or engagement these types of nets have. They are not realistic or competitive in any meaningful way.

I made sure no one was stuck in nets doing the repetitive bowling for a full session. I tried to get every person in a competitive batting activity against bowling and added in competitive fielding games to keep it fresh.

Despite the mixed success of competition, I still think there is value in keeping scores within and across activities. I would like to try again next cricket block. Keeping scores shows progression and trying to beat your score is very motivating (see video game design). I may just have to get cleverer about how to keep scores. Having a score also allows you to bring in difficulty levels to make sure all levels see a challenge. If you carry the level from one session to the next you are always at the right challenge level. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a way to reliably do this, although I did have success with levels within several activities.

As the block progressed and focus moved away from behaviours towards skills, I introduced a whiteboard: The board included the mission (always one simple achievable thing like “get 30 tokens”) and the activities for the day. I realised the boys were not used to self-sufficiency, but it amazed me how few of them could tell me the mission, despite it being written on a board right next to me.

 This did change over the block so I am expecting they will be faster the next time around.

The board was helpful for handing responsibility to players. When they ask, “what are we doing?” or “can we do hard ball?” I would point them to the board and tell them to come back to me if they had questions. Some of the questions generated by this were inspiringly good. Additionally, some players started taking leadership; checking the board, corralling their team and trying to make a start. In the ideal world, this would happen at every session. It means things start faster because players are not waiting for me and the session is more focused because the boys have organised it themselves. It also means players are self-organising (with appropriate scaffolding). Everyone wins.

Of course, kids being kids, this takes some a few weeks to work out and others a lot longer. However, what I saw was some clear progress in that area.

As mentioned before, most of the activities were batsman vs bowler. Mainly this was to expose pupils to something close to the experience of games with limited time and space. It had the additional benefit of keeping everyone busy, whatever their ability level.

Players were not exposed to any isolated technical work other than the odd exception (for example the boy who could not bowl at all with a straight arm). This was deliberate for a couple of reasons,

• I prefer teaching with a game structure as I believe it transfers to game awareness and problem-solving more quickly.

• Isolated technical work is less fun for players and so becomes frustrating to manage in a group of variable motivation.

However, technique is still important and I want players to develop technical skill. To get players working on this, I would do an activity, pause to ask them how they think they could be more successful and press them to see what technical changes they could make.

They mostly knew they should do, even if they didn’t do it in the moment. For example, a common sight was a boy smashing the ball as hard as he could in the air to leg. Yet when asked, most would understand playing straight was more useful in the long run. When clarity of purpose was added, there was development within the sessions as time went on.

Retention of skill between sessions was also important.

I tested this by running a previous activity unguided and with minimal instruction. The most successful of these was “catchy shubby”, a fast-paced softball game that largely self-regulates. The game is fun and popular with the kids. It also tests bowling skills, fielding skills, batting strike rotation, and commitment. In this game, you can quickly see who is developing with minimal chat from the coach. When coupled with some reflective questions, both new learning and retention seemed to be happening.

The real test will be in the next block in the summer term, especially with games back. I do feel like we have laid some groundwork towards that goal.

Summary

The aim of the block of cricket was to give a positive cricket experience to pupils at school. This was achieved by:

• Co-creating and co-managing expectations with UAEs and R3.

• Aiming to develop self-sufficiency, feedback and reflection as a framework for skill development.

• Offering range of adaptable activities focused on key aspects of developing cricket skills

• Looking for skill development, retention and progression where possible.

Each one had a level of success and areas to improve. Overall, a platform has been established for the summer term where we have longer and (hopefully) some matches against other schools.

Modified Games for Cricket: A Primer

After watching the unusually structured 3Team charity match, I started thinking about formats. While 3 team cricket is a a big difference, the idea you can adjust format to develop different skills is not new. It forms the basis of game coaching styles like Constraints-Lead Approach (CLA), Game Sense and Teaching Games fo Understanding (TGfU).

However, cricket has traditionally avoided modified games for training, instead focusing on nets and drills.

While there is nothing wrong with nets and drills, they are constrained in certain ways.

A modified game is a more flexible and useful solution.

In CLA terms, you are adjusting the environment to meet the goals of the individual. I thought it would make sense to give you some of the modified games I have tried and found to work. I’ll give you my rationale along the way too.

I will cover some drills (mainly around fielding where it’s more possible to “make a game” of a drill) however the core is modified games with the elements of cricket: a batsman, a bowler and fielders. The aim is to score runs and take wickets. The reason why these elements are core is they give players space for decision-making and Perception-Action Coupling (PAC), a concept I have discussed here.

Traditionally, game design has been based on the STEP framework. So, let’s break games down using STEP as well:

• Space

• Time

•  Equipment

• People

Space

Manipulating space means closing off areas or encouraging areas to be hit. The ultimate example of such a constraint on space is the cricket net with three sides closed off. But we are getting out of nets, so how do you manipulate space in a modified game with fielders?

Target areas for batsman is first choice, most commonly cones or pop up nets.

Say you want to encourage and reward playing straight. You can set out target area that give extra runs. You can control focus by:

• making straight hits the only way to score.

• making straight hits a bonus area (for example any boundary between mid on and mid off gets you double runs).

V cricket is a modification that can be played by any level where the focus is on playing straight, but you can score in other ways too. Another example is Jailbreak.

The aim of V cricket is to reduce the number of fielders blocking the way to a straight hit, but still play a game that has batting, bowling and fielding. Here’s how to set up:

The basic rules are:

• 1 fielder is “locked” into slip if batsman hits through yellow cones.

• 2 fielders are locked into slip if batsman hits through green cones.

• All fielders start unlocked (field anywhere in front of square)

• 1 fielder unlocked if batsman is bowled, caught at slip, run out or hit wicket

• 2 fielders unlocked if batsman is caught or run out (direct hit).

• 2 wides/short balls in a row locks 1 fielder

Of course, bowlers are not foolish and can work out that bowling short, wide or a combination of both stops batsmen succeeding. Clever bowlers.

However, you can also use targets for bowlers to balance this.

• A length target line (too short is a no ball)

• Tight wide lines

• Rewards for wickets via bowled or LBW

All these modifications afford the opportunity to bowl match line and length.

Another response to this is to give bonuses for hitting in different areas so batsmen try to score in different ways to get balls into these zones.

The Round the Clock game sets target gates around round the field and you can set a goal to batsmen to get them all (while fielders try to stop this). Here’s how you set it up:

Here are the basic rules:

• Batsmen aim to hit the ball through every set of target cones to achieve the goal.

• Gate is closed once ball has been hit through

You can play this as a drill-style where the aim is simply to hit all the targets, or more as a modified game where you can score in other ways but the targets give big bonuses (say, 8 runs per gate cleared).

You can also use space to constrain areas for the batsman to hit to discourage certain areas. Setting up netting to cut off, for example, hitting into the leg side is not commonly used as it can be a pain to set up, but is a useful constraint that requires batsman to adapt their game. It also means you need fewer fielders to cover the outfield.

Dots v Runs game with leg side constraint, screen grab from ECB icoachcricket.

The game Battlezone is a brilliant example of constraining scoring areas towards a specific task. Battlezone puts a ring of nets around the infield so batsman can only tip and run to score. Fielders and bowlers attempt to take wickets and bowl dots. It’s essentially a game without boundaries.

Battlezone cricket with 30 yard fencing constraint

Battlezone also has the coolest name. so hat’s off to the creator, Will Vickery.

Another game that uses space - alongside time - is Hard Hats. The game sets up like normal except all fielders must be in the inner ring. The aim is to score as many runs as possible in pairs. To stay in, batsmen must hit a boundary: 1 in the first 2 overs, 1 in the second over, 2 in the third over and so on. An extra space rule is to create a second, longer boundary which affords a “life”. The idea is to encourage boundary hitting while also keeping the game situation realistic.

No one of these games does it all. However, that’s the point. They have been modified towards a specific task while keeping the key elements of cricket (facing a bowler, Bowling to a batsman, hitting the ball into the field and running, and fielding the ball).

Nets and drills are essentially extremely constrained games where important elements of the game are removed. They have a role, but if we are trying to retain the essence of cricket, these games are the way to go.

Time (and Volume)

One of the biggest issues with modified games is “time on task”. Drills give you lots of goes in a short time. Modified games sacrifice quantity for quality. In other words, they take longer and you get less chances to bowl, hit and field the ball. This is a unique compromise with which cricket must deal.

Fast bowlers find this easier because they have limits on their volumes anyway.

During winter training with an U16 group in 2019 I set a hard limit of 36 balls in a net training session for the pacers. Once they hit 36, they had to do something else (drills, bat or field). We also played a form of indoor cricket where bowlers could bowl a maximum of 24 balls in a whole session. The bowlers accepted this because of the injury risks.

They worked out how to blend low impact technical drills (quantity) with full effort bowling (quality and pressure).

Pressure is an important word because you can replace lots of reps with low pressure with low reps under close to full match pressure.

This realism is another way to sell modified games to players.

If bowlers want to focus more on volume, they can strip away the pressure of bowling to a batsman and do simple drills like bowling at cones or technical work with tools like intervention poles and OU balls. They can do these drill during modified games too, especially if they are waiting to bat or their small sided team has a break in play (like in 3 team cricket).

However, many batsmen don’t see it this way and demand to hit lots of balls.

I personally have seen incredible push back - anger, blaming, and other unhelpful reactions - from the batsmen I have coached when they do not get their deemed quota on the bowling machine or underarm feeds.

What’s the answer to this conflict?

Batsmen have their reasons for wanting volume. So work with them to find a way. Explain and “sell the why” to these players. Explain the ideas of PAC and learning in the game. Help players understand that you have their best interests at heart and they will come with you.

The way we did this at Warriors regional training was to alternate sessions.

1. One week was a modified indoor game where a batsman will face between 0-30 balls in a game scenario.

2. The alternate week was a net session where many more balls were faced. Often the nets were modified versions of the modified games with specific goals in mind (for example, Jailbreak nets). These modified net games keep the PAC essence but lose the fielding and running elements. You sacrifice realism to try and learn skills.

Another way for batsmen to get more time is to change the reason to switch batsmen in modified games.

Traditional "out means out" is the highest pressure but also means batting time is handed over to fate. Someone may be out first ball or not get out at all. You can adjust this in two ways:

• Bat for set time in pairs (balls, overs or clock)

• Rotational batting order (3-6 batsman rotate through the batting order)

For both, a wicket can be penalised by losing runs or points or other modified benefits, rather than the batsman having to sit out. This works for younger players and soft ball cricket (no padding up) but can be done with hard ball as well.

A variation of this I have tried - to mixed success - is having a third batsman padded up and umpiring. When a wicket falls, the umpire swaps in with the outgoing batsman.

Generally, batsman prefer not to spend training time sitting out, but we can do better than defaulting to giving everyone 10 minutes in the net and calling that a well-designed session for batting development.

You can use these time batting tricks in your modified games to adjust the level of pressure. Players who are learning to hit the ball in certain areas need more time on task than those working out how to put their existing skills under a game level of stress. So be more harsh with those you know have the techniques but need the skills. Take the pressure off those who are learning. See the Practice Types section here for more information.

These concepts are also true for fielders.

The main difference is most fielders are less worried about volume than batsmen. However, the same principle applies, you can dial up the pressure and realism but you compromise the volume. So, like batting, you can blend fielding in modified games with more drill-based work.

To encourage fielders to get more volume in modified games you can adjust the number of fielders so each one has to cover more space or give fielders high traffic areas to work in (for example in the V cricket game).

If you want more volume, first choose drills that try to stay true to the PAC and decision making.

Throwing games have options or batsmen running.

Catching games have a decision about who is going to catch it.

Avoid players lining up to do the same thing over and over unless it's a specific skill they need to learn. The standard "stand in a line and take a high catch each" is not the worst way to practice high catches but it can be made better very easily by adding a decision. Two lines of fielders where one must call, for example.

Or you can make a game of it and play Round the Clock Catching or 2v2 Fielding.

The rules of Round the Clock Catching are:

• Split into two equal teams and stand in equal numbers from each team on each of the 4 cones.

• Coach/feeder hits the ball high into middle.

• Any fielder can call and catch ball (first call gets priority)

• If catch is taken, player moves to cone on left.

• If catch is dropped, players goes back to same cone.

• Winner is first team to get whole team round cones (catch at each cone).

Additionally with fielding, you can recreate pressure by cutting time between skills. While it's not realistic in game terms, a drill like Monster Machine Gun does get the player working under higher intensity than a game.

You’re constraining waiting times and can do it with any fielding skill: catch, stop, chase and throw.

Equipment

A common mistake with less experienced coaches is to look at the equipment available first then decide the practice. In fact, it’s much more sensible to decide the goal then find the equipment. This section will give you some reasons for modified equipment if you have access to them.

Balls are the obvious modification.

Beginners fare better and get more goes when a soft ball is used because there is no need to pad up. More experienced players tend to want to go to a hard ball. Most resist soft ball practice despite clear benefits including:

• Greater volume of fielding practice because it’s easier on the hands

• Quick transition between batsmen in modified games

• No need for a pitch so outfield can be used

There are various sizes and weights of soft ball starting with the lightest windball, through the seamed Incrediball which can be bought in different sizes and weights up to 5.5oz.

The soft ball gives the coach flexibility to build modified games where you don’t need to pad up to bat:

• Jailbreak

• Switch Cricket

• Last Man Standing

• Fortnight Cricket

• Round the Clock Cricket

• Running Two

• Hand Cricket

And the king of them all: Street20

Street20 is an open-ended format that I have used with all ages and abilities: You can play indoors or outdoors with hard or soft ball and you can build up the rules from the basic template.

Each innings lasts 5 overs of 4 balls. Batsmen can bat again if the team is all out. The advantage of the format is speed; you can play a full match in 20 minutes. Adjust the other elements (space, people) to your needs.

Another variation is Catchy Shubby which is a little harder to understand at first but results in fast paced and intense games. The rules are:

• Bat in pairs, count individual score.

• 2-3 bowlers (with balls) bowl in turn.

• If ball is hit, batsmen must run (one only).

• If bowler takes a wicket, they become batsman.

• If batsman is run out, fielder becomes the batsman.

• If no wicket falls, fielder who finishes with the ball becomes the bowler.

• Batsmen can be out all normal ways plus: 2 play and miss, hitting out of bounds, not running.

While most of these modified games can also be used with a hard ball, it’s easier with soft. Sadly, the prevailing culture is soft ball training is “only for kids” so as coach you need to either sell the benefits beforehand or restrict sessions to hard ball. You can sneak more soft ball training in buy calling it a “warm up”, which is a trick I learned from Gary Palmer about 10 years ago. A good example of this is Jack in the Box, which is more of a drill than the above games so easier to sell as a warmup.

Another trick to get experienced players into modified games is using indoor balls.

These are hard cricket balls that are considerably lighter (4oz). There are moulded and stitched seam versions. The latter are cheaper the former are closer to standard balls. They appear the be more acceptable to the die-hard while still being useful. They behave differently and appear to float more for catches and bowling but are useful to get volume fielding practice or bowl bouncers at more nervous players because impact is less stressful. They are hard enough for pads though.

Indoor balls are ideal for indoor cricket or on an astro hockey pitch. There are many versions of indoor cricket and they can be further modified based on space, time equipment and people. I spend winters running intra-team indoor cricket with both soft ball and indoor ball, and we regularly switch things to make them fit.

In one of the more successful tournaments, we had a squad split into three teams to play 2 games a week of five overs a side over several months. The ball was indoor. We scored games as if they were full matches and kept averages. With the right other constraints, the competition was fierce and the intensity was as high as I’ve ever seen in training. Of course, it wasn’t just the ball, but this does demonstrate what can be done when you start with the end in mind.

Hard balls have less variety coming in 4.75oz, 5oz and 5.5oz standard sizes. For players with smaller hands, the smaller sizes are useful. I have had success with using the smaller balls for throw downs with older players, especially if I want to make the ball spin prodigiously. A smaller ball spins more because you can get your fingers around it. Additionally, it is harder to hit for batsmen (although I wouldn’t ask older player bowl much with 4.75oz balls, I would throw or Sidearm with one).

Overweight/underweight (OU) balls have been a popular tool for fast bowlers to increase pace. Generally, they are a fitness tool, going up to 9oz (250g) and down to 4oz (110g). These can’t be used in modified games with a batsman but if the objective is increased pace, a planned programme of bowling with them may be useful.

Bats can be used in modified games to increase the challenge to batsmen. Bats that are thinner make the ball harder to hit and can be used in any batting game. There are also heavier and lighter bats that work for batting similarly to OU balls (more power). These don’t have an obvious application in modified games.

Commonly, children use too big or heavy bats in matches and practice. This is usually unhelpful to development so avoided where possible. However, there is a case for using too wide bats with beginners to make striking easier at first to give players early success. The orange “All Stars” bats designed for 6-8 year olds in the UK is a useful example.

Bats can also be used as resources. The game 3 Bats uses rotational batting where the batting team has 3 bats and batsmen bat solo. When a batsman is out a bat is lost until all bats are gone.

Stumps can be adjusted as a target to make it easier for bowlers or harder for batters.

Wooden and spring-back stumps are fixed to two sizes (senior and junior) but in modified games you can change the number of stumps. I have played a game focused on playing spin where a batsman must defend 9 stumps. 1-4 is more common. I have also had success making plastics stumps higher by stacking up bases, encouraging the bowler to bowl a more helpful outdoor length on bouncy indoor floors. A product exists that creates a “top of off” target visual aid. It is a foam cuboid that slide over the top of off stump: bowlers can then aim to hit it (a cone attached to a net can also provide this visuals feedback).

The multi-stump product is a further innovation, tapered at the top and made of flexible rubber it can be used in any stump configuration for fielding and modified games.

It encourages fielders to aim at the base as it’s more likely to hit (which is also true of stumps in games but not as obvious an affordance). Also, if you are outside, you can spike the multi-stump into grass at an angle making an easier target at the base than the top. Another configuration I have found works is placing two stumps with the middle missing, affording the fielder or bowler a target to get the ball through the “gate”.

Multi-stumps also come in half height. Again, constraining the fielder to aim at the base. For modified games, a half-height leg stump is a useful constraint to the bowler, affording more success by bowling at off. Just don’t forget to switch it for left-handed batsmen!

If you’re building game based on fielding, there are several tools useful to the coach. My recommendation is to use them when you feel you can achieve a goal and make PAC the highest priority where you can.

• Fielding bat. My choice is the Fusion Skyer because it creates an exceedingly high ball from little effort. Others prefer a wooden bat because the sound it makes is a good clue for fielders going after the ball. Combined with a baseball mitt, you can run a fielding game on your own to create volume in a more realistic way.

• Katchet board. Brilliant for “repetition without repetition” catching and ground fielding work because the ball comes off the board at different speed and levels of deviation. It is less useful for PAC (not off the bat) but you can improve this by throwing the ball from further back. You can also overload pace by using a Sidearm to throw the ball. Be careful not to overuse it but as part of a wider programme of drills off the bat and fielding in modified games, it is very hand to have.

• Crazy Catch. The rebounding net is another tool for “repetition without repetition” and offers a different stimulus to a coach with a bat because you see the ball travel then change direction in an unpredictable way. Much like the fielding bat, you lose some PAC to gain volume.

Here’s some fielding games I have found useful that attempt to maintain decision-making, anticipation and PAC:

• Fielders v Runners

• Running Two

• Fielding Triangle

• 180 Fielding

• Captain America Catches

• King of the Hill

• Feeding tools like bowling/fielding machines and ball throwers - as well as reduced distance throwdowns - are not often used in modified games because we are aiming to maintain the PAC between batsman and bowler. However, there are times when both are useful: Bowlers need rest. Batsmen can feed to each other using one of these tools. Batsmen and fielders can get increased volume if that is the goal.

A final though is that it’s important to remember what you lose by increasing volume as well as what you gain. Adaptability is reduced, movement patterns are slightly different, so “grooving” is not as effective as it seems. The focus tends to lean toward technical and tactical rather than mental skills (such as resilience and pressure). The down sides are not deal breakers, but if you are designing a modified game it’s vital to understand what any piece of equipment does to the outcomes.

People

I’ve saved the most important to last.

People should be your first consideration because modified games are most influenced by who you are coaching. A game for 5 year old beginners is very different from a game for Premier Division 1st XI. But it’s not just ability and playing experience. Different people have different fitness levels (strength, stamina, mobility, power), mental skills, cultural expectations, individual motivations and character traits. As much as possible, take every detail into account when designing modified game. Here are a few practical considerations around people.

At the most basic level, the numbers of people in a team make a difference.

More players mean longer to wait for a bat, and fewer overs bowling and touches in the field. For full realism, 11 a side is needed but in modified games it makes sense to reduce numbers. six to eight per side seems to be a sweet spot at any level.

You can do that as two teams or as pairs (two batsmen, two padding up, six fielders). Remember you can also play with space to create higher traffic areas or have a “magic” keeper.

I don’t recommend 11 a side (or more) in practice unless you are having a full-length match with few modifications.

It's also here where you can consider 3 teams instead of 2 playing each other. This is a useful format if you only have one area to play but too many players. You can have 24 players, for example, play in eight a side teams in any modified format. The team who are not batting or fielding could be occupied with umpiring and scoring, fitness skills or drills and nets.

There are lots of ways you can play with the rules of the batting team as well. The normal “bat in a pair until you are out” has limitations. Someone could be out first ball or bat on for too long. Of course, putting batsmen under realistic pressure of getting out may be your goal as coach. However, if you are trying to get more people more goes, realistic batting can be replaced.

Pairs batting for a set time is most common. Rotational batting (have your hit then go to the back of the queue) is often used with 3-6 batters. You can also give batsmen multiple lives.

An underused time saver is having two bowlers bowl in turn – as you would in nets – to speed up the game. The bowlers have a ball each and when it’s not their turn they field at mid on. As soon as the ball goes dead from the other bowler, roles are swapped.

You can also layer points on top of this.

Adding points to batting bowling and fielding gives you greater flexibility to create individual training in modified games. The perfect example of this is a game played often by Scotland’s national cricket team: 21s.

The aim of 21s is a race to 21 points between batman and bowler. The rules can be adjusted but generally points are allocated for bowlers taking wickets, bowling dots and beating the bat. Batsmen score points by scoring runs. Sometimes certain scoring areas can see extra points, for example a straight hit boundary is worth 6 or 8 rather than 4 or 6.

Naturally, you are not fixed on your points system. You can adjust the scoring as you go to make it more difficult as players progress. In 21s for example, say the batsman is dominating the game. You can say a wicket ends the game with a win for the bowler, or balls hit in the air are a point for the bowler.

This can also be used as a motivational tool. A team can have a game get progressively more difficult and each step up is a “level up” where they feel they are making progress through the levels.

Once you have a points system you can not only manipulate the rewards as above, you can also introduce “power ups”. Power ups are a concept borrowed from video game design. They give a temporary advantage. Imagine them like the mushroom you collected in Mario to make you invincible for a few seconds. You have the idea. So, for example, in cricket you could add a power up zone with cones on the outfield. The batsman can hit the ball through the zone to make them invincible for the next 3 balls. Power ups are infinitely manipulated and personalised but here are some examples I have used:

• Non-boundary runs scored after a boundary are doubled

• A bowler bowls 4 dots in an over and the batsmen lose runs

• Coach places a power up bib in an unoccupied fielding position, anyone who fields there can do a double play (catch and run out) if wearing the bib

• Taking wickets “unlocks” fielders from set positions

I have also used a “earn your power up” system with players who train for a week in nets, earning benefits for the squad modified game we play at the next session. It led to some very reflective planning and deployment of power-up through the games, and high engagement from the players who sensed they were getting rewards from some grinding practice.

Keep power-ups in your back pocket and deploy where you feel individuals need it. If a player is way ahead you can handicap them, or you can drop, more power ups into weaker players to give them a better chance of success. You can also use them as CLA-style affordances; encouraging play like bowling at the stumps, hitting straight or direct hit run outs. They work at every level in my experience (although older players need a bigger explanation why).

Tied to the power up concept is “saving progress”. Credit must be given to Amy Price, a football coach and researcher who adapted the concepts of video games designer James Gee to sport. Saving progress is another of these ideas. The idea is simple; you carry benefits you have earned from one session to the next. However, we often don’t do this as coaches just running a things session to session without actively joining things up.

What does save progress look like?

It’s another adaptable idea based around rewarding doing things successfully. For example, say a player achieves their goal in one session and earns an extra life when batting (they can be out twice before they are out). You can hand them an “extra life” card and tell them they can use it in any future game they want. I have found a successful way to stealthily check players retention of game awareness is to start the session with a modified game and don’t ask the players about any saved progress. If they demonstrate it to you during the game, you can move on. If they don’t it’s time for a recap.

Mixing ability is a challenge with any coaching. Modified games can help the coach a lot.

Ability, by the way, is not just cricket skills. Other things to be considered are the personality and mood of individuals, the mental framework they bring to the game and the emotional and physical maturity in younger players. You can have a player who looks a million dollars in nets who goes to pieces in a game, for example. Modifying practice to help this player develop is very possible with a modified game but difficult with nets and drills alone.

Use a points and power-up system to create skills balance between players, much like a golf handicap. To balance other abilities, build robust reflective practice into modified games. Click here for ways to do that. I would strongly recommend leaving time both in session and post session to reflect on performance and come up with ways to improve.

Summary

As you can see, playing modified games is incredibly flexible so can be overwhelming. However, following the basic template of environmental design gives you a stable framework to adjust:

1. Start with the aim

2. Plan based on the aim with available space, time, equipment and people

3. Play a modified game to recall and reflect on previous learning

4. Play the main themed modified game

5. Reflect at the end (both players and coaches)

As a coach who uses modified game, you get to create some incredible, unique experiences for players. Embrace your role as an “environmental designer” through modified games and see the difference it makes.

Needs-Based Cricket Coaching

Make every coaching session personalised to every individual.

Sounds great doesn’t it?

It also sounds like pie in the sky; the kind of thing a coach says to look good but never quite happens. Reality gets in the way. Too many kids, not enough time. Despite this, I believe it’s not just possible, it’s necessary to personalise cricket training for everyone we coach.

Sport has never had to prove itself more to people. The amount of choice in life is bewildering for even the youngest. For anyone to play at all, they need to find personal meaning or they will find something else to do.

These days there is always something else to do.

This is even true at performance levels. An Under 16 rep team sees plenty of drop out through lack of motivation to play cricket anymore. It’s not just kids and recreational adults who are pulled away from the game.

As coaches we can’t assume that teaching techniques and playing the game will be enough to motivate players. We coach people before we coach cricket. If we ignore needs and wants, people are likely to move on.

I’ve talked about coaching to develop purpose here. Have a look if you want to find out more about why it needs to be at the centre of our coaching.

Personalising Cricket

We know it’s important to personalise.  How do we do that?

The problems are many: large groups, short times to train, and the difficulty of understanding how players tick. Practical issues get in the way of good intentions.

Yet it can be done. If the intention is there.

It starts with agreeing what success looks like with the players.

Then you can start thinking about individuals and what things they are working on. Take a few notes. It doesn’t have to be perfect but ideally, have a “work on” for everyone.

For bonus points, you can also try and work out what motivates players individually too. We know generally players are motivated by improving their skills, having a good team spirit and having control of their own direction. Within this, individuals will be motivated in different ways. A few notes wouldn’t hurt here either.

With a broad idea of motivations, you can take the final step of designing sessions around the needs of the players.

Clearly in a group setting, especially a large group, you can’t know every need of every player personally. However, a well-designed session will be adaptable to the individual needs of the players through adjusting the level of challenge. It becomes self-regulating to a certain extent. Where it doesn’t, the coach can tailor the design a little better.

This is the coming together of skills for a coach so it’s not easy. I’m certainly far from perfect at it. It requires understanding motivations, being a ninja level session designer, adaptability in the moment and time to reflect.

I believe it’s worth the effort so you can honestly say you are personalising every session effectively.

Breaking the Drama Triangle of Cricket Coaching

Picture the coach who spends hours with a player working on ironing out technical faults and giving tactical solutions to common situations. The player is inexperienced and benefits from improved techniques and awareness of game situations

Great coaching right?

In fact it can be part of a unhelpful cycle of behaviour called The Drama Triangle.

What is it and - more importantly - how do we avoid the trap while still helping players?

Stop Rescuing Cricketers

According to the Drama Triangle, the intention to help can lead a coach to become a "rescuer".

A rescuer is a role that feeds unhelpful thoughts and behaviours in players. In other words, it reduces performance.

Rescuing is built on good intentions to help. In reality it makes the player reliant on the coach to fix them. The have not learned any skills of self-sufficiency: problem solving, resilience or self-awareness. The coach does not allow the player to have any agency of their game.

It's so easy to fall into this trap because many players are playing another role: Victim.

The victim role is characterised by feeling powerless. They need a coach to tell them what's wrong. They need a coach to fix things. The victim has no confidence in their ability so they look for two things,

1. someone or something to blame (a Persecutor).

2. someone to save them (a Rescuer).

The coach enables this role by taking the role of rescuer. Each role feels good to those playing it so it feeds itself. The coach gets an ego boost from being essential. The player feels like they are having their problems solved. Unfortunately, it leads to the common issue of players who look great in nets but freeze under match circumstances because they can’t lean on the coach.

A coach can also become the persecutor when the victim mentality looks for someone to blame when they get a duck or get hit for 26 in an over.

I've experienced this.

I have had players blame my coaching for not "making" them better. I have also assumed I had all the answers and just needed to "fix" players.

To break this cycle, we need to stop rescuing cricketers. Even if they want us to.

Coaching is the Opposite of Rescuing

The Drama Triangle happens so often because we don’t realise it’s happening. It creeps up on us while we try to help and be player-centred. We say things like,

• “Why would I waste time when I can just tell the player what’s wrong and how to fix it?”

• “I’m the expert, I’ve studied and practised for years, I’m a better judge than the player”

• “I’m player-centred and the player is asking for help so I give it.”

• “Players don’t know what they need, I can show them even if it takes tough love.”

• “What’s the point of a coach if it’s not to iron out flaws and build up strengths?”

Thinking like this is seductive because it makes sense. It’s not wrong. However it also reinforces the roles in the Drama Triangle. So it’s not optimal. It;s a form of thinking trap.

So let’s go the opposite way, and see what happens.

A more helpful approach is to set your role as the guiding coach, not the instructing rescuer. This is as much a philosophical change as a practical one - and that takes some work - but you can do some things right away too,

• Find ways to ask empowering questions to players. This can be actual questions, but it can also mean setting them challenges in the environment.

• Understand resistance from the victim mentality and be aware when a player has slipped into it ("can you just tell me what I’m doing wrong?") so you can guide them back.

• Think carefully before shouting. A player might need a rocket but often it's just making you a persecutor if the rocket is not also backed up by support.

Once you spot the drama triangle in yourself and players, it's easy to get out of but it takes constant work. Remember, this is not a judgement of your character, it's just a thinking trap we sometimes fall into. Reflect on how you coach now (it's a good time) and decide if you can find ways to break out of it when it happens.

Coaching Cricket when Black Lives Matter

You might wonder what coaching cricket has to do with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, or even racism more broadly.

As I write, we are in the middle of BLM protests around the world against injustice. It amazes me the statement “Black Lives Matter” even needs to be said, let alone be controversial. Nevertheless, emotions are high and accusations are coming from different sides. On the more thoughtful side, one of the themes that is emerging is people finding out what they can do to help.

This is the context for us as coaches: Sport is part of society and we do not exist outside the social, cultural and psychological elements of the world because we are playing cricket. Players and coaches have a responsibility to understand the issue. Get it right and a deeper bond is formed that helps with cricket and makes the world a better place.

No matter how you look at BLM, it is certainly not an issue to be ignored by cricket coaches.

What action do we take?

Inequality is Real

The instinct to learn is useful. With knowledge we can reflect, act and reflect again. There are many resources. Digging deep has certainly helped me draw conclusions. I urge you to do your own work, but here is what I have come to understand.

First, inequality exists. Just glance at the stats. For example, black people are more likely to be arrested, found guilty and get longer jail terms. It happens in cricket too. It was recently reported there is just one black, state-educated professional cricketer in England. In the leagues I coach there is the unhelpful idea of the “Asian” team – made up of players mostly from Pakistani heritage – who are talked about in disparaging terms by mainly white teams. The franchise I coach has 12 coaches and nine are white.

This happens despite most people claiming no overt racism. Why?

One popular theory states are world is inherently unjust. White people have the power. The continuation of this power leads to conflict with black people who are kept under a tyrannical boot by the structure of the world (sometimes called “white supremacy”). Just by being in the system – the theory goes - you are either part of the solution or part of the problem. On an individual level you might not feel racist or do racist things, but the structure world you live in makes you racist.

This is a compelling argument but I have reflected and I am not sure I am convinced the world is so simple. What about cooperation between groups which is mutually beneficial? What about BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) people who are successful? What about other factors? A man with a high IQ, high trait conscientiousness and greater physical attractiveness is statistically more likely to be successful regardless of race. Some factors cross groups.

Also, while it is often harmful, inequality has helpful elements. We want competent people in society and that means ranking them in some way: If you perform you get selected for a better team. Teams play in leagues where a winner is declared at the end of the season. This is a helpful hierarchy. Both sides exist.

At my small level, I coach a team which is about half BAME players and half white. They cooperate based on cricketing ability. There is a cultural crossover and a spirit of support, not conflict. While many of the players in the team have experienced racism, that is not the only part of the story.

Being Human

Which brings me on to the individual level.

Part of the BLM movement has been to call out “dog whistling”; white people saying racist things by using a code. A code most are not even aware of using. The biggest example is “All Lives Matter”. This is supposed to mean “I have no sympathy for the unique suffering of black people, I do not understand my privilege as a white person so I am part of the inherently racist structure of society”. This reading of the phrase is so ingrained that it shuts off discussion of suffering at an individual level. People hear it and assume racism.

But I am going to try and discuss it anyway, in the hope that you, dear reader, understand my position is not the above. My aim is to help myself, and others, be better coaches and better people.

You see, everybody does suffer. It is possible to think this without being overtly or unintentionally racist.

A fundamental tenant of Buddhism to say, “life is suffering”. Buddhism is not a racist religion. They seem like decent people overall. We know nobody sails through life without a problem. Even white people.

This fact does not reduce the real suffering of black people or diminish the need to highlight it. It does not reduce the need to stop racism. It does remind us suffering happens regardless of colour, gender or bank balance. If you are a person, you suffer. And your struggle is valid.

When we accept struggle as valid we can all take individual responsibility without either guilt or calling out others (“virtue signalling” as some call it). Instead, we can focus on what to do to make things better without pointing fingers or feeling stuck in a system that cannot be changed. We have something we can do to make the world less racist. We have agency over three things:

1. Improving ourselves

2. Helping other improve

3. Building connection with others

And, finally, that gets us to coaching.

Because that is what coaching is about.

Know You Care

There is a cliche in coaching, “before they care you know, they must know you care”. Getting to know people is not just effective cricket coaching. Getting to know people is helpful in every way: It improves connection and reduces suffering of all kinds, including suffering caused by racism. It’s impossible to stereotype someone when you have a deep connection with them and empathise with their pain.

How does a good coach do this?

You could fill many books with advice on ways to connect with players, and a lot of people have. (Here’s a good one). But if you got this far you probably are open to some quick tips too:

• Ask deeper questions. Questions like “what’s on your mind?”, “what do you want?” and “how can I help?”

• Get better at listening than telling. Instead of presenting solution to players immediately, ask them what they can do themselves.

• Share things about yourself, especially if it shows vulnerability. Somewhat counter-intuitively, players trust coaches who are honest about their own failings and what they have learned.

• Be reflective. Take time to think about your thoughts, feeling and behaviours and work out how to accept who you are and get a little better.

These things are a start but building true connection is not a matter of applying a couple of tips, it has to be at the core of your coaching philosophy. The results are worth the effort, including really giving meaning to BLM in your corner of society.

Welcome to the Jungle: Can Cricket be Engineered?

“I describe the future of sport coaching in terms of sport preparatory engineering, in which tactical/technical preparation becomes substantially more quantified in terms of series, sets, repetitions, durations, intensities, and frequencies.”

This is the central argument from an article from James Smith, author of The Governing Dynamics of Coaching. He also says this applies to every sport at every level.

Does it really make sense in a cricket context?

There’s no doubt we compartmentalise too much in cricket, especially at club and school level. There is a huge focus on tactical awareness and technical skills. While we recognise the importance of general fitness and mental skill, these are under-trained and treated as separated parts of a whole. Smith is right to point out that all these factors are not separate from each other. They integrate to produce bowling, striking and fielding the ball. In more general terms: movement solutions to specific cricket problems.

If this is true, we can think of coaching as a holistic endeavour. Just like an architect can use different disciplines to create a building that stands firm, a coach can use all disciplines to build cricketers. It makes sense on that level.

However, where the analogy fails is also where there is a flaw in the argument: A player is not a building. They have thoughts and feelings. They react and adapt without intervention. They have motivations to work hard and excuses to slack off. They have relationships with their coach that can be helpful or not. They have others also trying to “build them” (parents, teachers, peers, other coaches, their boss...). They go off and do their own thing.

Anyone who has coached cricket to keen teenagers will quickly tell you how futile it is, for example, trying to get fast bowlers to stick to the guidelines for overs bowled in a week. One sunny week in the summer holidays with free access to nets puts paid to that idea.

Then we get into competition. Sport has opponents trying to stop you reaching your goal while you try to stop them reaching theirs. Architecture doesn’t. Engineering doesn’t.

These facts make “sport engineering” all but impossible.

There are too many factors out of control of the coach. Even if we could control it all, the opponent keeps adjusting their game to deal with your engineering efforts.

Welcome to the jungle

A better analogy is one I first heard from Stuart Armstrong; coaching is exploring a jungle. It’s wild and dangerous. No one has been here before. You are beset on all sides by living things trying to bring you down. You can’t engineer a way through.

You can build on existing knowledge and experience and every time you go deeper it’s different. As a result coaches are guides, not engineers. The players need to find the way through themselves.

The guiding role still involves planning and reviewing. Players and coaches still need to know where they are going (goals, objectives and missions). We need to be able to check in, check if we are still on track and stay focused. So there are still elements of engineering.

For example, before COVID stopped us training, my U16 performance group put a structure into place.

We planned out what we wanted to achieve over the winter. Partially this was guided by my analysis, partially by the players. I identified we needed to be better at batting under pressure when chasing by looking at past results. They identified key behaviours that would lead to improvement.

We would then alternate session between learning skills and testing those skills under pressure. The players got to choose which skills to work on while I defined the set/rep structure of the practices but the players defined what they were going to do in any given session. Under testing, we gave a lot of time for players to self- and peer-review. These reviews guided what we did at the next practice.

So although highly structured and engineered, it was meandering from the plan, designed to go where we wanted and needed together, rather than being pre-planned and inflexible.

This may be more chaotic an approach but it's also more reflective of the reality: You can't engineer your way through coaching no matter how appealing it seems.

Raising the Game: A Proposal for League Cricket in The West of Scotland Region

League cricket - the amateur club game - in the western part of Scotland is due for a revision. And when better to consider it than during an extended break from the game caused by the COVID pandemic?

Even before the virus, both the cricket and wider worlds have changed since the return from the national league in 2012 (back to an 8 team Premier Division, 50 over competition). However the Western District Cricket Union (WDCU) structure has barely changed in this time.

The union is aimed at “allowing the game to flourish and grow at all levels”. The only way to meet this aim is to adapt the competition. Change is due.

Background

What has changed since 2012?

• Twenty20 has become the most popular professional format.

• The Scottish team have become stronger and have ambitions for full membership

• Regional cricket is a true bridge between club and playing for Scotland (and the gap between league and region cricket has increased)

• Fewer people play club cricket and their are fewer clubs.

• Demographics have changed: fewer lower income players, more women and more Asian players.

• Running a cricket club is more expensive and time-consuming

• Cricket is unpopular with schools, outside of private schools

• Work habits have changed with more flexibility and less “9-5”

• There is no more time, but there are more options for leisure and more involvement in family time, meaning leisure time is more highly valued.

• Summers are warmer but wetter, leaning matches towards shorter formats.

It’s also worth remembering what’s the same compared to 2012: Facilities have not changed much, including the quality of pitches. Professional players are restricted to one per team and still dominate (although thanks to restrictions, less so). There are around a dozen “big” clubs but no club has totally dominated in this time.

The clubs are broadly the same with goals of individual clubs are to be both social and competitive, wanting regular weekend cricket and a general reluctance to change format too much, or travel too far to play. Smaller clubs have more of a focus on the social element, bigger clubs on the competition, but there is a great crossover.

Nevertheless, a lot has changed.

Goals

With this background in mind, what are the priorities for club cricket under the WDCU?

• The survival and flourishing of cricket clubs

• More people playing cricket more often.

• A higher standard of cricket at Premier level (better feeding Western Warriors).

All are achievable if the structure responds to the changes in cricket. With that in mind, it make sense to have:

• Shorter formats to both save time, adjust to changing weather patterns and increase T20 performance.

• More local matches to save travel.

• Fewer “dead rubbers” to make matches more competitive.

Additionally, the following are helpful goals but will not be covered here:

• Better pitches.

• Coach development.

• Reduced influence of overseas professionals.

New structure

With these goals in mind, it makes sense to have a more flexible structure to accommodate clubs, grow the game and raise standards. Here is the proposal.

The WDCU will be split into two (connected) structures:

1. WDCU Conference: For "grass-roots" teams (1st , 2nd, 3rd and 4th XI's) currently in Division 2-4 or Premier Reserve.

2. WDCU Premier: For the top 20 1st XI's

Each structure provides Saturday cricket every week for every club. The key difference is the Conference is more focused on meeting the participation needs of clubs and the Premier has more focus on performance (although both allow for both as club cricket requires both to function well)

WDCU Conference

The Conference is 38 teams, split into rough geographical conferences of 8-10 teams: Teams play home and away matches in a T20 format, the champion of each conference is decided by the league winner.

The conferences include 1st-4th XI teams.

1st XI teams who win their conference play a play-off match to decide who is promoted (replacing the bottom of the Premier). 2nd-4th XI sides cannot be promoted, but can win the conference.

WDCU Premier

The Premier competition is more performance-based so the 18 game league has been replaced by a tournament.

A cascade structure means there is a knockout element to increase meaningful matches, but each team still gets the chance to play every Saturday no matter how they perform.

The competition has 20 teams to start, with the champions decided from a final four.

We get there like this:

1. Qualifier Round (4 weeks): Teams play in rough geographical groups of four. T20 format. The top 2 teams in each group progress.

2. Premier 50/20 Round (10 weeks): Here the competition splits into two. The top 10 teams play the Premier 50, the bottom 10 play the Premier 20

   • Premier 50: Two regional groups of five play eight 50 over matches each. Points from qualifiers are carried over. The top two in each group progress.

   • Premier 20: Ten teams play 18 matches of T20. The winner is Premier 20 Champion, the bottom side is relegated to the Conference

3. Premier Finals (4 weeks): Premier League, McCulloch Cup, Rowan Cup: The top 4 teams from Premier 50 play 3 50 over matches and a T20 finals day (Rowan Cup). The bottom 6 play in the McCulloch Cup.

   • Premier League: Four teams play four 50 over games. Points are carried forward from previous rounds. The top team wins the league.

   • Rowan Cup: 4 teams play a T20 day (semis then final). The winner wins the Rowan Cup

   • McCulloch Cup: 6 teams play 10 T20 games. Points carried forward from previous rounds. The top team wins the McCulloch Cup

Benefits

Although more complex, a cascade system like this has great benefits for the game:

• More of the best teams playing against each other in meaningful matches (up to seven times in two formats), leading to better Warriors players.

• More opportunities for “giant killings”

• More local matches, especially at conference level

• A mix of formats with a bias to T20

• The ability to replay Saturday T20 games that are lost to rain

• No single club can dominate as only the double is possible (and their are more trophies overall, giving more teams a chance).

Challenges

What are the down sides to this form of restructure?

First, most clubs are conservative in outlook and will see a big change as against the fabric of the club game (home/away league). A reduction in 50 over cricket will be seen as a departure from the status quo. Most clubs (and all 2nd XIs) will only play 20 over cricket so many committees might object based on not wanting to change. Smaller clubs with big ambitions may also object to the regional nature of conferences.

Fewer 50 over games could mean a reduction in quality of play, although this may be mitigated by only the better teams playing in meaningful matches.

Additionally, this system is far more complex. This requires more admin for allocating fixtures. It is also more confusing than home/away league. This could discourage clubs from wanting to change from a well-established structure. Practicalities of fixture scheduling might also be off-putting unless a proper schedule can be agreed.

Ideally the benefits will be seen to outweigh the costs, but there is flexibility built into the system if compromise is required.

Conclusions

While this is a though exercise, it shows that creative formats can fit both club requirements and the needs of the modern world. If the result of a complex system is more cricket played to a higher standard then it is worth consideration.

A Correction About Being Professional

I was wrong.

A few years ago I wrote a bunch of articles around a similar theme: How to improve club and school cricket so it is closer to the professional game. I gave advice - backed with both research and experience - on ways to acheive maximum performance. The advice was sound, and I stand by it now, even close to 15 years later.

At the same time, I missed the point.

The recreational game is not about performing. Not at it’s core. There's a deeper psychological and social underpinning.

People play cricket for many reasons; By focusing on professional performance, coaches are missing out on meeting all the needs and wants of people. The result is a greater chance of a negative experience and stopping playing the game.

“...but wait,” some will say, “isn’t the core of competitive sport the competition? Isn’t it about winning and losing? Don’t we all want to do our best to win no matter what the level?”

Yes, of course.

But winning isn’t why we play.

Finding meaningful cricket

This leads to the obvious question; why do we play?

Everyone will have a different answer. Winning is a factor, but it's rarely the main factor. It's never the only factor: We play,

• for exercise

• to be with our friends

• for the thrill of a close game

• to overcome a challenge (not the same as winning a game)

• to play in a team

• to be part of something we consider meaningful

• to improve ourselves

• and plenty more…

Yet despite these, winning tends to become the focus. Winning is why coaches try to improve performance. The logic makes sense: Players want to win (otherwise why keep score?), to win you need to play well, to play well you need to play like the best, the best are professionals, let's prepare and play like professionals.

The cascade has started and the "why" transforms quickly into "what" and "how".

Techniques are analysed, programmes of correction are implemented, mental training skills are developed. Technology is brought in to get the edge. Players are encouraged to improve their fitness specifically for the game: more pace, more power off the bat, better stamina for those long hot days.

Coaches implore their charges to be motivated by the desire to perform. They give inspirational speeches and team talks. They say things like “talent is hard work”, “pressure is a privilege” and “take your training to the next level by pushing yourself in every area”.

There’s no doubt these methods work. They work for the top 5% you see in the professional game. They would work in the recreational game too, except for one fly in the ointment.

Not enough players find meaning in just playing to win.

And meaningless methods don’t get used, no matter how much the coach wants it.

I learned this the hard way.

As a coach I developed detailed, comprehensive, progressive, realistic and achievable programmes... dammit they were great!

However, players rejected them in various ways: not coming to practice, refusing to do them and giving up halfway through. Sometimes I heard protests and grumbles. Often the protest was only through passive inaction.

At the time I thought it was “them”. They didn’t want it enough. They were not coachable. In reality I had not found a way to engage them by meeting their needs.

Light the fire

As coaches sometimes we are so keen to help we are often too quick to ascribe meaning to a player, group or team. We are coaches: We know what we want. We know what they need. We deliver it to players without checking.

We are trying to fill the vessel.

But we should be trying to light the fire instead.

We need to inspire players not instruct them, or they instinctively back off from a lack of control.

If a coach doesn’t tap into why a player finds cricket meaningful, it becomes increasingly difficult to play and practice. On the other hand, if the coach knows the player, they can meet their needs, make cricket meaningful and retain the players in the game.

Here’s the problem: lighting the fire is really hard.

Meaning is messy. It’s more difficult than making a nice clean plan with session goals and macro cycles. Motivation takes a cooperative effort between the coach (who understands the players) and players (who understand themselves). You’ll rarely get it right first time.

With work, you will get there. You’ll be coaching people and their needs first. You’ll be co-creating meaningful cricket. You’ll get better results and more of the people you coach will flourish rather than drift away.

It took me a long time to work out that meeting needs and finding meaning comes first. I’m still working on getting good at it. I’m still coaching tectac performance, but now it’s in more useful context.

And that correction has allowed me to enter a more satisfying world of coaching. Maybe my experience resonates and can help you too?

You Don’t Have to Do Anything

Amid the total change of lifestyle the COVID19 lockdown, “Stay at home, stay safe, protect the NHS” is the message. And rightly so. We then sit at home, locked down, and think what to do next.

Pressure to do something to keep up seems to mount daily. The internet bombards us with messages to make the most of the time: Coaches everywhere are jumping on social media with drills we can do at home. Many of them are great. There are home workouts, recommendations and challenges from every corner.

And you don’t have to do any of them.

Relax.

You and I and everyone else have something far more important to do right now: Get through it intact. Physical and mental health is the goal, not improving your cover drive.

For most people, life has changed significantly, so take the pressure off yourself and be OK with doing whatever it takes to stay healthy. Cricket or not. If you enjoy a skill challenge as a way to enjoy yourself and keep active, go for it. Why not? At the same time, you don’t have to treat it as part of a structured programme of development either. Don’t stress yourself you adding your own pressure.

If you want to learn, go for it. Take online courses, read, watch educational videos and so on. It will be good to keep the mind ticking. Why not? At the same time, don’t think you must learn tec/tac theory to perfection or you will be missing out. You can’t put any of it under game stress anyway.

Instead, remember things have become a lot more basic. In lockdown - alongside sleeping and eating - you need to:

1. Be active

2. Relax

3. Be creative

These all contribute to your physical fitness and mental well-being. Which is the goal.

If you’re interested in more details about lockdown living, watch this excellent video.

There are many ways to do these things. You could find cricket-adjacent activity (like skill challenges) help, but cricket can’t be the focus for a while, it’s just not possible to take a team game to isolation. That means it’s OK not to do anything cricket-related as well.

We can’t recreate the competition, the challenge, the camaraderie and the craic of cricket until we can play it again. So relax. Focus on getting through with robust physical and mental health.

Stay safe.

Cricket Performance Analysis: Impact

This article is part of a series on cricket analysis at club, age group performance and school level. To see part one, click here.

As you have noticed from previous articles, cricket stats analysis can get complicated quickly. That’s fine for the cricket badger with time and spreadsheets, but what about the cricketer who just wants to know how well they are doing?

The answer is a measure called Impact.

Impact uses the power and improved accuracy of expected scores but wraps them up in a simple number. Averages are the old way of doing this, but as we know, averages are short of context, leaving us to guess. For example, did a player who averaged 15.37 with the bat make a positive difference to the result or not?

Impact instantly tells them if they are meeting, exceeding or falling below expectations.

Here are the Impact scores for the West of Scotland team in 2019 (six innings or more) compared to their average:

You can see the professional Kleinveldt had the biggest impact overall, as you would expect. You can also see positive impacts from players with averages in the 20s, and even one at 16. You can also see one player who averaged 19 but had an overall negative impact on game outcomes (although not by much). The take-away is much clearer here - “I need to build innings at three to give the team a better start” - than just trying to improve average.

In fact, even if average is the main driver for a player, you can point out that a “good” average is much clearer. For example Farndale batted six times at number three and averaged 19. Had he scored four more runs per innings (average 23) his Impact would have been +4. In comparison, So whichever way you look at it, Impact is helpful.

This measure of Batting Impact is calculated in the following way per innings:

Impact = xR - Runs

Where xR is the expected runs for each batsman. You calculate this by dividing the Par (or Target) by 11. If you want to be fairer, you can give a weighting to higher order batsmen. For example, make top order batsman score 11% of the Par each, while lower order are expected to contribute almost nothing.

To get an Impact score for the season, you can average by dividing by each innings.

For a player brought up on averages, this number is simple to understand. That average of 15.37 had an Impact of +3 so you are doing better than expected. Well done. Your team mate with an average of 18.71 had an Impact of -2 so they need to do more work if the team is to win games while they are batting. This is despite the better average.

For bowling Impact the calculation is slightly different:

Impact = (Balls x xRpB) - Runs

Where xRpB is the expected number of runs conceded per ball to win the match (Par / 300 in a 50 over game).

The obvious flaws with this calculation are:

• No account of when the bowler is bowling (at the death when the opposition need 12 an over is different from opening when the opposition need three an over)

• No account for wickets.

If you don’t have access to over-by-over information, that will have to do. Although there is a possibility we can factor in the result of the match to make up the difference because by definition, a winning team ha had a positive Impact and a losing team a negative one. More on that another time.

However, both these issues can be solved by using a DLS sheet to calculate xRpB at any stage of the innings (look up the DLS Par at that over, minus the actual score, and divide by ball remaining). This will give you a more accurate Impact by removing outliers, but is not essential (and is impossible without over-by-over scores).