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 Better Decison-Making in Cricket

Cricket has traditionally not been good at coaching independent decision making in players. Yet, as we have seen already, it’s a crucial part of the game for both mental skills and skill development. This section will offer a few ways to help coaches help players improve their decisions.

The traditional “command and control” style of coaching influences players to do what they are told rather than develop their own decision-making skills. The alternative is to embed decisions in as much of our training environment as possible, seeing the skill as another psychological underpinning.

With that rationale in mind, let’s look at the key level of decisions a cricketer has to make, and decide how to integrate such skills into cricket training.

Decision layers

Before we get into specifics, it’s worth taking a moment to regard the theory around decisions. This is a rich and well studied field and worth investigating yourself, especially the book The Chimp Paradox

To give a crude summary, cognitive research has found we make decisions in two ways: Fast and slow. Fast thinking is instinctive and takes less mental work, happening in the moment. It’s also prone to errors and bias as it takes so many shortcuts in the quest for instant delivery. Slow thinking is more rational and requires much more mental effort. As a result it makes fewer errors but takes much longer.

Both are essential. Fast thinking, for example, is needed for shot selection. Slow thinking can be used when deciding tactics like which ball to bowl to dismiss a certain batsman on a certain pitch.

Both are trainable, which is what we will look at in the following categories of decisions.

Cricket skill decisions

The most common decision making is skill based: What shot to play, what ball to bowl, which end to throw to, and so on. I would argue every ball in a cricket match contains multiple decisions. In addition, these decisions are taken by a mixture of fast and slow thinking. If that’s true, as coaches we need to ensure there are as many decisions being made by players in training, and those decisions are reflected upon regularly.

I often ask myself when designing a practice or session, “what decisions am I asking the players to make?” and if the answer is “nothing” then I rethink. For example, hitting a ball off a tee can be replaced by hitting a throw down.

This is where a constraints-led approach (CLA) approach to coaching is useful. One of the core ideas in CLA is the the game is a “dynamic system”. The game environment is constantly changing at multiple levels: Runs and wickets most obviously. We can drill down further to conditions, opposition (and our own) fatigue, confidence and motivation, the type of bowler, the style of batsman, and down further to perception of how the ball is moving (bowler to batsman, batsman to fielder, fielder to fielder or stumps).

If CLA - and the mantra of practice makes perfect - is right, the more players experience decision-making and “repetition without repetition” the more skilled they will become. This makes sense because we know fast decisions in a match require fast thinking, a function of our instinctive mind. We can’t use slow thinking to choose a shot as the ball goes past before we have decided. So instead, we force our fast thinking mind to learn what to do by making it do the work.

The implication for practice then, is to build our sessions around as many fast decisions as possible that are suitable for the level of players we coach, and critical outcomes. Batsmen will train up their decision-making far faster in middle practice, for example, than nets. Nets are faster than throw downs. Throw-downs are faster than static drills. Each rep is a way of checking how effective our decisions are, and training our decision making.

You’ll note the word “faster” was used rather than “better”. Speed of thinking is helpful when we get a decision that takes us closer to our critical outcome. However, a fast decision is not always better. It can go wrong if our instincts betray us.

A simple example is playing a short ball. If we follow instinct we have three possible reactions: We can fight and try and hit the ball, we can run away from it or we can freeze and do nothing. All are normal human instincts and whichever one emerges naturally when facing fast, short bowling is the fast brain doing its thing before the slow brain has time to argue. Naturally, fighting or dodging is a more effective response than freezing, but even fighting can lead to our demise at the hands of deep square leg.

In the short ball example, then, we can train player instincts by guiding them to learn how to respond with either attack or defence. Once this need is identified (say the batsman freezes and gets hit as their instinct response), we can work on decisions through the lens of technical drills with softer balls, then progress through faster feeds, more decisions (full or short ball) and harder balls as the player finds success. As we go through this process of removing constraints and adding decisions we are training the fast brain to understand the safest response is not, as it thought, to freeze. Instead it can either decide to smash it or duck it.

While this is one example, the wider point is simple; we can’t outthink fast thinking. As coaches we can coach player’s fast brains a more useful way, and use constraints to build up a new response. This works because of the way our brains work. A good read on this is The Talent Code, which explains how our brains are pliable to change - literally improving the strength and sped of connections in the physical brain - through deliberate training.

Timothy Gallwey, author of The Inner Game of Tennis, goes even further, saying trusting the power of instincts allows experienced players to quiet the mind. By relaxing into the feel of the motion, and observing the environment, we don’t overthink things. We no longer have frustrations about form. There is certainly merit in this approach of “letting the serve serve itself”. That’s the fast mind doing its thing without the slow mind in the way.

That said, there is still a role for slow thinking in skill decisions. While slow thinking can’t be applied live, it can be applied in natural breaks in play using a fast review. As we have already discussed, a fast review may only take 10 seconds but is plenty of time to allow players to switch from fast thinking to slow thinking. The benefit of slowing down is as we might imagine; it’s much harder to make assumptions when we are forcing ourselves to really think about a problem. If we stick with the shortcut-taking autopilot of fast thinking, we risk “going through the motions”. While this might be the right thing to do - sticking with a tried and tested Plan A because it will eventually come off - it can also blind us to opportunities to do something different and more helpful. Knowing when to stick and when to change tactical plans is a skill that requires slow thinking. So review often, even if the final decision is to stick. Then, get back to the fast thinking in the moment.

Behaviour decisions

As we already know, skills are built on behaviours. These behaviours are also subject to decisions at fast and slow levels. When we choose to act in a certain way we are using slow thinking. When we behave “without thinking” we are really using fast thinking. Both are possible.

I’m sure we can come up with dozens of examples of how both kinds of thinking are helpful and unhelpful. If we spend too much time slow thinking at training we get less practice done. But some slow thinking is useful to be mindful of our state and decide our success markers. If we purely use instincts to train and play we don’t learn from mistakes and are not self-aware until it’s too late. Yet, when we are running on helpful instincts, we play beautifully.

So, the trick is to find a balance in our decisions. Use the incredible speed of fast thinking and the more considered slow thinking. For example, a helpful behaviour is to go to the gym twice a week on top of cricket training. If players went to they gym out of fast thinking habit they don’t need much slow thinking beyond the occasional review of progress. However, fast thinking is failing if players want to go to the gym but rarely show up. Here, some slow thinking to adjust either the goal or the commitment is needed.

One could argue, from a positive psychology perspective, the ideal balance is flow: Being in the moment but also self-aware enough to adjust when needed. Flow is a delicate dance between fast and slow thinking. Flow is always available to players if they develop the ability to avoid thinking traps. While we know external factors can easily disrupt flow, the state is much more likely to happen if we have built an effective, safe and challenging environment. This environment is built particularly in both the Rule of Three and the fast review.

Additionally, behavioural decisions are not just on an individual level. We also act as a team, combining individual efforts to score runs and take wickets. Team culture is defined by our behaviour decisions in the moment, so we need to be clear on both our skill-based roles and tactics, and the cultural behaviours about “how we are” as a team.

This takes us back to the work we did about defining and enforcing purpose and principles. Players must be clear on both what they agreed to do while in the shirt, and why they agreed to do it. Then, they must enforce these behaviours relentlessly with themselves and each other. It’s in this enforcement that team spirit is built up, as players realise they will not allow each other to stray too far from the team path. Setting up this behaviour is a role of slow thinking. Being aware in the moment of how ourselves and others are acting is a function of fast thinking.

The most helpful outcome is to have a team who act instinctively in agreed ways, and also support each other when instincts fail. In other words, a strong embedded culture, or team spirit, can be “in flow” as well.

Summary

Decision-making is another plank in effective cricket in both skill execution and behaviours. Coaching can both hurt and help the decision-making process:

• Decisions can come quickly or slowly, both can be prone to error and both can be coached to be more effective.
• Coaching both fast and slow thinking is crucial, this is best achieved through athlete-centred coaching tools like Fast Review and the Rule of Three.
• Effective decision making is a combination of fast and slow thinking. Sometimes this is called flow.
• Removing decision making from the coaching environment (such as by telling players what to do) makes it difficult for players to know how to make helpful decisions in games.

Using Coaching to Build Resilient Cricketers

If we agree psychology underpins performance through behaviour, resilience is embedded in everything we do as coaches. As humans we need failure and adversity to grow. If we treat stress and resilience as something that everyone experiences, we can sharpen the tool.

Our players can use resilient actions to flourish, even from a young age.

As we know, resilience is built on awareness. It’s the ability to bounce back from failure, or behave helpfully in adverse or high stress situations. Clearly this is useful in a cricket context where failure happens all the time and success and failure are separated by small margins.

We all experience these moments, and we all have thoughts and feelings about them. This gives us all the chance to be resilient in our actions as a result. However, it also gives us a chance to slip back to red head thinking and unhelpful actions.

Two players might go into a big final, one feeling incredible pressure, one as cool as a cucumber. They are both self-aware. Each one can react with blue head thinking, avoid red head thinking and appearing incredibly resilient even as the team has a batting collapse around them. Equally, either can slip into thinking traps and end up behaving in harmful ways to the team, like playing a high risk shot.

Either way, as coaches, we can build an environment that helps our players be aware of their state and react in an resilient manner.

Challenge environment

A challenge environment is one where players are both challenged to improve, and supported in their efforts. If you are old school you might say “an iron fist in a silk glove”. It’s this combination that leads to resilience.

Lets say you are running a testing session where you racked up the difficulty and put more meaning on the outcome. The classic “pressure net” is saying “out means out”, but there are many ways to do this.

Another example is the “hunger games nets”. I played this recently with a squad who wanted to put their run scoring under pressure. The idea was bowlers who bowled two wides were eliminated and batsmen who faced three dots were eliminated. It lead to unfair results with one batsman surviving for a long time and one player not getting a bat.

A lot of coaches leave it there, letting the activity do the work. However, this is not enough in itself because players get caught in thinking traps.

Classically they will blame others, find excuses about “wasting” time or consider it unfair someone else got a longer bat. They are focused on ways of avoiding looking at their own red head mindset.

Coaching resilience

To combat this we use three methods.

First, we agree behaviours before the nets start. Resilience emerges from awareness of the feelings and physical reactions that come when anxious and when treated unfairly with no recourse. To manage this, players can agree success markers. For example, use their blue head reset every time and make sure to review effectively.

Second, the Rule of Three (R3) is used to relentlessly apply those markers. If a player is huffing about something they have agreed to manage, their team mates are the first reminder. The coach is the second reminder. This supportive part is often missed when applying extra pressure to practice. The goal is to agree outcomes then enforce them when players forget or get caught in a thinking trap.

When stopping a player in a moment like this, your first question is always to ask what the goal is and what’s happening (“why am I stopping you at this moment?”). The player will ideally remember the agreement and reset. However, if you start hearing excuses, justifications, blaming or any other overthinking, you can follow up with a question to reframe their thinking,

• What’s the worst that can happen?

Sometimes you will need to dig deeper, asking “then what?” after a surface fear covers up the real trap. However with the biggest fear stated, often players will realise its not that bad after all. They find themselves back in blue head as they relax and return to the moment.

If they need more help to get back to blue, you can follow up with a reframing question:

• Is there another way to view the situation?

This question encourages problem solving rather than excuses or justifications. It’s not positive for the sake of it, but it is supportive in trying to help a player react helpfully to disappointment after failure and focus on what to do next to reduce the risk next time.

As coach, we can also use R3 to break state in other ways. Questions with a serious tone work well, but so does humour. It’s hard to be angry or upset when someone is making light of a situation. If someone is laughing, or rolling their eyes, or bantering, they can’t be in a down state. There’s no harm in showing people they are not their feelings by changing how they feel in a second with a stupid joke. As long as you follow up with helpful reminders.

It’s worth noting that all these techniques can also be peer managed. The Rule of Two gives space for team mates to help each other. This is powerful because it engages with players direct need for connection. It feels good to be useful to another person, it feels good to be a valuable contributor to team spirit. By learning about state and helping others understand their state in the moment players can contribute directly to the team without scoring a run or taking a wicket.

Although players know this, it’s often the case they are caught up in their own game to notice the state of others. Becoming more connected is a process too. As coaches we can remind players they have the tools to build each other up. Ideally, this will start to happen without our intervention as players see and feel the benefits, but for a while you’ll need the third level of R3 as a reminder.

Resilience reviews

The final tool is effective reviews, which we have discussed here. The review allows players to dig deep into their thinking after a testing session or match. During an extended review players can be prompted by the coach to consider the “stop, start, continue” about their thinking as well as their actions.

For example, consider a player who gets angry about getting out. By throwing the bat and shouting in the dressing room they are displaying frustration not resilience. But where is this coming from? Are they blaming the umpire? Do they assume their place in the side is at stake? Are they frustrated the side is likely to lose? Getting to the root of the issue can be tricky but some probing around the review questions is helpful.

It starts with the player admitting they want to stop getting angry about getting out. This opens the door to follow up and ask why:

• Why do you feel like that in the moment?

• Is there an alternative reaction and what is it?

As coach, you can use the PACE method to help this player to stop looking at the issue as catastrophic proof of failure of their worth as a human being (a common thinking trap) and see it as what it really is; a game. A game where we can have goals and improve ourselves, but not one that defines our existence by the outcome, especially as we have very little control over so many factors; conditions, opposition strength, umpiring quality, luck and so on.

With this stoic awareness as the base, next make concrete actions to take. For the player caught up in anger, taking a moment in the dressing room to take those three blue head breaths and make a reframing statement like “I know what I need to do to prevent this happening, but for now the best thing is to support the batsmen still fighting for us”. Then, let the anger slip away and walk out to your team mates on the balcony committed to being the best supporter who ever lived. Isn’t that a more helpful choice than stewing alone on the other side of the outfield for an hour?

Although this is one example of choosing resilient behaviour, we can apply it across the board to any red head thinking. This includes the resilience review when you are successful. A player is not resilient because they took five wickets and the team won. Players might still be engaged in thinking traps after success. Reviews are just as valid and useful in these moments too. It’s important players feel able to discuss their thinking, regular reviewing in all circumstances allows for this to happen.

Summary

Resilience is not another box to tick, its part of the underpinning of cricket skills and tactics. We all have built in resilience but we can all learn to become aware of it and display more resilient behaviour. This is done by,

1. Having a supportive yet challenging environment, built around the Rule of Three.

2. Having regular reviews that allow players to discuss their thinking and understand what to do.

3. Remembering that thoughts and feeling do not dictate actions, and we can decide to be exceptional in behaviours in any circumstance.

Speaking of decisions, this is an area we have discussed a great deal in passing so far. As we know, this has traditionally not had much attention in coaching. It’s clear that we need to make sense of coaching decision-making next.

Psychology of Cricket Coaching: Awareness and Reflection

Self-awareness is crucial to better cricket because without it we are guessing and hoping at performance. Everything we have discussed so far is enhanced by being self-aware, and managing behaviours as a result.

This awareness has been given many names; mindful, in flow, game face, engaged, “in the zone”, role clarity and “knowing their game”. It’s all of these things because self-awareness is the ability to make the most helpful decisions in the moment based on our true values.

For example, one aspect of awareness the ability to “be in the moment”: A place where players are so engaged in the present that past failures are gone and fears for the future don’t exist. This state allows batsmen to play each ball on its merits and bowlers to focus purely on delivering the ball without feeling distracted or fearful. This is often called flow. We are in flow when the challenge of the game or activity matches our ability. This state is useful in training to learn skills because we can manage our environment to push players against their current ability level without making it too hard or too easy.

A simple rule of thumb for skill development is this: If a player is successful between 40-80% of the time in activity, they are in a learning flow. Less and it’s too hard, more and it’s too easy. This also ties into growth mindset coaching and learning through failure.

Red head, blue head

In games, flow is harder to come by. First, players need to be aware of their level of skill (technically, tactically, physically). Without this it’s hard to know if the challenge can be met. Second, there are external factors, most notably the skill of the opposition. I’m sure most players - when speaking with total honesty - would say they spend more time feeling anxious and worried, or controlled and relaxed, than in flow. This is because flow is just one state. So is being worried, or feeling in control.

The performance-boosting states are often referred to as “blue head”, the unhelpful states are “red head”. Awareness allows you to know where you are and how to deal with it. The shorthand term for this is mindfulness. This is also the Rule of One in the Rule of Three.

As we know from earlier, our state (both thoughts and feelings) influences action. From deciding which shot to play or ball to deliver, to going to the gym or listening when the coach is explaining, our state is a powerful influence. When we are aware of our state we can choose how to act. When we are not aware, we tend to drop into red head. This, at best, leads to inconsistent behaviour. At worst it can be harmful to our game. If you ever walked off the pitch thinking “why did I play that shot, what was I thinking?!” you have experienced red head controlling your actions.

We also know two other things:

1. Events don’t control your state.

2. You actions do not have to come from your state.

Some people argue a third point: we are still able to perform whatever our state. You can be stressed and score a hundred, you can be in the zone and get a duck. This argument suggests we ignore our mindset altogether as it is irrelevant. I’m not as convinced of this approach. I argue still need to act to perform. If we are aware of our state we can choose useful actions in the moment, even if that action is to ignore our state rather than try to change it. Awareness is important, specific state less so.

In other words, we can’t stop having thoughts and feelings but we can decide how we react.

At its simplest level, this mindfulness is being consciously aware of what is happening in the world and reacting to it appropriately. An analogy for this is imagining you are a pond. When a pebble gets thrown into the pond, the pond sends out exactly the right ripples. The pond doesn’t brace itself before impact, or worry how it will look to other ponds if it’s got a pebble in it.

Bruce Lee used a slightly different water analogy which is equally as powerful. Water, he said, has no form. If you put water in a cup it becomes the cup. It responds in perfection. We can be like water.

Of course, we are not Bruce Lee.

We all have had moments where we are not water. We blame events for our feelings and feelings for our actions. This is called a “thinking trap” and there are many others. These traps keep us locked into assuming they are reality. They stop players behaving in ways that are likely to boost performance.

Another example of a thinking trap is when a player gets out to a loose shot and excuses it by saying “it’s the way I play” as if they had no choice in the matter. This player is labelling themselves based on their thoughts and feelings.

In fact, had that player taken a moment to observe the thought and let it pass (like a ripple in a pond), we can tell ourselves we don’t have to react from first emotion or thought.

And this is the secret of dealing with all thinking traps: We have a choice, we are not dictated to by our thoughts or emotions. We can let it pass then make an appropriate decision. It only takes a second or two of conscious brain work.

Two books which examine this idea in greater detail are Thinking Fast and Slow and The Chimp Paradox. These are both excellent primers in the idea we have two minds (subconsciously instinctive and consciously rational) and how they effect our behaviour, and therefore performance.

Improving self-awareness

All this said, the technique to become aware is surprisingly simple.

In the moment, when we start running on emotional or thinking trap autopilot, we can surf the urge. Imagine the urge as a giant wave heading towards you. You can let it hit you and succumb to its obvious power. Or, you can imagine jumping on your surf board and riding the giant urge wave to the shore, before calmly stepping onto the beach.

This takes three deep, slow breaths. Then a physical “trigger” to turn off the red head and snap back to self aware blue. The trigger could be clapping, saying “surf the urge”, twiddling your bat or anything quick. The whole process takes seconds.

The benefits are incredible.

Being aware in training helps with skill development. Being mindful in games helps you perform with better decision making. If you know your game well, you can make decisions based on your strengths and commit to those decisions.

Here, again, the Rule of Three (R3) is our friend. Rule One works when we are aware of our state. If we are not, and our behaviours display it, Rules Two and Three are there to provide instant feedback. When done effectively, R3 is a consistent reminder to be self-aware.

Although this process is simple, it’s far from easy. It takes focus and practice. We will all fail at it often.

Persevere, use R3 as support and players will start better noticing their state.

We all make these mistakes. The answer is not to try and fix them, but to remember they are just one interpretation of events and our interpretation is our choice.

Reflective reviews

There are two other tools to develop self-aware cricketers. They are both review based. The first we have covered in the fast review section here. The second is a reflective practice between training and games.

Regular reflection allows players to look at performance again and decide how to move forward. It’s one of the key indicators of a growth mindset. Typically, it is not done well, with long lectures from coaches or players getting more and more anxious about their errors.

However, the science behind reviewing is clear. When done consistently and free of thinking traps, reviewing improves performance because it builds awareness and allows you to develop a plan based on the mistakes made and the successes had.

So, at the end of a an important time (a game, a phase of training), get together with all the people involved in the team for a review. Ideally, not just the coach and players but everyone who has an influence on the team’s performance. Parents, scorer, tea-maker, coaches, club chairman and so on. This “all hands” approach is important because everyone has a different insight. While practically difficult, gather together as many people as possible in the time available.

In my mind, the most effective review process is:

1. Notice your state and change it if necessary.

2. Ask the “stop, start continue” questions.

3. Agree your actions.

4. Do them.

If the review is immediately after a game, emotions will be high. There is a strong chance some will not be aware of their state and be stuck in a thinking trap. This means the first step is to give people the chance to get back to a more helpful frame of mind.

So, before we get practical, ask players to become aware in this moment. Take a few seconds to focus on those three breaths, quiet red head thinking and return to blue head. We can’t be reflective if we’re being driven by emotion.

If the state is low due to losing, often you can break it with a joke or a bit of banter. You don’t have to sit in monk-like silence.

This takes practice and not everyone will get it. Teenagers are especially driven by red head and thinking traps. You will see some, for example, continue to stew furiously. Do your best to break the state and remember, the more you practice the better you get. It shouldn’t take more than one minute.

Stop, start, continue

Once you have reset your awareness: Are focused and in the moment, it’s time to review. Get everyone’s attention and ask,

1. Were we 100% committed today?

2. What do we need to stop doing?

3. What do we need to start doing?

4. What do we need to continue doing?

This works because it’s a discussion between everyone on behaviours, not a lecture or an ego-bashing blame session. It does pick out negative points to deal with, but it also focuses on the positive areas. No team ever won with zero negatives, no team ever lost with zero positives. So discuss both. Win or lose.

We can do this review quickly if we answer the questions as written, or we can take longer - if there is time - to also think about why you gave the answers you gave. This can get very detailed and include pre-prepared analysis such as statistical elements and video analysis. Post-game is probably not the time for this, but it’s appropriate for a preseason or mid season squad meeting, or a one to one meeting with a player.

A useful technique to ensure everyone gets their say in a group is to ask pairs to discuss each question before answering. This shortcuts the tendency for louder players to dominate and quieter players to say nothing.

It’s here knowing our players is very helpful. For example, fixed mindset players will see defeat as failure and victory as success. In defeat, they will encourage more conservative cricket, “going back to basics” and hard work at nets. Growth mindset players see the result as an opportunity to learn and will focus on doing things differently if the plan failed. It’s not that one mindset is worse or better at this moment, but it does help us to know motivations, as this influences solutions.

The final two steps are to note down and take action. The important points here are:

• Use verbs. “Learn ways to improve strike rotation” is more useful than “Teamwork”.

• Focus on realistic behaviours, not outcomes. “Bowl 50 balls in training with a new ball this week” is more useful than “knock over three wickets in the first 10 overs”.

• Have everyone agree to the actions.

This final point is another nod to R3. The Rule of Two is simple on the surface in that players hold each other accountable to their behaviours. It is working on a deeper level too, building a culture of helping each other reach their agreed goals rather than striving for (and often not reaching) goals alone.

For example, Corinthians might come away with very little learning to do - they like it that way - but they can use R3 to focus on helping Warriors learn by holding them accountable to their behaviours. It’s a crucial job that allows both mindsets to coexist in one team.

If you are doing a longer review - for example at the end of the season - you can also add a further question after deciding your actions: “What would it look like if everything went wrong?”. This technique is called a premortem and it allows us to look at things from a different angle before heading down a path with commitment.

Players, coaches and other stake-holders can go away from the review with two things:

1. A list of actions to take.

2. An idea of others actions, and what they can do to help.

We then go and do them, while also holding each other accountable to our agreements.

If someone doesn’t do what they say they will do, it’s just as much on the coach and teammates as it is on the player. That’s another R3 principle (and also a successful avoidance of the blaming thinking trap).

Summary

Awareness has many names and roles, but they all are important and all take effort, because knowing yourself is tough. We have looked at some of the simple ways of becoming more aware including,

• Breathing and focusing.

• Reflective practice, both in the moment and between matches.

Building on this base, we will next go on to look at how awareness ties to resilience and - ultimately - self-sufficient growth in players.

Using Peer Review and Coach Feedback in Cricket Coaching

Would you be excited to see players make creative decisions in the moment by themselves?

A powerful way to develop this comes from having fast, effective reviews.

But this is not the review of old where we sit down for an hour while the coach tells you everything we did wrong at the end of a game. This is a review that can take 10 seconds. This is a review that be done on your own between balls in a match just as easily as it can be done with the whole squad during training.

It’s also a review that I have seen work for all ages from 9 up and all abilities from total beginners through talented age group cricketers and into experienced, (and often cynical) adults.

The role of this review is to take a moment to think clearly, see if you are achieving your aim, learn from your actions and make a decision about what to do next. This creates a fast feedback loop that you can put into action instantly.

Here’s the rules:

• A review can be called by a coach or any player at any time. A helpful time to review is before the end of an activity.

• Reviews can have all hands (everyone in the squad or team), a sub-group (such as a group in a net) a pair or even an individual.

• Reviews are short; 10-30 seconds.

• Reviews can be about techniques, tactics or behaviours. Both successful and unsuccessful.

• Reviews are player-led. They can be coach supported but not dominated. Players can review with no coach intervention when needed.

What triggers a review like this?

Anything where you need to engage your slower, more rational mind for a moment:

• You nail a practice.

• You are struggling in a practice.

• You want to check how committed everyone is in the practice.

• There’s a natural break in practice or a game before the end.

• You feel confused or unsure of how to solve a problem.

• You feel confident everything is going to plan, but you want to confirm it.

For example, lets say we are doing a team fielding drill and the goal is to have no unforced breakdowns in two minutes. Not only do the players smash the time, they barely found it a challenge. The moment that two minute alarm is called, someone - ideally a player - should be calling a review.

Review feedback loop

What are the questions that make the magic?

• Were we trying our best?

• What happened?

• Why did it happen?

• What do we need to do differently next time?

There is science behind these questions called an “experiential learning cycle”. As coaches we have probably been told this process is called plan-do-review. If you are old school you might say learning from mistakes, or looking for clues in success. Whatever we call it, the key principle at work is this: Compare our behaviours and outcomes to our aims, then think about how to develop.

As a important side note, the first question about trying your best is crucial because it allows players to review their commitment. If they were not doing their best then don't bother with the review, just go again. If we think players might be saying they were doing their best and not giving full commitment, point out the behaviour that you noticed and say, "What are you telling me about yourself by doing it that way?". If you have any Corinthians in your team, this is where you will see most push back, and gives you a good chance to influence them to switch by putting value on effort.

Let’s return to our fielding drill as an example. The fielders get together and say “We nailed that, we were on it from ball one. Every catch was taken and throws are on target. I think it was because we stayed focused” Someone else chips in and says “but also it was a bit too easy”. A third player says “Yes it was. Let’s make it tougher next time by aiming at one stump”.

All the coach says is “Sounds good. Show me what you can do!” and away they go again, pulling a stump out as they reset.

Yes. It’s that fast and that easy.

The benefits are huge. Engagement and focus go through the roof as players realise they can be in the moment while they practice and play because the review is always available to them. Players are able to reflect on what went right as well as what went wrong and come up with a non-judgemental, growth mindset practice plan either way. As coaches, we can use the review to encourage players to think more, learn from mistakes and come up with creative solutions on their own.

However, we can still have our input.

Coach feedback

A review is also a time for us to hit our feedback points. No doubt we will have plenty.

Reviews in this structure are great because we are forced to have brevity. If players speak first and last because they are leading the review, we only have about 15 seconds to say what you want to say. We better be ready!

For me, feedback can be in four ways:

• Probe: Ask for clarification if you think they are close to a solution.

• Alert: Politely point something out they may not have noticed.

• Challenge: More forcefully state your view as it’s in opposition to the players.

• Emergency. Here you just need to step in and take command.

Generally, athlete-centred coaches prefer one and two. Command and control coaches prefer three and four. But they all have their uses whatever your philosophy.

For probing, you can start your statement or question with, “I wonder why...” or “how might you...”. Using these phrases encourages players to further explain what they mean if you think they are close to a useful answer.

To alert, you can start with “What if..” or “I noticed...”. Using this language you can state your opinion as a hint. It’s still up to the players to make the final call.

When challenging, players will be reviewing poorly. Perhaps they are reviewing something that is not the critical outcome. They might be too judgemental, assuming just because you can’t do something it means you will never be able to do it (a Corinthian mindset). They also can let their discussion drift past 30 seconds. You step in with something like “Can I challenge here because...”. After a challenge, it’s important to hand back decision-making to the players by saying “what do you think?” or “So, what are we doing next?”.

Finally, it’s rare, but in an emergency you just need to take command of the situation. Traditional coaching has jumped straight in like this and tell players how to correct their errors. It rarely works; evidence suggests a command style is effective about 2% of the time. I believe this method is best reserved for unsafe or hurtful behaviour rather than technical instruction. It also is helpful in a situation where a player has not got used to Rule of Three and reviews yet and you can guide them towards a stated outcome.

You only have one shot in your 15 seconds, so pick the right one for the circumstances.

When players get good at reviewing, you find you have less and less to say anyway. A review needs no coach input at all. I have stood outside a huddle and not said anything other than “OK, show me” many times during one of these reviews. Why add something for the sake of it if players are working it out on their own?

That said, there will be times when players, using the Rule of Three, will ask specifically for your feedback. “What do I do here, coach?” is a valid call for help if the player and his team mates have tried and failed to solve the issue themselves. However, this is not your excuse to deliver a lecture. You still only have 10-20 seconds maximum so make your point relevant to the critical outcome then ask what the players think about the solution.

Post review and long reviews

As we now know, the ideal end to a review is the coach saying “show me” and the players swiftly putting their plan into action with full commitment. This is what will happen the vast majority of the time.

However, there are also occasions where the fast review will throw out something that needs more time, possibly with more coach input. For example, a team decides to completely change a drill as a result of the review. We might need to spend time deciding rules and changing set up. I would say at this point, the review is over anyway so focus on getting to activity as fast as possible.

Our aim as a coach during these reviews - and post-review practicalities - is to say as little as possible to get back to activity. One neat rule of thumb for this is to make sure you talk less than the players.

Finally, what about longer, more detailed reflections?

This fast review designed to be in session and in game and is athlete-centred: It’s about getting back to bat and ball quickly. So, don’t let it drift and waste ball hitting time. That said, there is a space for reviewing between sessions and games. I would argue it’s critical for anyone with a Warrior mindset. With less anxiety, less emotion and more time we can do some brilliant thinking and collaborating from coach to players and players to each other. It’s something we examine when we look more into the psychology of the game.

Which is a good place to leave this area and move on to psychology next.