Adi's Club Cricket Blog

[Durhamfootman]

It's the old adage, DA

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

As far as Troy Cooley is concerned, he got something right, for a specific set of bowlers at a specific point in time. Having gained a reputation for being a top bowling coach, he was enticed back by the Aussies. Different players, different point in time, and Australia are probably as poor in the bowling dept as they have been for an age. I don't imagine this will ever have been reflected in Mr Cooley's wage packet.

[DeltaAlpha]

I've always had to be a bit cautious with that adage, DF... both my parents, and my brother, were teachers...

[Durhamfootman]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Troy Cooley's first class career.
291 runs. Av 9. top score 32
54 wkts @ 61.35

This will interest you, DA. (from wikipedia)

As the bowling coach for the England national team, he was considered instrumental in helping players such as Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison, Simon Jones, Matthew Hoggard and James Anderson amongst others improve their bowling, though the form of the latter after Cooley's intervention suggests otherwise

and this interests me.

At the end of the 2010–11 Ashes series, Cooley will become head coach of Cricket Australia's Centre of Excellence in Brisbane

so he ended up with a plum job mucking about with the actions of youngsters after ultimately failing as an international coach. Just like my old friend (not!) Kevin Shine.

[DeltaAlpha]

Yeah, DF; sort of bears out the adage, doesn't it?

[meninblue]

I will give a couple of example to try and explain my view better on coaching aspect

Example 1:
I was not good at mathematics.But in 10th the coaching class gave us all to solve about 50 or more sample test papers in that year.They made us work hard and that is the only reason i managed to score good marks that what i expected i could score.Then in college,we were not made to solve papers and there were no efforts from my side as well because there was no assignment and punishment on doing it.What i want to say is that if the coaches actually make the boys with less skills in one aspect, do hard work it will compensate for lack of skill in particular aspect to some extent. Improvement will definitely happen even though it might not be major.Some players have been reported not to do hard work even though their skills are not upto expectations.

Example 2:
We had a lecturer in statistics for post graduation course.He was so intelligent that he could solve any problem in statistics.However, even the intelligent boys in our class felt that his teaching method was not proper.He used to give an example , some intelligent students used to say "Finished".He considered less intelligent students like me and others in statistics/maths also must have understood him and took other example.Even when he expalined in first attempt it was not clear to most of the class.

So i feel that if there are two professors:
(1)First professor knows 100% of subject but can communicate only 60 of the method to solve then he will be less effective.

(2)Second professor knows only 70% of the subject but he can communicate/transfer 100% of knowledge he knows.


For the subject i am struggling in, i would opt to be taught by Professor 2, whereas if i am good at a subject and grasp concepts better then i would opt Professor 1.So basically, it depends on the students understanding of particular subject, the knowledge of coach and how well he can actually transfer the knowledge. There has to be a fine balance which makes the learning system better.Secondly, the coach should have authority to report players who do not do hard work in a professional and high performance environment as international cricket.I think what they did with Samit Patel was right, his fielding was crucial because his other skills were not excellent. But it would not be fair to drop Sachin because he cannot field excellently,because he is compensating that by tons and tons of runs.Coaches should be given fair say.If he is reporting false things then the captains review can be taken and further course of action can happen.


For cricket in my case, i will opt for coach who knows more than the coach who knows less. For mathematics i would opt for professor 2.


The example 2 fits your question, i guess and Professor 1 fits the answer to your question for international level cricketers.If i was board member i would select coach who knows more than most cricketers.it is virtually impossible to find a coach for Sachin,Kallis,Rahul,Ponting etc and same for some bowlers and fielders. Also, from my personal experience at club cricket, i would select a successful specialist batsman, a great fielder and a sucessful specialist bowler as coach, rather than all in one coach.Many boards can afford that.

IMO international cricketers make basic mistakes. I mean, there are so many runout where the batsman do nto drag the bat one foot outside the crease.They drop it directly within the crease. Coaches can find such flaws in all aspects, note it, work it out on those flaws and get rid of it. Atleast they will remind them often and the players will not make mistake immediately in next match.Exceptions will be there though.PLus, there are new comers in the squad or bench players who do not have as much skills or experience as seniors.Coaches can be useful to them. To sum up, coaches are needed for fine tuning even seniors/experienced, and they can play a more role with juniors/newcomers/inexperienced ones.

Yes, the coach should accept if students point something wrong to them like you said.If the coach does not has ego he will accept it.Most selection panel know what type of person a particular coach is.So that will take care of avoiding a coach who is not willing to accept his odd mistake.

[DeltaAlpha]

Yes, I understand that perfectly, adi; thanks again.

I think I'm probably looking at this in the wrong way. A coach can point out some things to one player and other things to another, always looking for the little things that could be done better. At professional level, a coach isn't there to teach a batsman how to bat or a bowler how to bowl, but to fine-tune small things that are nevertheless important. Cooley overstepped that with Jimmy.

Yes?

[meninblue]

Yes Delta, just fine tuning because all of those who reach this level have already been coached for 12 years at least. So they know know more than basics in skills of their expertise. Just fine tuning and flaw removal required.

[DeltaAlpha]

[Gingerfinch]

Isn't all coaching, even from an early age fine tuning, unless you're completely useless of course?

[meninblue]

Isn't all coaching, even from an early age fine tuning, unless you're completely useless of course?

I disagree because the new kids who come to our club don't even know how to take stance, they don't even know how to identify right pad or left pad, they dont even know how to use footwork, technique, how to keep head position,they are impatient even when they face first ball, they make basic silly mistakes.These are major aspects or basics.Hardly any young kid comes with all those abilities on Day 1.It is obvious because they are very young, but if somebody does not brings them to a level that is expected to survive at a competitive level, then they are in trouble if cricket is their career.

[Gingerfinch]

I remember one of the coaches at our local team would always tell me to play straight (I did), get behind the ball, blah blah blah. After a unfulfilled batting career, I look back and wish I would have just played naturally, enjoyed it more and played across the line when I wanted.
I reckon I would have scored just as many runs, and had more fun doing so

[meninblue]

Well in that regards i have seen that even the well trained and best young boys of club fail to make the squads, but if they are not trained because they might fail, then they will not even reach to probables. But if 100 are trained at least it will help majority of kids to improve their game. The probability matters IMO. The competition is intense for those who want to make cricket as career. Otherwise at a certain level a trained kid appears as lion and untrained appears as sheep. Only one will win the selection.

[Gingerfinch]

Well, I cannot talk when it comes to that level. But IMO, a pro player should turn to a coach when he wants to or feels like it, rather than the other way round.

[DeltaAlpha]

Have you read all the posts on this subject, DrR? Adi puts forward some very convincing arguments, and he's certainly changed my view. Your point about the player turning to the coach is a poor one - the player may not even be aware that he needs to, but the coach will, if he's any good.

[Gingerfinch]

Have you read all the posts on this subject, DrR? Adi puts forward some very convincing arguments, and he's certainly changed my view. Your point about the player turning to the coach is a poor one - the player may not even be aware that he needs to, but the coach will.

I didn't read all of it, tbh.

Regarding the coach.

Being an ex village cricket player, I admit I'm no expert, but the coach may THINK he know's but he may well be wrong? Look at Jimmy. Look at Lara's high back lift, shift at the crease. He would have had that coached out of him by some.

I'm on the fence really. I see their need, but do not impede