1-800-CallGoughy The Technical Helpline for International Bowlers

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Autobahn

What coaching qualifications do you have and where do you coach?

You are talking to the wrong person about Coaching qualifications. Being a bit arrogant and brash and nearly having my cricket career ruined by a highly qualified coach I refuse to do them.

It seems the only reason to take your exams is to say you have got them and for people to know you have them rather than actully become a far better coach. I work on word of mouth and people come to me because I am good rather than I have a certain coaching qual.

Why? I dont need them, I have no real respect for the coaches thay produce, the system has produced a lot of very average coaches who know and understand little about the game apart from what they are taught. The are fine for history teachers taking a cricket lesson but they are not what I need.

I work from an understanding of the game and build from there by working with each individual. I do not apply for jobs, people come to me. I never wanted to do private coaching but I have had so many people ask me that I have taken a few on.

IMO certain qualified coaches were responsible for the decline of English cricket during the 80s and 90s. Bowling (especially fast bowling which is my specialized area) was taught in completely the wrong way and we produced a 3 generations of trundlers and few real fast bowlers.

Its also a family thing. My dad was a qualified Football coach and he bred into me a disrespect for coaching quals and systems.

He hated that to pass his Football exams he had to spout the teachings of Charles 'spit' Hughes (if you are too young ask someone who knows). We kind of go with the philosophy that Howard Wilkinson was the most highly qualified English coach and Bill Shankley had nothing. Who was the better manager?

Coaching Quals mean nothing and I will continue to fight the system whereever I can.

As for where I coach, I cant say that here. A work in a few places, have a sports coaching business and conduct private coaching sessions.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Panesar- His head falls away towards the legside in delivery. This mean he will always struggle with length. Not for a long time have I seen a left arm spinner get cut so often. Why? because his head is not even close to being level. This means he cannot judge length correctly. In fact he may be putting the ball where he wants but because of the head problem it is a misjudgement rather than an errant ball. He must be forced to keep his eyes as level (horizontal) as possible during delivery. It would make a massive improvement.

I haven't seen much of Panesar bowl, but does this pull his arm maybe a bit too far towards the perpendicular?

Originally Posted by Goughy

Dalrymple- Does not drive off the left leg. He needs to push off the left leg to go up whilst rotating. This would add greater height and purchase on the ball. This change would make a difference. However, it takes some time to work on as it can feel awkward and it is easy to overpitch whilst you are getting used to it.

As you say, there's a bit of adjustment time with this one, and also it's a change that tends to make your spinner a more attacking bowler, giving it a bit more air and dip. Dalrymple does a good job as a "Symonds-esque" spinner, someone who won't get too many people out but in most cases can be relied to go for <5 per over, by bowling flattish and making him hard to get under and loft.

[Autobahn]

Originally Posted by Goughy

You are talking to the wrong person about Coaching qualifications. Being a bit arrogant and brash and nearly having my cricket career ruined by a highly qualified coach I refuse to do them.

It seems the only reason to take your exams is to say you have got them and for people to know you have them rather than actully become a far better coach. I work on word of mouth and people come to me because I am good rather than I have a certain coaching qual.

Why? I dont need them, I have no real respect for the coaches thay produce, the system has produced a lot of very average coaches who know and understand little about the game apart from what they are taught. The are fine for history teachers taking a cricket lesson but they are not what I need.

I work from an understanding of the game and build from there by working with each individual. I do not apply for jobs, people come to me. I never wanted to do private coaching but I have had so many people ask me that I have taken a few on.

IMO certain qualified coaches were responsible for the decline of English cricket during the 80s and 90s. Bowling (especially fast bowling which is my specialized area) was taught in completely the wrong way and we produced a 3 generations of trundlers and few real fast bowlers.

Its also a family thing. My dad was a qualified Football coach and he bred into me a disrespect for coaching quals and systems.

He hated that to pass his Football exams he had to spout the teachings of Charles 'spit' Hughes (if you are too young ask someone who knows). We kind of go with the philosophy that Howard Wilkinson was the most highly qualified English coach and Bill Shankley had nothing. Who was the better manager?

Coaching Quals mean nothing and I will continue to fight the system whereever I can.

As for where I coach, I cant say that here. A work in a few places, have a sports coaching business and conduct private coaching sessions.

So how do you expect people to take your opinions on bowler's actions seriously?

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Autobahn

So how do you expect people to take your opinions on bowler's actions seriously?

Oh Lord,

This is what I am talking about. Qualifications do not help you in this regard. Having a certificate does not mean you know what you are talking about.

I will constantly fight this 'idea' of a course being the be all and end all.

You should take them seriously because
a) They are correct
b) I am a successful coach

The fact I refuse to take certain exams has nothing to do with the relevance of knowing what you are doing.

This is getting a bit annoying now. I work based on my knowledge not implimenting lower level stuff from others.

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by Goughy

You are talking to the wrong person about Coaching qualifications. Being a bit arrogant and brash and nearly having my cricket career ruined by a highly qualified coach I refuse to do them.

It seems the only reason to take your exams is to say you have got them and for people to know you have them rather than actully become a far better coach. I work on word of mouth and people come to me because I am good rather than I have a certain coaching qual.

Why? I dont need them, I have no real respect for the coaches thay produce, the system has produced a lot of very average coaches who know and understand little about the game apart from what they are taught. The are fine for history teachers taking a cricket lesson but they are not what I need.

I work from an understanding of the game and build from there by working with each individual. I do not apply for jobs, people come to me. I never wanted to do private coaching but I have had so many people ask me that I have taken a few on.

IMO certain qualified coaches were responsible for the decline of English cricket during the 80s and 90s. Bowling (especially fast bowling which is my specialized area) was taught in completely the wrong way and we produced a 3 generations of trundlers and few real fast bowlers.

Its also a family thing. My dad was a qualified Football coach and he bred into me a disrespect for coaching quals and systems.

He hated that to pass his Football exams he had to spout the teachings of Charles 'spit' Hughes (if you are too young ask someone who knows). We kind of go with the philosophy that Howard Wilkinson was the most highly qualified English coach and Bill Shankley had nothing. Who was the better manager?

Coaching Quals mean nothing and I will continue to fight the system whereever I can.

As for where I coach, I cant say that here. A work in a few places, have a sports coaching business and conduct private coaching sessions.

I think the danger of a formalised qualification structure is that you breed a phalanx of coaches who all think the same, do the same and act the same and attempt to follow directives and coaching manuals religiously.

I did Level I in December 2002 and Level II in March 2004, and I've now been coaching in Exeter and East Devon for the best part of three summers (and winters) - long enough, I feel, to have developed as an individual coach and see others' styles and approaches. Yes, there is noticeable by-the-book stuff going on, but there's plenty of us who have benefited (benefitted?) from doing the formal structure. Now I'm learning from experience, drills, etc, and more critically what to say and when, and I know I'm a better coach than I was three months ago, never mind three years.

For me, a bigger issue is people being completely autocratic when running junior sides - coaches/umpires making every field position change and every bowling change throughout the twenty overs of an innings. Does my nut.

[Autobahn]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Oh Lord,

This is what I am talking about. Qualifications do not help you in this regard. Having a certificate does not mean you know what you are talking about.

I will constantly fight this 'idea' of a course being the be all and end all.

You should take them seriously because
a) They are correct
b) I am a successful coach

The fact I refuse to take certain exams has nothing to do with the relevance of knowing what you are doing.

This is getting a bit annoying now. I work based on my knowledge not implimenting lower level stuff from others.

But surely you can see the flipside of the coin that even your "correct" coaching methods could be wrong.

Coaching qualifications are i agree not the be all and end all of coaches but at least it ensures a basic standard knowledge of coaching where the better coaches will expand on that knowledge

For example whereas a qualified coach you can guarantee will know this, this and this, a good qualified coach will know this, this, this, this and that.

That's what exams are all about, meeting a standard, it's up to the individual to expand on those standards.

But without qualifications you can't guarantee a standard and that makes it much harder to judge a coach.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Autobahn

But surely you can see the flipside of the coin that even your "correct" coaching methods could be wrong.

Coaching qualifications are i agree not the be all and end all of coaches but at least it ensures a basic standard knowledge of coaching where the better coaches will expand on that knowledge

For example whereas a qualified coach you can guarantee will know this, this and this, a good qualified coach will know this, this, this, this and that.

That's what exams are all about, meeting a standard, it's up to the individual to expand on those standards.

But without qualifications you can't guarantee a standard and that makes it much harder to judge a coach.

What you fail to understand is that the lower level badges are just that. Lower level stuff, basic things that whilst important do not come close to guaranteeing a coach is any good or understands the game.

Most of my work comes from correcting guys who go to a certain Academy who come away with more problems than they started with.

Lower level coaching certificates have a role to play, as I said getting people who are not the most experienced or knowledgable helping people. As previously mentioned, I would be happier if a non-playing History teacher took them if they were to coach my kids but as for proving knowledge or coaching ability they are worthless.

Im not trying to sell myself to you, I dont need to.

EDIT- Note about our company. Depending on the season we have about 40-60 coaches working for us across a variety of sports at any one time. Now coaching qualifications are not a big selling point when we employ someone as we are not great believers that they prove anything. Now, a qualification will never count against you but playing and coaching experience are equally if not more valid. After that we want to talk to you about sport and watch you in action. If you are any good you can work for us without any certificates and if you are very qualified but a bad coach you will be out of the door very soon.

Can we get back on topic, The bowlers I mentioned have basic flaws (Im not being controversial here or spouting any radical theory) the question is why they exist and why they have not been sorted out.

[Sir Redman]

Goughy

Could you tell me what's wrong with Shane Bond? I've noticed a number of changes to his action since he had his back titanium-ised - his head is more upright in his action, his left arm and left leg are further to the left (so he's more open at the crease) and he keeps his arms much more still at the crease - but he still keeps getting injured. It's so frustrating having your number 1 bowler break down the whole time, and we desperately need him (particularly in tests, since no-one else can take wickets. Mind you, we don't actually play any tests these days). Is he just ultra-fragile, or are there still a number of things wrong with his action?

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Sir Redman

Goughy

Could you tell me what's wrong with Shane Bond?

I would love to but Ive just not seen enough of him play.

I was so disappointed that he missed out on so much cricket during the SA tour. I was really looking forward to seeing him bowl.

Ive not watched him close enough to make a detailed assessment, I just hope that the reason he breaks down is not down to his action and that the same reason for the injuries is not where he generates a lot of his pace from. It would be hard on him and NZ if his greatest strength turned out to be his biggest problem.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Sir Redman

Goughy

Could you tell me what's wrong with Shane Bond? I've noticed a number of changes to his action since he had his back titanium-ised - his head is more upright in his action, his left arm and left leg are further to the left (so he's more open at the crease) and he keeps his arms much more still at the crease - but he still keeps getting injured.

Right Ive just downloaded a couple of videos and there are 1 or 2 things that concern me from an injury point of view rather than a technical issue.

I dont know when the videos were from so Im not sure if they were pre or post injury and its only a glimpse so these notes are on first viewing.

Concerns
- Run-up is straight and then at the last second he veers towards the umpire and then jumps away as he goes into his action. This puts extra sideways pressure on the joints apart from just the normal downward pounding of bowling.

- However, the major 1 is- he gets his pace like a number of bowlers do (including myself when I was decent) by using his body like a wooden ruler. The more you bend the ruler back the greater the force it will spring back with. Now there is nothing wrong with that apart from the fact that it puts massive pressure on the body. The footage I have just seen has Bonds left leg pointing to backwards square leg in his action and then swinging around to point to 1st slip when it lands. The problem I have (from what I have seen) is that Bond causes extra tension on the 'ruler' by having his backfoot horizontal but his front foot landing vertical on the crease. It is a great way to generate pace and bring the hips through but an easy way to wreck your body.

[Sir Redman]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Right Ive just downloaded a couple of videos and there are 1 or 2 things that concern me from an injury point of view rather than a technical issue.

I dont know when the videos were from so Im not sure if they were pre or post injury and its only a glimpse so these notes are on first viewing.

Concerns
- Run-up is straight and then at the last second he veers towards the umpire and then jumps away as he goes into his action. This puts extra sideways pressure on the joints apart from just the normal downward pounding of bowling.

- However, the major 1 is- he gets his pace like a number of bowlers do (including myself when I was decent) by using his body like a wooden ruler. The more you bend the ruler back the greater the force it will spring back with. Now there is nothing wrong with that apart from the fact that it puts massive pressure on the body. The footage I have just seen has Bonds left leg pointing to backwards square leg in his action and then swinging around to point to 1st slip when it lands. The problem I have (from what I have seen) is that Bond causes extra tension on the 'ruler' by having his backfoot horizontal but his front foot landing vertical on the crease. It is a great way to generate pace and bring the hips through but an easy way to wreck your body.

Cheers. I've actually noticed the first point before, and wondered whether that could be corrected. I can see your second point as well, but I think - I'm not entirely sure though - that his back foot now lands perpendicular to the crease, rather than parallel, so it's possible that that your video was shot before his operation. I've read somewhere that he had something like 3 stress fractures in his back by the time he was 18, which would suggest that he had a bad action early on which has caused a lot of long-term damage, and has made his body quite unsuitable for fast bowling.

It doesn't help that he seems to pick up illnesses extremely easily as well.

[vic_orthdox]

Meh, fast bowlers have always been precious

With regards to the coaching courses, the lowest level courses are often designed so that even someone with no knowledge of cricket can learn how to coach at a basic level. It's not till you end up getting to about Level 3 or 4 (having already departed with a lot of money for not much) that a keen cricketer really learns a lot, and that in-depth technique analysis and that sort of thing occurs.

You might pick up a few handy hints and/or little drills in early courses, but it's not worth the dosh.

[Jamee999]

No posts advertising your product.

[Craig]

Why is Simon Jones so injury prone Goughy?

I know he was very very ver unfortunate when he did his knee in Brisbane 3 and half years ago (give or take a few months), but why is it that he has had these ankle problems (and calf strains) that have kept him out for so long that would have to wonder if that he has anymore come backs left him?

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Jamee999

No posts advertising your product.

I assume you are joking as Ive not mentioned the name of the company or who I am so Im certainly not advertising.