From The Pub- Coaches Chat

[Goughy]

At one of the places I work there is a free bar and all the coaches get together on a Thursday evening and have a few drinks and talk cricket.

Free beer and cricket talk, it is a great combination.

Anyway I thought it would be interesting to post a few of the things we have been talking about recently in a semi-regular column and see what other poeple think on a variety of isues.

- The full toss and the LBW law. Is the current law a good one? Why are you forced (by the laws) to assume the ball will go straight on and give the batsman out when the ball hits the pad on the full if you know it will pitch, turn and miss the stumps? Can the law be a good one if you have to give the batsman out if you know it will not hit the wicket?

- Stumped. Would you give this out without refering to the rules and laws of the game? The batsman is out of his ground, the ball is trapped/stuck behind the top of the keepers pad and his leg and he bends his knee forward and breaks the stumps with his pad.

- How good would an all non-white SA cricket team be? Pretty good was the general concensus. Better than Zim and Bang and could give some of the others a good game. The worry was the lack of Black Africans in a team dominated by Coloured players.

- Child/Parent/Coach relationship. Should a coach ever punish/drop a boy based on the bahaviour of a parent. If a parent is abusive to other players, parents or the coach, regularly turns up drunk, complains vocally about the smallest thing and generally makes life horrible for the coach, the players and his son, is is ok to drop the child to make everyone elses life easier? Our conclusion was no. It may be easy to do, but as a coach you cant punish a child because of their parents and just because it is an easy solution does not make it right.

- How does over coaching effect fastbowling? Does heavy structured coaching at a young age reduce the liklihood of producing fast bowlers? The concensus is yes and no. Yes in that children are forced to concentrate on accuracy at too young an age at the expense of learning to bowl without pressure and allowing erratic bowling and growing into their natural action. No because without the structure in place standards would decline and the benefit of the structured coaching is seen in the complete domination and bowling standards of the 'good' cricket schools compared to the 'bad' cricket schools.

- Run Out. Why does the bowler have to touch the ball as it his hit back to him in order to affect a runout at the non-strikers end. If backing-up carrys a risk then why should they not be runout if the ball is hit directly back into the stumps. He is out of his ground, so why not out? Some thought that this change was silly others thought it made perfect sense.

Anyway, feel free to post if you have any opinions on the topics we talked about.

[Barney Rubble]

One that caught my eye was the second one, about being stumped.

I think I'd give it out in that situation - I've seen catches taken between the wicketkeeper's pads, so I can't see how this is that different really. They're both wickets that result from a combination of instinct and pure luck.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by Goughy

- The full toss and the LBW law. Is the current law a good one? Why are you forced (by the laws) to assume the ball will go straight on and give the batsman out when the ball hits the pad on the full if you know it will pitch, turn and miss the stumps? Can the law be a good one if you have to give the batsman out if you know it will not hit the wicket?

Definitely a good rule, IMO. You can't be sure which way the ball is going to spin, or how much it's going to spin by.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Goughy

At one of the places I work there is a free bar and all the coaches get together on a Thursday evening and have a few drinks and talk cricket.

Free beer and cricket talk, it is a great combination.

Anyway I thought it would be interesting to post a few of the things we have been talking about recently in a semi-regular column and see what other poeple think on a variety of isues.

- The full toss and the LBW law. Is the current law a good one? Why are you forced (by the laws) to assume the ball will go straight on and give the batsman out when the ball hits the pad on the full if you know it will pitch, turn and miss the stumps? Can the law be a good one if you have to give the batsman out if you know it will not hit the wicket?

- Stumped. Would you give this out without refering to the rules and laws of the game? The batsman is out of his ground, the ball is trapped/stuck behind the top of the keepers pad and his leg and he bends his knee forward and breaks the stumps with his pad.

- How good would an all non-white SA cricket team be? Pretty good was the general concensus. Better than Zim and Bang and could give some of the others a good game. The worry was the lack of Black Africans in a team dominated by Coloured players.

- Child/Parent/Coach relationship. Should a coach ever punish/drop a boy based on the bahaviour of a parent. If a parent is abusive to other players, parents or the coach, regularly turns up drunk, complains vocally about the smallest thing and generally makes life horrible for the coach, the players and his son, is is ok to drop the child to make everyone elses life easier? Our conclusion was no. It may be easy to do, but as a coach you cant punish a child because of their parents and just because it is an easy solution does not make it right.

- How does over coaching effect fastbowling? Does heavy structured coaching at a young age reduce the liklihood of producing fast bowlers? The concensus is yes and no. Yes in that children are forced to concentrate on accuracy at too young an age at the expense of learning to bowl without pressure and allowing erratic bowling and growing into their natural action. No because without the structure in place standards would decline and the benefit of the structured coaching is seen in the complete domination and bowling standards of the 'good' cricket schools compared to the 'bad' cricket schools.

- Run Out. Why does the bowler have to touch the ball as it his hit back to him in order to affect a runout at the non-strikers end. If backing-up carrys a risk then why should they not be runout if the ball is hit directly back into the stumps. He is out of his ground, so why not out? Some thought that this change was silly others thought it made perfect sense.

Anyway, feel free to post if you have any opinions on the topics we talked about.

- I guess, technically, you don't HAVE to give the batsman out as you could just as easily give him not out and then brace yourself to get slated in the press for not fully applying the rule! Personally, I'd have trouble giving someone out if I knew for sure it was going to pitch and miss the stumps after contact, so I don't think it's a great rule. In attempting to oversimplify LBW laws they seem to have made it harder for anyone not prepared to close their eyes and shoot the finger up without a second's thought.

- I wouldn't give this out as I don't think it constitutes being in full control of the ball - however, now I've said that I am pretty sure I'm wrong!

- I am not that familiar with the number of coloured SA players in their domestic comp, so it's hard for me to say. I don't have a good knowledge of SA cricket outside the international team, but I couldn't imagine them being terrible.

- I don't think so, you just take away something the child enjoys and potentially put him in a situation where he doesn't have an outlet to get away from home life for a while if it's that bad. The intervention has to be with the parent, not the child.

- I don't think coaching of children at a young age should be geared towards fast bowling. Through the teens any flaws in technique that cause cause injury should be fixed, but other than that if someone is bowling ok and is quite brisk I think it should be a very gradual process. There's elements of fast bowling (such as thinking a batsman out - hard to believe I know ; and concentrating on line and length) that will be very difficult to instill in someone in their teens, and if they're accurate and fast then there's not a lot you have to do. Some people mature later than others, and I think as far as fast bowlers are concerned you're looking at 16-17 yrs old (or possibly later) before they'll be strong enough to make a judgement as to pace etc. Personally, I didn't play for 6 years between the ages of 16 and 22 and was a lot quicker upon returning due to being a lot stronger i suppose. On the other hand, you could have someone who is 'fast' at 14/15 who never really develops as a player capable of producing any great pace at a later age. Obviously there are systems in place now to ensure any quick young talent progresses as far as possible, but I think technique is important in the early years.

- I wouldn't agree with a rule where someone is given out to a ball that is hit back at the stumps without being touched by the opposition. The batting team have already been punished by hitting the stumps (as it usually stops a certain 4), to have one of them given out would be farcical.

[steds]

Originally Posted by Goughy

B]Stumped.[/B] Would you give this out without refering to the rules and laws of the game? The batsman is out of his ground, the ball is trapped/stuck behind the top of the keepers pad and his leg and he bends his knee forward and breaks the stumps with his pad.

Yes. Would have to be a bloody pedantic rule to tell you which part of the body you can stump someone with.

Originally Posted by Goughy

Run Out. Why does the bowler have to touch the ball as it his hit back to him in order to affect a runout at the non-strikers end. If backing-up carrys a risk then why should they not be runout if the ball is hit directly back into the stumps. He is out of his ground, so why not out? Some thought that this change was silly others thought it made perfect sense.

What? That's stupid.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by steds

What? That's stupid.

Playing Devils Advocate, Why? If a batsman wants to steal a yard by backing up to run a single quicker, why should he not be out if the stumps are broken and he is out of his ground?

Backing up is a way of gaining an advantage, should there not be risks that go along with that advantage?

[shortpitched713]

Backing up is one of the wierdest things in cricket. Practically, there's no way for the fieding side to enforce any sort of limit to the extent at which the batsmen takes advantage of this rule. Running out the non striker is considered "unsporting", and I don't think the rule change making the aforementioned situation out would make much of a difference as the situation is pretty infrequent, and batsmen would simply start aiming their shots away from the stumps. As the rules stand now a non striker who is alert and quick on his feet can take considerable advantage from backing up with little to no risk of getting himself out.

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by Goughy

How good would an all non-white SA cricket team be? Pretty good was the general concensus. Better than Zim and Bang and could give some of the others a good game. The worry was the lack of Black Africans in a team dominated by Coloured players.

Hah yeah true, I think we'd be pretty good, and Robbie P wouldn't even be my tweflth man in a non white SA side.. I've always wanted a White SA v Non White SA match, although it would be far too politically incorrect to ever happen, the black side would have Gibbs, Ntini, Tshabalala, Kruger, Langeveldt etc.

[Lillian Thomson]

A batsman is only seeking to gain an unfair advantage if he leaves the crease before the bowler has let go of the ball. After this he's entitled to back up as far as possible at his own risk, but the risk should only be from the fielding side not his own batsman. Completely stupid idea that certainly won't happen.

[Neil Pickup]

The full toss and the LBW law. - I think it's a best-compromise really. It's a big leap as an umpire to start predicting spin and movement which can do almost anything - and if you miss a full toss you deserve to get out anyway...

Stumped Don't think I'd give it... on the grounds that a) it doesn't look right, b) the keeper doesn't deserve it and c) I'd have no clue so benefit of the doubt would go to the batsman

Child/Parent/Coach relationship Ugh. Orphans are wonderful. There is a much deeper issue here and whatever you do decide has so many knock on effects and needs treating on so many levels; the worst of it being a bad parental attitude often creates a bad child attitude. A lot really comes down to case-by-case... child's attitude, competing players' attitudes, etc. If you have a 50/50 call and one has a crap dad, what are you gonna do?

How does over coaching effect fastbowling? The worst thing that can happen is coaches meddling with natural actions that are biomechanically sound but not 'textbook' - side-arm slingers. The most important thing is to encourage enjoyment and understanding rather than a technical orthodoxy...

Run Out No, a wicket should come from an input on the fielding side or infringement on the batter's. Run-out like that punishes excellent batting.

[steds]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Playing Devils Advocate, Why? If a batsman wants to steal a yard by backing up to run a single quicker, why should he not be out if the stumps are broken and he is out of his ground?

Backing up is a way of gaining an advantage, should there not be risks that go along with that advantage?

There are risks, such as the bowler touching it onto the stumps. A run out is only a run out if a member of the fielding side effects it. Why should it be any different if the batsman plays straight?

[steds]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

the black side would have Gibbs, Ntini, Tshabalala, Kruger, Langeveldt etc.

¿Que?

[steds]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

Stumped Don't think I'd give it... on the grounds that ... b) the keeper doesn't deserve it

In football a bloke doesn't deserve it if he's goalhanging at a corner and the ball ricochets about, drops at his feet and he taps it in, but it's still a goal. Same thing here. Pure luck that the ball got there, but he still has to react.

[TT Boy]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

Hah yeah true, I think we'd be pretty good, and Robbie P wouldn't even be my tweflth man in a non white SA side.. I've always wanted a White SA v Non White SA match, although it would be far too politically incorrect to ever happen, the black side would have Gibbs, Ntini, Tshabalala, Kruger, Langeveldt etc.

Would be erroneous to call that side black, considering Garnett is a cape coloured and if South Africa were to field a non ‘White’ line up, Ntini aside I doubt you find many Black Africans in there.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

Would be erroneous to call that side black, considering Garnett is a cape coloured and if South Africa were to field a non ‘White’ line up, Ntini aside I doubt you find many Black Africans in there.

There are many, many coloured candidates for places but the only black Africans that would garner consideration would be Ntini, Zondeki, Tshabalala and Tsolekile.

Coloured and Asian players would include Gibbs, Langervelt, Duminy, Prince, H. Amla, Khan, Ontong, R. Peterson, A. Petersen, Kleinveldt, A. Amla, Telemachus, Kruger, Thomas.

There has been talk of the previously disadvantaged peoples quotas being replaced by Black African quotas. In other words Coloured and Asian players would compete on the same footing as white players and Black Africans would be the only players with quota status.

A pretty good side is available but as I mentioned before, the number of Black Africans coming through is a worry to many in various administrative positions as there is massive financial investment in that area.