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.