Read on Twitter
There has been some fabulous feedback and discussion on my recent thread that “the basics” don’t exist. It made me think hard about it. https://twitter.com/davidhinchliffe/status/1361263647859875840
A practical example that popped up during the discussion: A theoretical 10 hours to get a team of total beginners ready to compete with high standard players.
How do you coach it if basics don’t exist?
How do you coach it if basics don’t exist?
Starting with the premise of “no basics” is important because if you read this and think “nah, it’s easier to tell them” you still believe the basics are a thing. Let’s pretend they don’t though. What next?
First we ask, what does success look like? They are unlikely to defeat all-comers, they are outmatched. So what can we shoot for? Also, what might stop us getting there? Time is a big blockage whatever our method here.
Unlike fixed templates, intentions are one of the core pillars a constraints-led approach. An intention may look very much like a basic, especially if it is a movement such as “have a balanced approach to the crease”. The difference is that adaptability is built in, not added on.
Next we establish where they are at the moment. Play some modified games and see if they need to establish a technique (probably if total beginners) or adapt what they have. Different players will likely be at different stages.
Based on this we decide on the options:
* Representativeness and variability?
* What constraints?
* How you will measure success?
At early stages, success may be as simple as bowling with a straight arm and making contact with the ball, but this will quickly change.
* Representativeness and variability?
* What constraints?
* How you will measure success?
At early stages, success may be as simple as bowling with a straight arm and making contact with the ball, but this will quickly change.
Incidentally, constraints are ways to direct attention towards available opportunities to act. This is “constrain to afford”. Constraints can be points systems, types of bat and ball, verbal instructions, pitch length and surface type. Tweak them towards your intention.
From these options we choose the actual practices. With beginners this will likely be simplified versions of the game that contain variability (repetition without repetition). They likely won’t contain broken down skills in isolation, unless there is a very strong reason.
One example is “catchy shubby”; a game that looks a lot like cricket that rewards effort and gives players repetitions in batting, bowling and fielding. You learn a lot about kids skill and motivation levels if you play this for 15 minutes. http://david25.com/blog/modified-games-for-cricket-a-primer
If we are talking technical, let’s take an intention from the ECB principles: A “decisive body movement to establish a stable base” when batting.
Rather than drilling movement, we can net and use points to direct attention: 1 point for contact, 1 point moving past a chalk line to illustrate not “getting stuck on the crease”, 1 point if you can hold the finish position for 3 seconds.
This manipulation of constraints affords players the option to explore and adapt without a specific template. The more tightly you constrain, the more it helps beginners.
As we move through our practices towards our intentions, we assess each of these stages and adapt the environment based on success. As we remove constraints we get closer to the full game with players with robust, adaptable skills.
