John Stern: England robots no match for Indian flair
November 25th, 2008 by John Stern in County cricket, England, England in India, Miscellaneous and tagged cricket, England, India, John Stern, the wisden cricketer
England’s limp performance in India has reopened the ‘over-coaching’ debate. In the dark blue corner you have the super-correct Ian Bell, the ultimate product of the ECB system, while in the light blue corner you have Yuvraj Singh, England’s long-handled nemesis who golf-shots yorkers for six.
This is not about who’s the better player – after all Yuvraj does not command a Test place. This is about innovation versus orthodoxy, individual versus robot.
Awash with Sky TV money, the English game is investing like never before in academies and other strands of its grass roots. In theory, this has to be a good thing. Anybody who has been to the facility at Loughborough cannot fail to be impressed. At the elite end of the game, nothing, it seems, is left to chance.
English cricket has always been conservative, hamstrung by class, tradition and convention. The concern is that our efforts to improve standards and compete with Australia and the like has made the game more institutionalised and is curbing individualism rather than encouraging it.
The two least conventional specialist in England’s one-day side are Kevin Pietersen and Owais Shah, both learned much of their cricket overseas (almost all in KP’s case). Shah has had a huge struggle (still ongoing) to have his quirky batsmanship accepted and trusted at the highest level.
In Loughborough at the start of last week, Kevin Shine, the ECB’s senior fast-bowling coach, made an impassioned assertion about the importance of strength, conditioning and injury prevention. Shine has been accused of trying to clone fast bowlers, notably Stuart Broad and Liam Plunkett. He denies all charges but there are a number of experienced and expert witnesses around who testify that his ethos is counter-productive and stifles the sort of match-winning individuality that England need.
Two days later at a new school in a deprived area of Bristol, the ECB chairman Giles Clarke was waxing lyrical about a boy who had never picked up a cricket ball until that morning but found he could bowl a natural inswinger. Clarke revelled in the rawness of the talent, the unconventional action and made analogies with the organic talent-spotting on the streets and maidans of Asia. Yet for this boy to ‘make it’ even as far as a local club requires commitment and conformity that may not be entirely inclusive.
In the next issue of TWC (out on December 19) we have a feature about Leicestershire and their admirable quest to wean themselves off their Kolpak habit and populate their side with home-grown players. Of the six young players we have highlighted, five are at private school. This is not to decry the productive links that Leicestershire have forged with their local private schools.
But it does raise the question about how wide the net is really being cast when it comes to elite selection. Is cricket in England becoming less rather than more egalitarian?
John Stern is editor of The Wisden Cricketer
Posted in County cricket, England, England in India, Miscellaneous | 8 Comments »
November 25th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
The fact is- India never needed Yuvraj Singh in the team- they just couldn’t accomodate him, what with a batting phalanx comprising Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar and Ganguly.
He’s set to enter the Test team after a long hiatus and he’s sure to rewrite all his Tests records a good deal.
So watch out- soon you shall be writing in the same blog that Bell isn’t as good a player as Yuvraj in any form of the game.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Just because Yuvraj does not find a place in the Indian test team and Bell is a regular in england test team does not mean that Bell is somehow a superior batsman. It just goes on to show how strong the indian middleorder is where even a batsman as naturally talented as yuvraj cannot find a spot and how mediocre england’s test middle order is that a batsmen who is quite one-dimensional as Bell is become a regular. If england had a batsmen who is atleast half as good as Yuvraj is in their one day team the whole english press would have been crying their voices hoarse for including him in the current english team as a replacement for any batsmen except petersen.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:45 am
i think you make an excellent point.
in sri lanka or india or pakistan , we bring to light some of the most unorthodox players in the game.
would a ajantha mendis ever have made it in england ?
there definitely seems to be a case of over coaching as you have mentioned in england. in asia this is not the case. we look at what the kids got and let him run with it, only giving him advice on some technical things. the rest we leave up to the player.
maybe its a good thing to research into how its done in this part of the world as coaching training for some of those grass root level coaches.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Congratulations to the first two commenter’s, who succinctly and lucidly miss the point entirely.
I’ve never felt that it is over coaching that constrains England’s cricket, rather the point made towards the end of the piece, citing the need for a wider net to be cast, is very pertinent.
Generally the quality of coaching is overly limited, with coaches resistant to embrace a diversity of methods. In Asia, if you look at kids playing they tend to mimic the styles (orthodox or not) of their hero’s on TV. Having coaches aid this process alongside developing the essentials of technique would be a better approach. Advice from knowledgeable and flexible coaches could never be a hinderence to a player.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“Overcoaching” is one of those catch all terms that is hard to define. How do you know when someone is being overcoached?
I don’t think over coaching exists. Just bad coaching methods, good coaching methods and no coaching at all (which can often lead to players with greater confidence and freedom).
November 28th, 2008 at 9:23 am
congrats to sahilvaughan for being an idiot.
Those 2 & me get the point,but disagree with that statement in the article.
Just because Yuvraj isn’t in the test team doesn’t make him a lesser player.Ian bell wouldn’t make a school team in delhi.I know he was the Man of the series against India in England.But that old-dinosaur team would have been beat by Bangladesh.Actually they were,in the WC.
I don’t think the problem is over coaching.The problems with england is they don’t pick up the ball early enough.For all their correct techniques(its all a sham) they get routinely humiliated by Indian & Pakistani bowlers home & away.Ian Bell has hand skills but has a very poor eye like most of his mates.Coaching in England is 150 times better than that in India.Coaches try & ‘correct’ techniques all the time but it depends on the players.Like Sehwag,his coach emphasised & even hit him a few times because he didn’t move his feet.Does he now??Even the Indian guys with good techniques hit the ball out of the ground with regularity unlike your guys.Simply put england suck at Limited overs cricket & are mid-rung in tests.If the hypocritical ECB can concentrate on improving the quality of cricket in England rather than wasting its time trying to devalue the IPL ,perhaps you’d be better than bangladesh in 10 years.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Sadly a number of contributers here not only miss the point entirely, but totally lack a sense of irony.
In any event, at no point does the article state that Bell is a better batsman than Yuvraj. The point is that technical correctness alone(and surely one can’t deny that Bell is a more correct player than Singh), does not a great batsman make.
And that individuality is not easily tolerated by the English system – even Sathnam Mann, Rex and KK1 couldn’t take issue with that.
Presumably…..
December 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
if viv was born in alderley edge and had the mcc coaching manual forced on him aged 10 he would never have played for lancashire let alone england.