County Age Group coaches and pathway leaders should be tasked, as part of the State Schools Action Plan…, with delivering a positive State school cricket offering at the U10-U13 level.
Holding Up a Mirror to Cricket — A Report by the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket, June 2023: Recommendation 41
The intention behind this, as with all of the recommendations in the ICEC Report, being to reduce inequity in the game — in this instance, specifically targeting the under-representation of State school educated players in the professional game.
This recommendation (shifting U13 CAG coaches from selective pathways into schools) sits alongside a wider feeling that U13 is too simply early to select (and de-select) players.
In the course of a lengthy conversation on this subject with fellow coaches on the future (on X-tter — it’s not entirely toxic on there), we were challenged to envisage what the new pyramid at U13 might look like.
My attempt to answer this (modified a little since the original discussion), follows.
Problems
First, a few thoughts on why change is needed, and on what directions that change might take.
The problem with selection at U13 and younger
Cricket at this age needs to emphasise engagement, IMO — creating the broadest playing base, and keeping young players in the game, for as long as possible, at least until (some of) the well-reported selection biases — Relative Age Effect; Independent- over State-educated — start to decline.
Several Counties had started to move down this route, before the COVID lockdowns, replacing representative cricket with development & coaching groups at u12. One, at least, has reverted to playing multiple games against other Counties — possibly in parallel with the development groups, but with the obvious reintroduction of selection, at U12 in this instance.
Re-allocating CAG coaches to schools
For a variety of reasons, I am not entirely convinced that “…enabling [qualified County coaches] to reorient their engagement towards the state sector…” (by coaching yrs5-8 in primary & secondary schools), as envisaged by ICEC, will achieve the desired results.
“Qualified County coaches” will have qualified to coach in a development (or even “performance”) environment, not the world of participation (or disengagement) they are likely to encounter in a PE class.
Good people, undoubtedly, but an inefficient use of resources.
I am also a little uncertain how well this will work with children already disaffected by the State education system. Cricket might be there way back in…but they might already see their future outside of school.
The “community” pathway needs to be developed, not just schools.
The problem with cricket in schools
I have argued previously that I do not see State schools, or school hubs, as the solution to this problem.
As a former Governor at a (selective) State school, I saw how little time there was for sport within an exam-based curriculum. Success is measured in GCSE and A-level grades; funding follows grades. And with exams in the summer term, there is increasingly little time even to schedule cricket, let alone to provide anything approximating to the development opportunities available in the private education sector.
A new U13 pyramid — an attempt to define a new pathway
This first appeared as a series of tweets (Xs?) in November 2023. A few of the ideas have been developed further, outside the character limits of Twitter.
Club “clusters”
There will be no County Age Groups teams at U13 (but see below for County-level involvement).
Club “clusters”, of maybe half a dozen clubs (extended to include “community” and (State) school, as locally appropriate), playing against each other but also cooperating on coaching programmes (a place for the CAG coaches and/or senior club coaches).
Private schools would not be excluded (indeed, in some areas their facilities — and coaches — might be utilised), but perhaps the players should be encouraged to enrol with clubs or community projects. A team entirely from an independent school might just dominate the cluster, and only serve to exacerbate the disproportionate selection that is seen today.
The cluster might operate more as an off-season training group, alongside a winter competitive programme of indoor cricket, with clubs running their own programmes over the summer season, but it is important that players from outside the traditional club structure (community and school settings) feel able to access practice facilities and coaching in season, as well. Maybe allow them to practice, but only pay a membership if they want to start playing for the club teams?
Lead club
There could probably be a “lead” club, perhaps one with better facilities and/or coaches — to be tested as per old Clubmark — but leadership needs to be (seen to be) democratic and shared, or the perception will be that “ECB Premier” clubs are participating only to cream off the better prospects.
Selecting the lead — what makes a “good” club?
From another strand of the same conversation on Twitter — criteria for identifying a “good”club.
- Retention — do players stay with the Club over time, or drift in and out again?
- Accessibility & inclusion (both by ability & age — good clubs welcome late starters).
- Diversity of players & coaches (contentious; needs to be context-sensitive; difficult to quantify).
- Parental engagement (see above).
- “Lived” coaching philosophy — do coaches “walk the walk”?
- Outreach & recruitment (active or passive?).
- Further down the list: games won — winning matters!
This list might be contentious, in several aspects — but for now, I’ll leave it here.
Club engagement
All clubs to run U11, U13 & U15 XIs, plus National Programmes (except where this would place them in competition with local community provision).
I believe that it is important that the clubs demonstrate a commitment to both developing their own players (U11) and finding a place for players beyond U13 who do not progress to a development pathway but want to carry on playing (and developing).
Personally, I would not ask for a team at U16 (the GCSE year!), and I am not convinced by the need for U18/19 and U21 in a Club setting…but others might disagree.
FWIW — locally, at least, this seems to encourage the formation of “super Select” XIs, pulling players from multiple Club settings to win competitions, the antithesis of participation and learning.
Beyond the clusters
Summer holiday programme of “rep” games between clusters, leading up to district/region, perhaps. This could operate at U13 and U11, if the interest is there (and the emphasis is on development, not performance — learning, not (only) winning).
In parallel, extended MCCF hub-style coaching, perhaps County “Emerging Player Programmes” or more open “development” days, with emphasis on coaching, not playing.
Beyond the U13 pyramid
As Rob Reed (@NoThirdMan) observed:
This broadens the base up to U14. Essentially district teams (with larger squads?) instead of narrow CAGs.
Rob Reed, via X-tter
How do we ensure the same biases currently found do not re-occur?
Will the make up of CAGs at U14 be any different?
Will more state kids enter FCC academies/become pro players?
By reducing early selection, there should hopefully be less selection bias.
Will the bigger kids, and the Q1 birthdays, still get selected over their younger or smaller classmates? Yes, without other interventions.
But, if more players, with wider age- & development spread, are still in the game post-13, there is some chance of less age-bias at u14.
If we can keep state kids in the system for longer, and give them more developmental opportunities (not only coaching), yes, I’d hope to see more in Academies, as the Academies will be fed by the more inclusive “districts”, not the prematurely closed off CAG pathway, as today.
Perhaps…
What do you think? Leave a reply.