Back in December 2024, ECB Coaches Association (ECB CA) members were invited to attend a webinar entitled “Talking talent and inclusion” featuring the ECB’s recently appointed Pathway Inclusion Officers (PIOs).
The drive to make the pathway more inclusive is a hugely important project, for the ECB and for the game itself. But I had heard a (far from positive) review of a PIO presentation to a group of CAG coaches earlier in 2024, and was very interested to find out what was being said.
I missed the original webinar, unfortunately (Wednesday has been a regular work night for me, right through the off-season), and the recording has yet to be posted to the ECB CA website, but what I assume must be a transcript † of the webinar has recently been posted for ECB Coaches Association members. For such an important initiative, the published article contains several contentious, un-evidenced, claims, which apparently went unchallenged on the night.
Background — why the ECB has a problem with talent pathway inclusion
The 2023 ICEC report by the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket (ICEC), Holding Up a Mirror to Cricket reported how “…elitism alongside deeply rooted and widespread forms of structural and institutional racism, sexism and class-based discrimination continue to exist across the game.” The report called for decisive action to tackle discrimination, remove barriers and reform the game to make cricket more inclusive.
In reply, the ECB undertook to deliver “[w]ide-ranging action aim[ing] to tackle discrimination and break down barriers for women and girls, people from lower socio-economic groups, and ethnically diverse communities.”
One such initiative has been the appointment of the two PIOs to deliver the Talent Pathway Action Plan, intended to remove barriers, increase opportunities, and improve transitions from the pathway to the elite level.
A very important programme. So I was surprised and more than a little disappointed to see that the paper published recently, based on quotes from the PIOs, repeats several apparently unsupported assertions and one apparent insult to the coaching body.
Myths?
“The biggest factor [in the development of talented cricketers]…is access to high quality coaching.”
“…we do know very clearly that high quality coaching is the thing that takes those raw attributes of talent and turns them into something that can perform on a league stage.”
This seems very judgemental, and dismissive of the work of many coaches working in the Clubs — is it really the case that, if a player has not been through a high quality coaching environment (which the writer directly equates with that delivered by coaches working at private schools), he or she won’t be able to perform “on a league stage”.
How do “…we know [this] very clearly”? Is there any evidence to support this claim.
Indeed, what proportion of players in any ECB Premier league have received this “high quality coaching”?
Research funded by the ECB suggested that the decisive factor in the emergence of elite batters was not “access to high quality coaching” but the amount of more random and more varied practice the players engaged in at an earlier age, and also the amount of actual play the players were able to access.
Yes, the private schools do indeed offer superior facilities and greater access to coaching (as does early selection to County Age Group pathways, itself facilitated by early access to facilities & coaching). But I suspect a significant factor in that enhanced player development is the greater opportunity to play rather than access to “high quality” coaching.
“A factor in not attracting some coaches could be the structure around being a paid coach.”
“…a coach is paid for the hours that they deliver but [is not generally] paid for the hours that they spend preparing and reviewing, and for the hour that they spend afterward a session, talking in the corridor to the parent and then gradually working their way to the car park, desperately trying to get home while the parents are still talking to them.”
This seems at best naive. Freelance coaches are already paid to deliver coaching. Not just the time with the players, but also the expertise and experience that the coach brings. “Coaching” includes preparation, and review, and revision, and ongoing learning.
“A great way to inspire people is for their coach or leader to be like them.”
This has been reported to be true in attracting participants in recreational settings, as research (in a presentation at the 2025 Cricket Research Network conference— as yet unpublished?) into the Chance to Shine Street programme has clearly demonstrated.
But is there any evidence that this (that coach or leader should “be like the players”) applies at development or performance level in cricket?
If so, should not the current England Men’s team be coached by a privately educated, white, English, man?
And no man should ever coach the England Women’s team…
Frankly, this assertion seems just a little ill-considered. Aside from the apparent lack of supporting evidence, is it OK to tell coaches that they aren’t good enough (that someone else will be more able to inspire “people”) because of how they look?
That there is a problem, and they are part of it?
Reminiscent of the occasion when the then Head of Coach Development told the coaches assembled at an ECB Coaches Association Conference that they were not representative of the wider cricket coaching community, because the un-qualified, un-registered people reported to be delivering cricket coaching “in the community” were more important.
And that this (unknown, unidentified) cohort should be the focus of the ECB’s ongoing coach development efforts. Seemingly with no role for the assembled coaches.
It seems a strange way to motivate people.
As has been said in a different (ECB cricket) context — you surely don’t make a space more inclusive by alienating the incumbents.
Conclusion — ECB & ICEC
I wrote previously about the ECB’s “re-interpretation” of two of the ICEC recommendations about the CAG pathway. How “no selection until u14” has become “selection at u13”, and CAG coaching resources won’t be re-allocated to engagement projects in (State) schools.
And this latest publication, with its un-evidenced assertions and apparent disregard for the current coaching body, does not seem well placed to win over opinion.
† “Hitting the Seam, The Official Magazine of the ECB Coaches Association”, issue 47.1, March 2025 (available to ECB CA members via iCoachCricket.ecb.co.uk)
The Teesra 
What do you think? Leave a reply.