Does anyone speak up for the coaches?

I don’t think it would be unfair to suggest that ECB Coach Development (the group within the England & Wales Cricket Board with responsibility for developing coaches, at all levels of the game, from grassroots to the professional game) has lacked a little direction recently. An interim Head for two years, then a vacant post for another year, and most recently an appointment who, 12 months in, has yet to be introduced to the coaches he is tasked with developing.

There have been a couple of revealing “coach development” news snippets, recently, revealing in that neither said anything at all about developing cricket coaching (or coaches) beyond the professional game or the private schools in England & Wales.

Nor about addressing the genuine issues of inclusion raised by ICEC, nor the ongoing (apparent) failures of coaching (at all levels of the development pathway) in England (& Wales) to develop players ready for the international stage.

Developments from Coach Development?

Speaking on the keynote Q&A panel, “Catching the Spirit? The ICC Women’s T20i World Cup”, at last month’s Cricket Research Conference, Laura MacLeod mentioned an ECB Coach Development programme to fast-track women players to coaching roles within the professional game.

Listen from 23.03 for the discussion of coaching in the women’s game, and of fast-tracking women coaches. On the day, I didn’t have the heart to ask how fast tracking would replicate the experience of e.g. Charlotte Edwards.

And the new ECB Head of Coach Development, Diccon Edwards, will speak exclusively to sports teachers from independent schools on the theme of “Developing Modern Cricket Coaches”, at the upcoming National Conference for Heads of Cricket in Schools. Rob Reed, over at his onemoresummer blog, has posed a highly pertinent question about what this event might reveal of the ECB’s attitude towards broader structural change within the game.

Without sight of the Coach Development strategy (or, indeed, the Head of Coach Development), it might be concluded that the ECB Coach Development team (directed by the ECB) will be more interested in supporting “high performance coaches” than with an interest in the craft of coaching and grassroots.

A strategy for Coach Development?

2017 — John Neal’s strategy

John Neal, the previous Head of Coach Development, did espouse a joined up strategy for coaching.

And it was based on a quietly revolutionary vision.

• Coaches should aspire to be “world class at being curious” — coaches as active learners, perhaps.
• As part of the process, Neal wanted to “…encourage coaches to share…when you share, you all get better, the sport gets better…” — coach as active networker…ironic, then, that the only forum for ECB Coaches to share, the Coaches Association, was soon to be stifled, apparently at Neal’s instigation!
• And, as a definition of the role of the coach, this sounds pretty compelling— “…a coach’s job is to help people explore…” — coach as wayfinder

Although I do wonder how many coaches actually watched John’s interview for the 2018 edition of ECB CA’s “Wings to Fly”, where he outlined this vision.

Or, indeed, how much buy-in he received from the Coach Development teams around the country.

But the strategy [1] (never formally published, as far as I know, but as deduced from other interviews Neal gave, and actions prior to his departure from the role) probably looked like this.

Diagnosis

• The coaching community is not representative of the playing community, actual or potential.
• Gatekeepers keep it so.
• Education & development opportunities are controlled by the gatekeepers, but also by wider issues of accessibility — cost & time.
  • Courses were expensive, especially for “hobby” coaches who might not have disposable income without first gaining a coaching qualification;
  • Courses frequently ran across multiple weekends.

Policy

• Remove gatekeepers.
• Reduce cost & time of “entry” qualifications.
• Introduce more opportunities to learn on-the-job (coach developers as mentors to newly qualified Foundation & Core coaches) and via access to ongoing CPD.

Actions

• The Coaches Association has been neutered, reducing the role of the gatekeepers, but nothing put in its place — now, no-one speaks for the coaches.
• Foundation & Core Coach courses (levels 1 & 2) are cheaper than before, and selective bursaries are available.
  • The courses themselves have been criticised for removing most technical content — “dumbing down” — but this was to be addressed by the provision of mentors and more accessible CPD opportunities.
  • I have heard similar criticisms of the new level 3 & 4 qualifications, that they now attempt to substitute for experience that was previously required to even join a course at that level. Good for networking, but little new knowledge for a coach who has actually been coaching & developing themselves.
• Enhanced CPD:
  • videos on icoachcricket;
  • face-to-face “learning workshops” (which only recreate the challenge of time and accessibility — fine if you can travel 50 miles to a course on a Saturday or Sunday morning).
    • But there’s not much scope for “learning” here, only “telling”.
• If the mentor scheme has ever been rolled out, it has been a quiet launch, quite possibly kept in-house by the very gatekeepers who were meant to be moved aside…

Did John Neal’s strategy for Coach Development ever get a fair chance? It’s true that the COVID lockdowns got in the way…but for me, the enforced time away from face-to-face coaching & coach educating would have been exactly the time to prepare new materials, new curricula, new teaching & learning methodologies…and it didn’t happen.

The demise of the Coaches Association

Speaking at the ECB CA’s 2017 Conference at St George’s Park, late on the final day, Neal told the assembled coaches that we were not representative of coaches “in the community”.

The role of the national CA was to be reduced.

The Coaches Association back then was semi-independent, but the last chair stepped down/was removed after the 2017 Conference and never replaced. Now, I understand that local County CAs are responsible for their own coaches — precious little evidence of this — and “ECB CA” is little more than a licensing & publishing arm for Coach Development.

There were, perhaps, understandable reasons for reducing the influence of the CA as it previously existed, most notably that it was dominated by coaches already embedded in the system who also acted as gatekeepers to the higher coaching levels i.e. County pathways and beyond.

But pushing the functions back to the Counties only perpetuates the gatekeeping function…that’s where there is even the capacity to take on any additional organisational responsibility.

And now there is no forum to bring coaches together, national or local. I have heard this even from District coaches, who have little or no contact with their local CAG coaches. And from parents of children who have seen the CAG groups below U13 replaced by broader Early Engagement Programmes.

Another way — the Umpires Strike Back

The Association of Cricket Umpires & Scorers were also taken over by the ECB back in 2008 (becoming the ECB Association of Cricket Officials), but I have experienced significantly more kick back from local associations. The Metropolitan Essex Umpires successfully opposed merger into a wider London organisation (where they expected to find themselves subservient to the more numerous Middlesex & Surrey Umpire reps), and still organise local training to ECB ACO standards but delivered in a uniquely “collegial” [2] format.

Maybe umpires carry more clout than coaches? Or, having more experienced members (and older members retired from 9-5 work with time to dedicated to organising resistance), are better able to organise themselves?

ECB Coach Development, 2026

Diccon Edwards quite possibly doesn’t consider himself “Head of Coaching” — he is (just) responsible for developing professional coaches, and sees the shortcut of fast tracking former players as the way to go.

A job ad was posted for a “Targeted Programmes Manager” (2025, possibly unfilled?), in which further elements of the strategy were elaborated a little – the new strategy “…places significantly more emphasis on targeted programmes, continuous professional development and bespoke learning and development programmes…The programmes will focus on certain coaching groups (e.g., female coaches in the professional game, player to coach cohorts and leadership programmes).”

A Learning Development Manager was tasked with “[d]evelop[ing] and embed[ding] the principles of RPL/QBE [Recognition of Prior Learning & Qualification By Experience] within the coach education programmes.”

A fast track into coaching for the boys & girls.

---

[1] Strategy — I use the word in a more formal sense than “our strategy to win is to score more runs than the opposition”. Starting from the vision (where do we want to go?), it proceeds via diagnosis (what is the problem preventing us from achieving our vision?), via policy (how do we hope to achieve our aims?) to actions (what do we need to do?).

[2] “Collegial” learning — I experienced this first-hand when taking my entry level umpiring qualification, with the Metropolitan Essex Umpires group. Rather than the traditional lecture & test format, training was delivered over a longer period of time with weekly sessions to which all the local (qualified) umpires were invited. Each session included the lecture & test component, delivered by a tutor, but included general discussion of the Laws with the experienced umpires contributing. So trainees learnt the Laws, got real-life insight into their application, and got to meet their future umpiring colleagues, all at the same time. Wonderful learning.