Coaching is simple.

That’s what people say who have a strong opinion about coaches.

It leads to quips like Shane Warne saying a coach is “something you travel to in the game”. It leads to people saying “they have more back room staff than cricketers!”

Why not keep the game simple?

Why not forget about all these coaches tinkering with player’s natural games?

Because the job of the coach isn’t simple. You can’t reduce coaches or the role of coaching down to a one-liner. And so, to know how much coaching cricket needs, we need to look in more detail.

What is a coach?

It’s difficult to define what a coach is. The name encompasses so many different jobs and styles.

The community coach bringing cricket to 11 year olds has a very different day, personality and set of skills to the Head Coach of a national team. Think about all the different coaches in the game.

Juniors are different from adults, women different from men, elite players are different from recreational players, power hitting is different from touch play and spinners are different from seamers. That’s before we even start to talk about fielding, fitness, nutrition and psychology coaching.

In broad terms, a coach is someone who helps you get the best from yourself. Usually they are in a formally appointed position, but not always.

Clearly the needs of the players and the team will vary depending on the level, but the overal theme remains the same.

How many coaches do you need?

With such a wide range of skills needed by players, the obvious arguement is for more coaches with more specialist knowledge. Especially in the elite game.

Of course, at lower levels this is less important as coaches are there to install passion and develop the basics. One generalist coach feels like plenty for the local club under 15s.

So, opinions vary but how do we know how many is right?

The problem is, we have no real measure of a coaches’ effectiveness.

That means when a team wins, the coaches are praised and when a team loses the coaches are criticised. And this simplified approach crosses all levels. I have seen junior coaches be criticised by parents when a team does poorly. It’s not reserved for the pros.

But winning is about far more than the coach. Let’s face it, it’s mostly about the players. They are the ones on the pitch. So, to use winning as a yardstick for coaching success is a problem.

In reality, success is more subtle. It’s about creating an environment of development that creates confident, happy people. It’s about ensuring players enjoy the game. It’s about the big picture. Quality over quantity.

If you get these things right, you tend to win games any way. Have you noticed?

So, will more coaches improve those things?

Maybe, but it’s impossible to say for sure because these are complex, dynamic human relationships that can’t be boiled down to checking the results sheet and averages.

Forget numbers

So, I will argue that we don’t need to worry at all about how many coaches there are.

Yes, we need more good coaches at every level with suitable skill sets.

Yes, we need more specialists who can improve specifics like spin bowling, mental game and strength and conditioning.

Yet, we also need to be sure that every coach is contributing to the overall plan of helping players and teams improve. Every coach is part of the environment and either helps it or hurts it. If they hurt it, they are not coaches.

I would rather have one coach who inspires than 100 specialists who don’t contribute to player development.

So the sooner we get away from reducing coaching down to weight of numbers, the better we will be able to get the right coaches in front of the right players at the right time.

That’s what builds cricket.