The Truth about LTAD for Cricket
From parents to coaches; a lot of people care about producing the next generation of high-class cricketers.
That’s why Long Term Athlete Development (LTAD) is attractive: it’s a governing-body approved model for what to teach and when to teach it.
LTAD is a just model. It has really only been around for 10 years. There is little proof that it works.
There is also evidence that you can eschew the model and still be a success. Shane Warne couldn’t make it through the structure of the Australian Academy system. There are many stories of players developing later than the model allows, yet still becoming a success (Chris Read and Dirk Nannes both have unusual stories).
Players can miss the LTAD “Windows of Opportunity” and still reach their potential.
It’s certainly not perfect.
For example, the LTAD says that strength training should be focused on boys 12-18 months after their main growth spurt. The reality is that strength training, when properly designed, can be implemented at any age.
But there is an absence of competing models, meaning the coach has no choice but to follow this model. So the truth is that when you are planning ways to develop player you would be foolish to avoid the LTAD.
And the model does give coaches with no background in sport science an excellent skeleton to begin your long term planning. That’s something which would be unheard of at club/school/academy level even a handful of years ago.
Use it as a jump off point but be mindful about the individual needs of your players, both in terms of cricket skills and fitness levels.
- Login to post comments
Comments
I don't buy everything about LTAD, but I do agree 100% with the basic stages and the principles its founded on, starting with a focus on enjoyment and gradually getting more serious and technical.
First, teach your kids to enjoy sports in general and give them the foundations to be "natural" athletes later in life.
Now, teach them to enjoy cricket specifically, and give them the foundations to be technically competent all-round cricketers.
Finally, once they're hooked, teach them the serious stuff: technical details, strength training, mental strength, role-specific skills.
Without LTAD, many coaches and parents instinctively go straight to stage 3 in the search for quick results. The result is almost always disaster, rigid, orthodox technique and no real flair, athleticism or even a real love for the game: you can't build a house without foundations.
The number of brilliant batsmen/bowlers/wicketkeepers who aren't first and foremost excellent all round cricketers and superb natural athletes can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
It's certain that the more enjoyable coached make training, the better players come out of the system.
I hear what you're saying AB, but to be honest I find the notion delayed skills training accoding to LTAD down right idiotic.
It fails in its very first premise that motor skills training and specific skills training are somehow mutually exclusive to ANY DEGREE
It fails in its subsequent premise in that learning and mastering specific skills for young players is not every bit as enjoyable as 'free playing with natural flair'. In fact that is attitude is somewhat insulting to young players.. as if all they are capable of is 'play time'.. and only thrive in an absence of structure. In my experience, quite the contrary applies: firstly they want to emulate their heros, so want to play actual games not prissy non-competitive activities with no meaning, and secondly, they want the play to 'mean something' by playing according to rules - both in terms of the game , but also in terms of minimum of technique... ie people trying tobowl properly, taking stance properly, fiedling in propoer positions, wickets that mean something rather than just endless free turns etc... and they look to adults to help create that formality (both game and technique wise)
Of course children should play more than one sport and learn all kinds of motorskills: but they should also be introduced and exposed to fundamentals and encouraged.
To argue otherwise is to aruge children dont need to be taught table manners because they'll learn better social skills eating like animals for 10 years. Good in the flower power years I suppose; but then I didnt go to a Montesori school!
The thing is - you only have a limited window to teach kids athleticism. If they haven't got it by the time they hit their growth spurt around 11/12 its too late, they will never be "natural athletes" - in fact the idea that some people are "naturally athletic" is entirely wrong - its just a matter of whether they were exposed to the right activities and coaching during the crucial years.
You have their whole lives to teach them the technical details of a square drive. You only have a limited window to teach them agility and coordination. If you don't get the foundations right there will be nothing to build on later.
Sure, if you're confident that your kids are ready to move on to the next stage a couple of years early then go for it, but I've seen so many technically excellent 12 year olds turn out to be poor cricketers by the time they're 16 because the kids that were given a better foundation in the fundamentals pick up the technical stuff easily at the age 13-14 and just overtake them and leave them for dust.
I coach teenagers that are technically excellent but will never really get anyway because they just don't possess the natural athleticism. It's now too late for them, they will never to better than average cricketers. Blaming "fate" or "nature" is inaccurate - their problem is that they spent their pre-teen years being taught to bat "correctly" rather than being encouraged to develop their hand eye coordination by hitting the ball cleanly and instinctively.
Anyway, that's just my experience.
I'll give you a tale - I know of a set of twins who play cricket. They are identical twins and as far as I am aware have been exposed to the same training throughout their lives. This involved club cricket, county cricket, school and a lot of 1-2-1s with a range of coaches (mostly ex-pros).
Now, despite their almost certain identical experiences so far, one is a far better player than the other. He is talked about as being a natural, someone with ability. His brother is noted as being technically sound but is considered to be a cricketer who has been created.
So when considered the points of DBD and AB above, what is the truth? Well, I'd wager that both are correct to some extent.
Are the basics of technique important to know and understand as early as possible? Yes.
Can we make cricket fun for everyone? Yes.
Can I still play my tennis, football and rugby? Yes.
Does one size fit all? Of course not. There have to be frameworks and guidelines but if we stick rigidly to what's in the book we'll never move on. Would you have told Malinga to change his action? KP to stop that flick off one leg? Bosanquet not to bowl the googlie?
I don't disagree with any of these things. My main point is that its important to understand that by and large so called "natural" athletic abilities such as agility, hand-eye coordination, balance and quickness, can be taught - but only if you catch the cricketer early enough, whereas specific technical skills can be picked up at any age. So I know what my priority would be when coaching 6-11 year olds.
Here's an example: what do you think would be easier - taking a 15 year old kid who has a gift for clean hitting but a low average, and teaching him better shot selection and correcting his footwork, or taking a technically sound batsman who averages 40, but at a low strike rate because he just can't seem to hit the ball hard enough to reach the boundary and teaching him to hit halfvolleys for 6 back over the bowler's head?
The 1st is a couple of sessions work. The 2nd is next to impossible. Who do you think is has the better chance of being a successful cricketer by the time he leaves school?
There is scope for basics to be taught. The real problem is coaches focusing exclusively on perfect technique from the age of 6 and forgetting that many modern kids have no idea how to run, jump, land or throw safely and effectively (yes, really).
If you are an all-round athlete you could turn your hand to cricket much later than we used to think (there are notable examples of players not taking up the game until early teens but picking it up fast through their general motor skill development).
The fundamentals stage helps with broadening the traditional view that cricket skills are everything. Modern young players need to be fit, athletic AND skilful. Just playing cricket alone wont do it.
David
The demon Dirk has settled just off J17 of the M4 you should grab an interview. Nice guy and interesting story.
Steve
Good comments - but I'm not sure that all of the brilliant cricketers that reach international standard can be considered superb natural athletes.
Trott and Cook are clearly brilliant cricketers, but any spectator can see that there is a gulf between their 'natural athleticism' and Jimmy Anderson for instance.
Hoggard, Vaughan, Giles - I'm not sure they would characterise themselves as superb natural athletes?
One of the joys of cricket surely must be the extent to which success is possible for those that are not superb natural athletes.
The game would be infinitely poorer if it became an orthodoxy that it was a game only for those with athleticism.
You'd be surprised. If you took someone like Hoggard, Vaughan and Giles in their peak and tested their basic athleticism against the average club cricketer, you'd soon see the huge difference.
As for Trott. The guy may not look athletic by international standards, but if he joined your local Premier League team he would not only be the best batsman, but also the best fielder, probably the quickest bowler, and probably the best keeper if he felt like turning his hand to that as well.
I don't fully agree Andy, simply because I don't think its either/or.
I think anyone can develop athleticism given the right work. For the pros it should be a no-brainer to be athletic (even if it's not the most athletic in the team) because it is a skill that can be developed.
For grass-roots players it may be more difficult because of lack of time/resources/motivation but it can still be developed.
And if it can, why wouldn't you? As long as you are not replacing general athletic skills with cricket ones then just do it!