School cricket – Are we on the right track?

Sports

With the annexing of the World Cup in 1996 under Arjuna Ranatunga, Sri Lanka embraced limited over cricket like never before. People of all ages were drawn to it and the popularity of the game just increased at an unbelievable rate. Everybody either played limited over cricket or wanted to watch it! The fever was spreading. Unfortunately it seem to have spread a little bit too far and is now firmly in the schools cricket scene. The question here is do we need it so much in our school cricket?

Looking back as long as I could remember say the decade of the 70’s and even the 80’s, the standard of School Cricket in Sri Lanka was at a high very high level and was even called the best in the world.
Those were days when school boys just walked in to the national team.

The likes of Bandula Warnapura, Anura Ranasinghe, Sidath Wettimuny, Ranjan Madugalle, Arjuna Ranatunga, Aravinda De Silva and Rumesh Ratnayake to name a few were just automatic choices despite being either in School or just out of it. That’s how high the standard was. But why doesn’t it happen now? Why aren’t the modern school boys in that league? Have we looked at this question closely? If we have what are the answers and what action have we taken to remedy it? Surely all of us agree that school cricket is in the most important aspect of a player development being called the nursery of the game. Then it is equally important that we pay due attention to it. Successive Chairman of the Interim Committee of Sri Lankan cricket including the current Chairman Mr. D.S. De Silva has emphasized the need to develop and foster it.

Aravinda de Silva… It was an era where the schools produced enough material straight from the block to the national grid.

If that is so what is the root cause of Sri Lanka schools not developing quality players in greater numbers? I am sure there may be many reasons, but as for me I would point my finger firmly at the so called shorter version or the limited over game!The level the limited over game has taken its position in the school scene is confirmed by the fact that it is played from the very young age of Under13 to the first XI stage! And it has been made very competitive. Win at any cost seem to be the motto of the Coach, Master in Charge and even the Principal of the School. I feel this approach and attitude has caused an adverse effect on the budding cricketer! It was only a few years ago that there was a thought to introduce Indoor Cricket to the Schools. I just Thank God that, it didn’t materialize. Otherwise the dropping of standards would have been hastened. I am in no way suggesting that Indoor Cricket is bad. Its great enjoyment! But I am afraid it’s not for young kids who are our future in cricket.

Getting back to the current limited over structure it is 50 over’s per side and played just like any other limited over game with bowling restrictions etc. this would naturally mean that young cricketers have to just start moving from the word go with the bat in hand. The primary objective is to score runs and runs fast at a good pace. Of course that’s the concept and you got to follow it if you want to win. But deviating slightly what is the objective of school cricket in this country? Is it to win Tournaments only or to produce future national cricketers? I feel it’s more the latter. If that is the case, can the limited over game and that approach produce the real genuine article or do we produce the one’s we call the bit’s and pieces cricketers? I can support my argument that it doesn’t support the development of the genuine cricketers, by the fact that the approach to it is not in keeping on those lines of development. Let’s digress further! Does the limited over format allow a batsman to take his time over an innings? Does it encourage the batsman to leave the ball more being aware, where his off stump is when deciding on a stroke to play or not to play?

I am sure any coach worth his salt will agree that it is important for a batsman to know where his off stump is and to also know how to leave a ball out side his off stump. Otherwise it is a case of fishing outside one’s off stump. Also the very fact of building an innings is another important area in young batsmen’s development which will be just thrown out of the window. And in bowling can a team afford the luxury of a spinner buying wickets by flighting the ball? Will a spinner hit for a few boundaries be given an extended bowl? Will an attacking fast bowler who may go for a few runs be given the opportunity to get his wickets? I feel in the name of winning, they will not be allowed to bowl that way. Instead there, may be changes to suit the negative style of play! If that is so where is the development? And how can limited over cricket be of help to young kids in schools?

It is time that the authorities look at this more closely and devise a method which will protect the game, the player and also maintain its entertainment value. I also feel that with the advent of T 20 cricket that the schools may be tempted to try something in that sphere too, which again will be another detriment to the young cricketer.

So what is the answer to this? I strongly feel and support the fact that school cricket should be entertaining. Young kids, the school authorities should be able to derive satisfaction by savoring the feeling of a win. But at the same time let’s not destroy or stifle the development of the young cricketer.
I suggest school cricket at junior level commencing Under 13 to Under17 should not be involved in limited over cricket. May be play 100 overs a day and encourage the teams to go for a win without restricting the overs per innings. This will challenge batsmen to build an innings and also be positive without being extravagant. It will help bowlers develop and the thinking to dismiss batsmen rather than just restrict them. It will also help the captain to adopt strategies to win games rather than knowing that, one can be negative and restrict the art of scoring. It will definitely help the game and the player to develop. However if there is a school of thought of wanting to have more action at junior level, then the coaches should look at encouraging horses for courses.

What I mean here is encourage and have three different types of teams. i.e the team suited for the longer version, the 50 over and even the T.20 version. With the world of cricket evolving and national teams also taking that approach of different combinations for different formats, the schools could take a cue out of it. At least it will not then stifle the development of the real match winner! I mean a batsman who could score a big hundred in the classical mould of either Mahela Jayewardene, Kumara Sangakkara and Thilan Samaraweera or bowlers who could dismiss batsman on a regular basis and get 20 wickets in a game. I don’t mean that the others are not match winners or the players in the shorter versions can not be classified that way. But here I am referring to the genuine article the real batsman and the bowler who plays test cricket. After all test cricket is still the real thing and the day we lose that cricket will not be attractive to many of its followers. So how do we sustain it? Let’s produce young cricketers who can play the game and protect the players we have in hand and then our objective will be achieved.

= Roshan Abeysinghe is a leading cricket promoter and an international cricket commentator

E-mail

views[1]