The 'nurdle to leg' and other ways of winning cricket matches

The emergence of Twenty20 cricket at the elite level has been marketed on the excitement of the big hitter, where it seems that winning is a result of the muscular batter hitting boundaries at will. This version of the game has captured the imagination of many young players who all want to score runs with “big hits”. However, in junior cricket, boundary hitting is often more difficult due to size limitations of children and games played on outfields where the ball does not travel quickly. As a result, winning is often achieved via a less spectacular route – by scoring more singles than your opponents. However, most standard coaching texts only describe how to play boundary scoring shots (e.g. the drives, pulls, cuts and sweeps) and defensive shots to protect the wicket. Learning to bat appears to have been reduced to extremes of force production, i.e. maximal force production to hit boundaries or minimal force production to stop the ball from hitting the wicket. Initially, this is not a problem because the typical innings of a young player (<12 years) would be based on the concept of “block” or “bash” – they “block” the good balls and “bash” the short balls. This approach works because there are many opportunities to hit boundaries off the numerous inaccurate deliveries of novice bowlers. Most runs are scored behind the wicket by using the pace of the bowler’s delivery to re-direct the ball, because the intrinsic dynamics (i.e. lack of strength) of most children means that they can only create sufficient power by playing shots where the whole body can contribute to force production. This method works well until the novice player comes up against more accurate bowling when they find they have no way of scoring runs. Once batters begin to face “good” bowlers, batters have to learn to score runs via singles. In cricket coaching manuals (e.g. ECB, n.d), running between the wickets is treated as a separate task to batting, and the “basics” of running, such as how to “back- up”, carry the bat, calling and turning and sliding the bat into the crease are “drilled” into players. This task decomposition strategy focussing on techniques is a common approach to skill acquisition in many highly traditional sports, typified in cricket by activities where players hit balls off tees and receive “throw-downs” from coaches. However, the relative usefulness of these approaches in the acquisition of sporting skills is increasingly being questioned (Pinder, Renshaw & Davids, 2009). We will discuss why this is the case in the next section.

Critical reflections on the use of participatory methodologies to build evaluation capacities in international development organisations

There has been a greater focus on strengthening evaluation capacity building (ECB) within development organisations in recent years. This can be attributed in part to the growing appreciation of the value of participatory and collaborative forms of evaluation. Evaluation is increasingly seen as an ongoing learning process and an important means of strengthening capacity and improving organisational performance (Horton et al., 2003:7). While there are many benefits of using participatory methodologies in ECB projects, our experiences and a review of the literature in this area highlight the many challenges, issues and contradictions that can affect the success of such ECB efforts. We discuss these issues, drawing on our learnings from the ongoing participatory action research (PAR) project 'Assessing Communication for Social Change’ (AC4SC). This four year project, which began in 2007, is a collaboration between communication and development academics and evaluation specialists from two Australian universities and communication for development practitioners and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) staff in the NGO Equal Access Nepal (EAN). The aim is to develop, implement, and evaluate a participatory methodology for assessing the social change impacts of community radio programs produced by EAN. It builds on previous projects that used ethnographic action research (EAR) methodology (Tacchi et al., 2007).