Vaas questions standard of SLC’s Level 3 Course
Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) is set to conduct its next Level 3 Coaching Course in October, with 21 candidates shortlisted from over 50 applications. But even as the Board prepares to roll out the programme, the country’s coaching system is facing stinging criticism from former fast bowler Chaminda Vaas, who has warned that Sri Lanka’s Level 3 falls well below international standards.“A certificate must represent knowledge, skill, and dedication. Our game deserves quality coaches, not shortcuts,” he said.
“In England, Australia and New Zealand, Level 3 can only be done by invitation. It’s that hard to get and you need years of experience to do that”.
His remarks have reopened a debate about the credibility of Sri Lanka’s coaching qualifications. According to Vaas, too many candidates pursue Level 3 simply to add a certificate to their CVs rather than to gain meaningful knowledge.
“Level 1 and 2 cover basics. Level 3 is about man management and handling elite players. Sadly, our standard is very low,” he said.
The former seamer also recalled warning SLC not to distribute certificates too easily when the programme was introduced locally in 2019. Vaas’s criticism extends to the school system, where he claims the decline in coaching quality has been stark.
“Some school coaches can’t even handle a bat properly, yet they have certification. Coaching is about identifying issues and fixing them. Instead, it has become a business. Are we really producing better coaches?”
Sri Lanka’s coaching structure has seen uneven development. An Education Unit created in 2008 by Jerome Jayaratne formalised Levels 1, and by 2009, the country’s Level 1 syllabus had ICC endorsement. But Level 3 remained a weak link, relying heavily on foreign instructors and hindered by language barriers. Only in 2019 was a formal course held in Colombo under ICC oversight, and not until 2023 did Sri Lanka create its own syllabus.
Today, about 80 local coaches hold Level 3 certificates, though fewer than half are actively coaching. For the October intake, the final 21 candidates include leading club head coaches, but the selection process has stirred controversy. Insiders say around 18 of the 21 are well-qualified, with all having first-class backgrounds, but critics believe the process reflects ‘shortcuts’ Vaas had warned about.
Ironically, some point out that Vaas himself bypassed Levels 1 and 2, completing Level 3 in Australia, something that rankles coaches who followed the full pathway but feel overlooked.
A further point of contention is whether Level 3 should even be a blanket requirement. While SLC has made it mandatory for First Class head coaches, Vaas argues it should be reserved for elite or first-class coaches, with school and district coaches adequately served by Levels 1 and 2.
“The problem is quality,” said one insider. “When you make Level 3 compulsory, it becomes a ticket for career advancement rather than proof of expertise.”
As SLC gets ready to roll out its latest batch of Level 3 coaches, the debate is sharper than ever. Has the qualification become a diluted badge of convenience or can it still deliver the kind of coaches capable of shaping Sri Lanka’s next generation of players?