'Footwork to pace bowlers is a myth' and other hot takes

[wellAlbidarned]

Something that's bugged me for a long time is how when a player nicks off the commentator will smugly proclaim 'He didn't move his feet' or 'got stuck on the crease', completely ignoring that's how they played the same shot a few balls earlier smack out of the middle. Except for big blokes like Marsh and Mitchell who just plonk the front foot down before the balls been bowled I rarely see top order batsmen getting much of a stride in, most of them hang on the crease and play it under the eyes. If they do play forward it's a gentle knee bend into the ball rather than a real step.

Footwork to spin is definitely real though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's not a myth, it's just more about balance, not just the length of the stride like commentators say.

 

[Spark]

It's about balance and weight transfer. For the vast majority of human beings this means good footwork. Good footwork doesn't even mean like, a lot of footwork - though that can have its advantages for sure.

My understanding is that a lot of what you talk about is a product of changes in coaching since about 2000 though; there's a lot more emphasis on weight transfer without excessive footwork and a lot more caution about the risks of overcommitting on the front foot especially.

 

[ataraxia]

Something that's bugged me for a long time is how when a player nicks off the commentator will smugly proclaim 'He didn't move his feet' or 'got stuck on the crease', completely ignoring that's how they played the same shot a few balls earlier smack out of the middle.

Yeah on an aside I'll just put out there that resultism, for want of a better word, is such a drain IMO. The irregardless-of-circumstance "ooh the batter got out, they must have done one thing in particular wrong, better find it" mentality is pretty shoddy for long-term test cricketers. Make an effort. There's also always the possibility they just misdid the execution rather than an explicit win for the bowler or loss for the batter's technique, which can be forgotten sometimes.

 

[sledger]

I love Marcus Trescothick, but he's a walking talking super example of why this is certainly not a myth.

The fact that he did as well as he did with basically no footwork whatsoever is kind of a miracle really. You have to wonder how he would have done if his range of footwork was greater than being able to shuffle his front leg forward about half an inch.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah on an aside I'll just put out there that resultism, for want of a better word, is such a drain IMO. The irregardless-of-circumstance "ooh the batter got out, they must have done one thing in particular wrong, better find it" mentality is pretty shoddy for long-term test cricketers. Make an effort. There's also always the possibility they just misdid the execution rather than an explicit win for the bowler or loss for the batter's technique, which can be forgotten sometimes.

Yeah most of the time it's just "played down the wrong line" tbh

 

[NotMcKenzie]

OP needs to look for footage of Pakistan's top-order batting in the recent Sydney test.

 

[honestbharani]

I think the "work" in that term can often mislead people, including commentators. Batsmen always are moving from their stance when playing the ball. The movement requires balance that can only come through your legs and feet and most often, what commentators talk about is that. You just have folks who often get carried away by how much someone moved their feet, for good or bad.

 

[nightprowler10]

Yeah on an aside I'll just put out there that resultism, for want of a better word, is such a drain IMO. The irregardless-of-circumstance "ooh the batter got out, they must have done one thing in particular wrong, better find it" mentality is pretty shoddy for long-term test cricketers. Make an effort. There's also always the possibility they just misdid the execution rather than an explicit win for the bowler or loss for the batter's technique, which can be forgotten sometimes.

wtf is going on here

 

[honestbharani]

wtf is going on here

neolingualrevisionism

 

[wellAlbidarned]

wtf is going on here

didn't move his fingers

 

[Ali TT]

I love Marcus Trescothick, but he's a walking talking super example of why this is certainly not a myth.

The fact that he did as well as he did with basically no footwork whatsoever is kind of a miracle really. You have to wonder how he would have done if his range of footwork was greater than being able to shuffle his front leg forward about half an inch.

On the other side, I give you Ian Bell who could gloriously footwork himself into edging to slip or punting the ball straight to cover.

 

[sledger]

On the other side, I give you Ian Bell who could gloriously footwork himself into edging to slip or punting the ball straight to cover.

Yeah fair one. I think Trescothick was actually a much better player than Bell tbh. More naturally talented anyway.

 

[Ali TT]

Yeah fair one. I think Trescothick was actually a much better player than Bell tbh. More naturally talented anyway.

Tres had huge natural talent and a decent career, sadly curtailed. When he was bad, he was bad though - not only that he looked really bad when he was bad as well.

 

[BackFootPunch]

I've got one that annoys me a bit: bowler skill vs natural variation.

I saw a couple of times in the Aus-Pakistan series recently where they'd do those split screen things showing two separate deliveries with different results and try to identify minuscule differences in the bowler's release. Basically the idea being that Lyon, Cummins et al were making these tiny adjustments, hence some balls would turn, some would go straight on, some would seam etc.

I'm not saying those things don't happen, I just think the comms team/broadcast folks sometimes go looking for things where they don't always exist based on the result of the ball by the time it gets to the batsman. One goes straight on, then one seams - that's not all bowler skill. Some of it's luck and natural variation. More of the skill is in being able to hammer away on the same length so that when a ball does do something, the batter is ****ed because there's no discernible change in how the ball has been released (because the release wasn't actually any different).

To be clear, top level bowlers are incredibly skilled and can absolutely make slight changes to their release, position in the crease etc. I just think it's giving too much credit when the commentators look at the result of a ball, then work backwards to a point where it's all about a minor change from the bowler - ignoring the vagaries of overhead conditions, wind, pitch, physics and so on.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The skill is in consistently bowling with a release which has a higher than normal probability of doing something unexpected (and as you say putting it in an area which matters), not in controlling exactly what it does.

 

[ataraxia]

wtf is going on here

I don't know. I tried to read it back and it sounded like it was from a Shady Slim alter ego. Every third word is jarring. So many caveats too.

Anyway, just shows how great a point it is that people seem to like the post anyway

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I've got one that annoys me a bit: bowler skill vs natural variation.

I saw a couple of times in the Aus-Pakistan series recently where they'd do those split screen things showing two separate deliveries with different results and try to identify minuscule differences in the bowler's release. Basically the idea being that Lyon, Cummins et al were making these tiny adjustments, hence some balls would turn, some would go straight on, some would seam etc.

I'm not saying those things don't happen, I just think the comms team/broadcast folks sometimes go looking for things where they don't always exist based on the result of the ball by the time it gets to the batsman. One goes straight on, then one seams - that's not all bowler skill. Some of it's luck and natural variation. More of the skill is in being able to hammer away on the same length so that when a ball does do something, the batter is ****ed because there's no discernible change in how the ball has been released (because the release wasn't actually any different).

To be clear, top level bowlers are incredibly skilled and can absolutely make slight changes to their release, position in the crease etc. I just think it's giving too much credit when the commentators look at the result of a ball, then work backwards to a point where it's all about a minor change from the bowler - ignoring the vagaries of overhead conditions, wind, pitch, physics and so on.

WoBbLe SeAm aka the bowler just ****ed up their release

 

[wellAlbidarned]

nah wobble seam is real, you're just a shill for Big Swing

 

[TheJediBrah]

I've heard the theory from Starfighter and others that top-level batsmen can subconsciously tell the length a bowler will bowl by watching the bowler prior to release and picking up alterations in the hand/stride etc. So they know a bouncer is coming before the ball is actually released, even if they don't realise it, and that's how they can adjust and play 150kph bouncers

I'm sceptical to say the least