Batsmen that have a good eye but not a good technique

[silentstriker]

Whats exactly is the point of being John Travolta if you're scoring less than the guy with the cement feet?

Who said it's better to be John Travolta? If it works for him, that's great.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to have good eye over good technique, but it's just a statement of fact that he does not have good textbook technique.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, but textbook technique isn't necessarily the same as good technique.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd call that "textbook" or "classical" rather than "good". Too many players have succeeded - and thrived - at the very top level with techniques you just wouldn't teach kids for me to be happy using the word "good".

These differences just alter the game a fraction: Graeme Smith's bat grip for instance, changes scoring arcs onto the leg side and makes you rethink as a bowler/fielder. It can work, but there is so much counter-balancing going on in your body to keep stability and control that it's something you don't teach.

This brings me to another coaching question that's come up to my mind of late, provoked I think by watching a Shane Watson pull at Sydney and also by reading a Cricinfo article on the age of the helmet - back foot technique, and whether I teach it to ten-year-olds or not, when they're never going to need to play off the back foot all summer and Gayle/Sehwag and friends make Test 300s without hook shots. Is that evolution or devolution?

It's an interesting point; in the current age of body armour, helmets and lightly pressed bats with huge "middles" that take top edges for six and forward defences for four should the old verities of the MCC textbook still be taught to the nippers?

If you came across a youngster who employed a Sehwag/Gayle/Tresco weight-transference technique rather than classical footwork but was making hay should you try to change his MO? Would he even be a better player for the interference?

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, but textbook technique isn't necessarily the same as good technique.

Well, since 'technique' is defined by that textbook, I'd say it is. What you're saying is that good technique isn't the same as being effective. In that, I agree as being effective depends a lot on the player and what works for him.

 

[Howsie]

For New Zealand currently, Jesse Ryder and Martin Guptill.

Jesse Ryder, really? I've never really seen anything wrong with Ryder's technique tbh, yeah he might not move his feet a heck of a lot but he has very good weight transfer and he plays the ball extremely late.

Tim McIntosh relies on a good eye more then anyone else in this current team IMO.

 

[Bahnz]

Jesse Ryder, really? I've never really seen anything wrong with Ryder's technique tbh, yeah he might not move his feet a heck of a lot but he has very good weight transfer and he plays the ball extremely late.

Tim McIntosh relies on a good eye more then anyone else in this current team IMO.

Yeah, his problem is that his eye isn't that good. As for Ryder, his lack of foot movement married to his tendency to go after whatever is on offer outside offstump would have a tendency to get him in real trouble if it weren't for his great hand-eye coordination.

 

[slugger]

Since when did economy of movement = bad technique?

anytime mathew sinclair was playing.. according to the commentators.

 

[Top_Cat]

Anyone wanna seriously have a go at what's wrong with Chris Gayle's technique? From what I've seen of him, seems people are reacting more to what they see after contact with the ball.

 

[aussie]

Anyone wanna seriously have a go at what's wrong with Chris Gayle's technique? From what I've seen of him, seems people are reacting more to what they see after contact with the ball.

His foot back never moves, bowlers who can swing the ball back into him would always get him in trouble especially in tests. Lee, Vaas, Hoggard, Hilfenhaus (Brisbane test) have exposed that flaw very well in the past.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

Pinga from CD. Hehe, I imagine him getting the NZ callup.

 

[Goughy]

It's an interesting point; in the current age of body armour, helmets and lightly pressed bats with huge "middles" that take top edges for six and forward defences for four should the old verities of the MCC textbook still be taught to the nippers?

No I wouldnt and I dont. Years ago (including when I was learning) the first shot a young batsman learnt was the forward defensive and everything else was built on that. Now kids should be encouraged to hit everything and then learn how to work the front foot def into their game.

 

[Top_Cat]

His back never moves, bowlers who can swing the ball back into him would always get him in trouble especially in tests. Lee, Vaas, Hoggard, Hilfenhaus (Brisbane test) have exposed that flaw very well in the ball.

Looked just fine to me when he smacked two fairly contrasting tons a few weeks back against bowlers perfectly able to exploit such a weakness, though.

 

[aussie]

Looked just fine to me when he smacked two fairly contrasting tons a few weeks back against bowlers perfectly able to exploit such a weakness, though.

None of Siddle, Johnson, Bollinger really swing the ball like Hilfenhaus. If Hilfy was playing i reckon he would have owned Gayle all series.

Gayle benefited from a flat pitch in Adelaide, although i was impressed with his patience. He usually is quite brainless in is batting, maybe the captaincy has brought some maturity to his batting.

In Perth i have seen Gayle bat like that before:

- Oval 04

- Capetown 03

Typical Gayle, going crazy on a flattish pitch (since i'd say Perth had some bounce early on). Nothing special AFAIC..

 

[Burgey]

No I wouldnt and I dont. Years ago (including when I was learning) the first shot a young batsman learnt was the forward defensive and everything else was built on that. Now kids should be encouraged to hit everything and then learn how to work the front foot def into their game.

Are you serious about that Goughy, because I'm interested in this? I'm coaching under 10s and I'm trying as hard as I can to teach the kids a decent technique built around forward and back defence.
They're playing a modified form of the game where they face X balls each whether they get out or not, but I'm thinking a lot of them will go to under 11s next year where, if they have a wallop and get bowled 1st ball, the day's over for them.

So do you think I ought to be letting them have a go more? It's not that I'm a technique Nazi, and every kid's different of course, but I've been working on them getting the basics right so far.

 

[NUFAN]

Are you serious about that Goughy, because I'm interested in this? I'm coaching under 10s and I'm trying as hard as I can to teach the kids a decent technique built around forward and back defence.
They're playing a modified form of the game where they face X balls each whether they get out or not, but I'm thinking a lot of them will go to under 11s next year where, if they have a wallop and get bowled 1st ball, the day's over for them.

So do you think I ought to be letting them have a go more? It's not that I'm a technique Nazi, and every kid's different of course, but I've been working on them getting the basics right so far.

I would go technique first for sure. We don't want to add some more Burgey coached Aussies to this list in 12 years time.

Seriously though, if you look at who the best batsman are in the under 10s, it's always the kids that have a decent technique, at least on balls that are hitting the stumps.

 

[Goughy]

Are you serious about that Goughy, because I'm interested in this? I'm coaching under 10s and I'm trying as hard as I can to teach the kids a decent technique built around forward and back defence.
They're playing a modified form of the game where they face X balls each whether they get out or not, but I'm thinking a lot of them will go to under 11s next year where, if they have a wallop and get bowled 1st ball, the day's over for them.

So do you think I ought to be letting them have a go more? It's not that I'm a technique Nazi, and every kid's different of course, but I've been working on them getting the basics right so far.

I wouldnt want to say how it should be done for each coach or kid but I find a few things. Bare in mind these are only my observations, amongst others:

Learning to defend first often leads to the backlift being typically shortened.
If kids learn to defend first then they pass on a lot of scoring oportunities.
It leads to a more open mind
It allows kids to see the positive results of their efforts
and possibly more importantly, it takes the emphasis off failure (getting out) and places it on success (scoring runs).

I like to work on the basics such as the grip and going fully forward or back and trying to hit everyball. I like to work on the way to play each shot and then encourage them to hit the ball. Certainly not wild or slogging. From that I try and work in the defensive shot after they are comfortable hitting the ball and playing shots.

I teach that the defensive shot is a tool to use against good balls to allow your fun to continue.

EDIT- Not sure I explained it well as Im in the middle of something else. The point I am trying to make is that forward defensive is important but I want to emphasise the 'see ball, hit ball' aspect of cricket and a positive mentality rather than worrying about making a mistake. From my experience, kids learn best through adventure and experience.

 

[silentstriker]

Make them run every lap for every run you score . Get ice cream for every two overs they defend with a straight bat without scoring.

But yea, with the type of players who have been succeeding even at the top level against the best bowling, it's hard to say that MCC technique is the only way, or perhaps even the best way. Make sure the head is still, and hit the ball I guess.

 

[NZ Guy]

For New Zealand currently, Jesse Ryder and Martin Guptill.

Martin Guptill? What?! Sure he gets found out defending on the back foot, but his front foot shots and pull/hook have got to be some of the more technically sound around atm.

 

[Burgey]

I would go technique first for sure. We don't want to add some more Burgey coached Aussies to this list in 12 years time.

Seriously though, if you look at who the best batsman are in the under 10s, it's always the kids that have a decent technique, at least on balls that are hitting the stumps.

I wouldnt want to say how it should be done for each coach or kid but I find a few things. Bare in mind these are only my observations, amongst others:

Learning to defend first often leads to the backlift being typically shortened.
If kids learn to defend first then they pass on a lot of scoring oportunities.
It leads to a more open mind
It allows kids to see the positive results of their efforts
and possibly more importantly, it takes the emphasis off failure (getting out) and places it on success (scoring runs).

I like to work on the basics such as the grip and going fully forward or back and trying to hit everyball. I like to work on the way to play each shot and then encourage them to hit the ball. Certainly not wild or slogging. From that I try and work in the defensive shot after they are comfortable hitting the ball and playing shots.

I teach that the defensive shot is a tool to use against good balls to allow your fun to continue.

EDIT- Not sure I explained it well as Im in the middle of something else. The point I am trying to make is that forward defensive is important but I want to emphasise the 'see ball, hit ball' aspect of cricket and a positive mentality rather than worrying about making a mistake. From my experience, kids learn best through adventure and experience.

Make them run every lap for every run you score . Get ice cream for every two overs they defend with a straight bat without scoring.

But yea, with the type of players who have been succeeding even at the top level against the best bowling, it's hard to say that MCC technique is the only way, or perhaps even the best way. Make sure the head is still, and hit the ball I guess.

Cheers for the feedback fellas. I'll take all that on board.

I should say I do tell them basically "if it's on the stumps then block it out, if it's off the stumps have a whack at it". Certainly agree that there's no good in having text boiok technique if you can't get the ball off the square (unless you're Jason Gillespie of course, and you rack up a Test 200).

 

[Furball]

Bradman wasn't textbook, didn't stop him scoring mountains of runs.

"Technique" is over-rated. What matters is output.