Batsmen that have a good eye but not a good technique

[G.I.Joe]

The in-match square cut of Bradman's that SJS posted is so eerily like Tendulkars.

I believe all those practice session images from his book are from this particular clip I have of Bradman demonstrating how the various strokes ought to be played.

 

[aussie]

And now off the front foot

DEFENSE

COVER DRIVE

OFF DRIVE

STRAIGHT DRIVE

ON DRIVE

JUMPING OUT TO DRIVE

FRONT FOOT LEG GLANCE

BACKFOOT LEG GLANCE

SWEEP

What's wrong with his technique ??

Just WOWWWWW, as the Don himself said, that sooo Tendulkar. Did you get these pics from a book SJS sir?

 

[Furball]

This is a misnomer. Bradman had a bloody good technique, better than ninety percent of the batsmen in world cricket today. It wasn't "text book" in a couple of respects which has been true for many players over the entire history of the game.

BTW, who do you think has a better technique India's Sehwag or England's Cook ?

The point I was making wasn't that Bradman didn't have good technique. You don't score the volume of runs Bradman scored without being technically sound - I'd just picked up from your article that Bradman wasn't orthodox in his methods (the method of backing away to leg to deal with Bodyline being one such example.)

To answer your question, Sehwag.

 

[Furball]

That's the key question. We don't really know until they change it. Kevin Pietersen reigning himself in appeared to affect his game adversely- particularly in ODIs- he seemed to lack the ability to concentrate for long periods required for orthodox shot selection. On the other hand, Chris Gayle improved after making similar changes.

IMO Pietersen's game has definitely regressed since he's tried to become more circumspect. His batting clicks much better when he's in the "see ball, hit ball" mode. Can't remember the last time I saw him play the flamingo flick.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Bradman reckoned Tendulkar most resembled himself.
Tendulkar reckons Sehwag most resembles himself.

So how did we get from Bradman having unorthodox but good technique to Sehwag not having good technique?

 

[Flem274*]

Ryder has a damn good technique, one of the best in the team. Its very simple but highly effective. He does all the right stuff, just not in a Daniel Flynn style flourish (well actualy Flynn doesnt do anything these days anyway, he's gone backwards).

Someone mentioned Pinga and yeah I agree his foot movement doesnt happen unless he's moving to fetch a ball or something. He does everything else right though and has a brilliant eye, one of the best in the country. Whether he'll be able to pull a Gayle is another question entirely but he's one that fits into PEWS category of success despite part of his technique.

 

[aussie]

Bradman reckoned Tendulkar most resembled himself.
Tendulkar reckons Sehwag most resembles himself.

So how did we get from Bradman having unorthodox but good technique to Sehwag not having good technique?

Did Tendulkar actually ever say that or was it the media/commentators bandwagon that where highlighting the similarity circa 2001-2003?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Tendulkar said that last year.

 

[SJS]

The point I was making wasn't that Bradman didn't have good technique. You don't score the volume of runs Bradman scored without being technically sound - I'd just picked up from your article that Bradman wasn't orthodox in his methods (the method of backing away to leg to deal with Bodyline being one such example.)

To answer your question, Sehwag.

Backing away to leg is strategy. Its the only thing that worked against bodyline. People tend to foget that Bradman headed the batting averages on the body line tour not just for Australia but also more than any Englishmen and they were not facing bodyline.

You are right about the point I made about the his being unorthodox but I also mentioned that his technique was basically very sound and that his Art of Cricket was the finest cricket coaching book of all times. Part of it (his unorthodoxy) was in defying what were considered the 'conventions' of the game. It m,ust be mentioned however that Ranji and Trumper had also defied them much before Bradman. But Trumper's aggression did cause him to get out and he, inspite of a fabulous though short carer, never scored runs as big as Don did.

The one thing that was slightly deviating from the strictly orthodox in Bradman's case was his grip. He did have a bottom hand dominant grip which made him so strong off the back foot and also strong on the on side. But his off side and cover driving was not effected as much as people thought it would be. Of course, due to the strong right hand, he did not swing the bat through a complete arc as say Hammond did with his orthodox grip. These two pictures of both these players cover driving show what I am saying. Bradman's left elbow has dropped as his right hand has taken control of the shot with the elbows folding first and then the wrists.

Hammond drives to covers​

Bradman drives to covers​

 

[slowfinger]

Backing away to leg is strategy. Its the only thing that worked against bodyline. People tend to foget that Bradman headed the batting averages on the body line tour not just for Australia but also more than any Englishmen and they were not facing bodyline.

You are right about the point I made about the his being unorthodox but I also mentioned that his technique was basically very sound and that his Art of Cricket was the finest cricket coaching book of all times. Part of it (his unorthodoxy) was in defying what were considered the 'conventions' of the game. It m,ust be mentioned however that Ranji and Trumper had also defied them much before Bradman. But Trumper's aggression did cause him to get out and he, inspite of a fabulous though short carer, never scored runs as big as Don did.

The one thing that was slightly deviating from the strictly orthodox in Bradman's case was his grip. He did have a bottom hand dominant grip which made him so strong off the back foot and also strong on the on side. But his off side and cover driving was not effected as much as people thought it would be. Of course, due to the strong right hand, he did not swing the bat through a complete arc as say Hammond did with his orthodox grip. These two pictures of both these players cover driving show what I am saying.

Hammond drives to covers​

Bradman drives to covers​

Just look at Bradmans mittens No but Bradman sort of invented his technique because he kinda free-hit alot of his shots but bowlers back then werent amazing so it wasn't that hard to give a good whack every now and again (1 six in cricket ).

 

[silentstriker]

So how did we get from Bradman having unorthodox but good technique to Sehwag not having good technique?

Tendulkar was speaking of head stillness and position, not footwork.

 

[Furball]

Backing away to leg is strategy. Its the only thing that worked against bodyline. People tend to foget that Bradman headed the batting averages on the body line tour not just for Australia but also more than any Englishmen and they were not facing bodyline.

You are right about the point I made about the his being unorthodox but I also mentioned that his technique was basically very sound and that his Art of Cricket was the finest cricket coaching book of all times. Part of it (his unorthodoxy) was in defying what were considered the 'conventions' of the game. It m,ust be mentioned however that Ranji and Trumper had also defied them much before Bradman. But Trumper's aggression did cause him to get out and he, inspite of a fabulous though short carer, never scored runs as big as Don did.

The one thing that was slightly deviating from the strictly orthodox in Bradman's case was his grip. He did have a bottom hand dominant grip which made him so strong off the back foot and also strong on the on side. But his off side and cover driving was not effected as much as people thought it would be. Of course, due to the strong right hand, he did not swing the bat through a complete arc as say Hammond did with his orthodox grip. These two pictures of both these players cover driving show what I am saying. Bradman's left elbow has dropped as his right hand has taken control of the shot with the elbows folding first and then the wrists.

Agreed, but I doubt there's many coaching manuals which would advise Bradman's strategy against short pitched bowling - I would have thought that convention would dictate pulling/hooking to leg off the back foot.

Again, I'm not arguing that Bradman wasn't a fabulously gifted player with a great technique, just that when talking about technique, Bradman strikes me as someone who wasn't a classical/orthodox player - the article you did recently contained opinions that Bradman had poor technique, which seems laughable now. I guess I'm arguing against people who will look at someone like Sehwag, who doesn't have an orthodox technique and who'll say he has poor technique while completely ignoring his output and achievements.

IMO, a good technique isn't one that looks pretty according to MCC coaching conventions. A good technique is a successful one.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Tendulkar was speaking of head stillness and position, not footwork.

And head stillness and position are part of technique as much as footwork is. You're obsessed with feet. If Tendulkar reckons Sehwag is closest to him, I'll take his overall assessment over yours.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Phil Hughes. Awful, horrible, infuriating technique. Genuinely pains me to watch him, but he makes it work. Well, ish.

No-one seems to have picked up on The Prince's technique after I mentioned it. I'd be interested to know what some of those who coach youngsters would do with someone who played like Hughes does. I honestly can't think of a current top-order batsman who has such a bizarre technique. He seems to want to play the same shot to every ball: stepping away to leg to scythe it through the off-side, usually with a cut. His hand-eye co-ordination must be phenomenal to play as he does.

It was an MO that brought him a lot of success initially (the SA series & his early season form for Middlesex where he scored a century seemingly every innings), but it's also a technique that left him susceptible to a well-directed short-pitched ball and he was summarily dumped (rather too quickly IMHO) after only two Ashes tests when this flaw was exploited. I can't help but wonder if a more orthodox technician would've been quite so harshly treated but this also poses the question that would young Phillip be as successful if his technique is tinkered with or even dismantled and rebuilt?

 

[Goughy]

To be fair to the guy, I have not seen enough of him to really give an honest personal assessment of his technique. Id hate to make a judgement based on little personal evidence.

 

[Furball]

No-one seems to have picked up on The Prince's technique after I mentioned it. I'd be interested to know what some of those who coach youngsters would do with someone who played like Hughes does. I honestly can't think of a current top-order batsman who has such a bizarre technique. He seems to want to play the same shot to every ball: stepping away to leg to scythe it through the off-side, usually with a cut. His hand-eye co-ordination must be phenomenal to play as he does.

It was an MO that brought him a lot of success initially (the SA series & his early season form for Middlesex where he scored a century seemingly every innings), but it's also a technique that left him susceptible to a well-directed short-pitched ball and he was summarily dumped (rather too quickly IMHO) after only two Ashes tests when this flaw was exploited. I can't help but wonder if a more orthodox technician would've been quite so harshly treated but this also poses the question that would young Phillip be as successful if his technique is tinkered with or even dismantled and rebuilt?

Up until the start of the Ashes tour, you can't argue with Hughes' technique, iirc he was averaging mid 60s in FC cricket until then and had an excellent tour of South Africa.

Like Goughy I've not seen much of him, IMO his current trough of form is more down to teams being able to work him out more and play to his weaknesses. I don't think he needs to dismantle what has brought him success, but what he does need to do is work on areas of his game where he's weak.

 

[Top_Cat]

No-one seems to have picked up on The Prince's technique after I mentioned it. I'd be interested to know what some of those who coach youngsters would do with someone who played like Hughes does. I honestly can't think of a current top-order batsman who has such a bizarre technique. He seems to want to play the same shot to every ball: stepping away to leg to scythe it through the off-side, usually with a cut. His hand-eye co-ordination must be phenomenal to play as he does.

It was an MO that brought him a lot of success initially (the SA series & his early season form for Middlesex where he scored a century seemingly every innings), but it's also a technique that left him susceptible to a well-directed short-pitched ball and he was summarily dumped (rather too quickly IMHO) after only two Ashes tests when this flaw was exploited. I can't help but wonder if a more orthodox technician would've been quite so harshly treated but this also poses the question that would young Phillip be as successful if his technique is tinkered with or even dismantled and rebuilt?

Personally don't think he has a problem with short balls as much as who's sending them down. Reckon most of Hughes' problems stem from inside his head. Sort that and the runs should flow because he has a hell of an eye, nails his pet shots and is very competitive.

 

[pasag]

A. Symonds.

 

[aussie]

Personally don't think he has a problem with short balls as much as who's sending them down. Reckon most of Hughes' problems stem from inside his head. Sort that and the runs should flow because he has a hell of an eye, nails his pet shots and is very competitive.

Indeed. Since in South Africa Steyn & Morkel certainly tested him with short stuff & he was excellent. But in the Ashes Flintoff seemed to trouble him with Gilchrist-like around the wicket line of attack - otherwise he is fine i'd say.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Up until the start of the Ashes tour, you can't argue with Hughes' technique, iirc he was averaging mid 60s in FC cricket until then and had an excellent tour of South Africa.

Like Goughy I've not seen much of him, IMO his current trough of form is more down to teams being able to work him out more and play to his weaknesses. I don't think he needs to dismantle what has brought him success, but what he does need to do is work on areas of his game where he's weak.

I think when any player's technique, no matter how tightly it makes a purist's sphincter clench, is working it's hard to argue with. I personally think tho that Hughes's unconventional style might've lead to him being so quickly axed; when players have styles that are all their own there's a tendancy to blame the quirks for the iffy form.

We saw it with Matty Hayden to an extent. The big fella always looked to get onto the front foot and the straight drive was a very productive shot for him, but it did occasionally make him look a little awkward when the ball swung back into him & I'm sure in part contributed to the (massively exaggerated) idea that the struggled against top-quality fast swing bowling.

Personally don't think he has a problem with short balls as much as who's sending them down. Reckon most of Hughes' problems stem from inside his head. Sort that and the runs should flow because he has a hell of an eye, nails his pet shots and is very competitive.

The boy's eye is beyond question; I always think he must be a hell of a player to be able to play as he does. I do think he's a player who succeeds in spite of his technique rather than because of it tho. I'm assuming it's his natural game because I can't imagine any coach would want to actively encourage him to play the way he does, but I just wonder if he's perhaps been left too much to his own devices because of his success. Obviously the risk any coach who tries to refine his technique runs is ruining what makes him special.