Smith v Kohli (test match batting)

[stephen]

His technique doesn't rely on hand-eye coordination any more than other techniques. It relies on exceptional balance and gross motor control.

Smith is always into position early with his extravagant early movement. His head is in perfect position for him to play his shots. He doesn't miss balls on his pads because the balls on his pads are on his pads instead of coming into his pads like they do for other batsmen who don't move across. It's like saying that it's strange most top order batsmen don't miss balls on their pads that are heading down leg. They don't miss them because they're simple to hit.

Smith doesn't get caught on the crease in the same way as other batsmen because he's in a position that turns the ball angling into off stump into a ball angling in towards what would be leg stump for other batsmen. Other batsmen fail at this because they aren't in position and balanced if they try this. They're off balance and miss the ball and get out lbw.

It works for Smith because he's set in position early and balanced through the shot. It's when his feet stop moving quickly that he'll start falling off. It had little to do with hand eye coordination.

The other thing Smith does better than anyone else I've ever seen is adjust his technique on the fly. In fact I've never seen it before. He deliberately alters his trigger movements to handle different types of bowling, sometimes even during an innings. It's incredible.

And finally, the third spoke in his wheel is his incredible concentration. He's able to get into flow faster than most other batsmen and maintain it for longer. As a programmer this is the one thing I've noticed separates the good computer programmers from the great ones and you can tell when it's happening. Smith looks like he's in flow from about the tenth ball of his innings. Other batsmen usually need to get to twenty to get there.

 

[the big bambino]

It's all bull****. All batsmen rely on their eye, regardless of their technique. I've never seen a legitimate reason to think that Smith will suffer more than any other batsman. With the bolded above I really think it's more likely the opposite. He gets in great positions and playing the ball under your eye is good technique and will be less likely to degrade with a degrading "eye"

It's guys like Warner and Sehwag who rely more on their eye

I was agreeing with you. I think he ends up in a position which is technically very good. I don't think he's eye reliant player although I said Warner and Gilly rather than Sehwag as examples of that type.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Warner and Gilly are very good examples of eye-players. I'd wager that was a big reason for Gilly's downturn in quality. He was a decent age too when he retired (?late 30s)

His technique doesn't rely on hand-eye coordination any more than other techniques.

Stopped reading here. It's just going to go downhill after this perfect statement. Thank you.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Great balance doesn't exist in a vacuum though. You see him immaculately balanced at the time of making contact because he perceives things (the hand-eye thing in this discussion I assume) perhaps a fraction earlier than others and the rest of his mental/physical apparatus follows suit. Shave off that fraction and what is optimal today suddenly doesn't look so clever. If anything, it's his mental game that allows him to make a better risk-benefit judgement compared to Kohli.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Great balance doesn't exist in a vacuum though. You see him immaculately balanced at the time of making contact because he perceives things perhaps a fraction earlier than others and the rest of his mental/physical apparatus follows suit. Shave off that fraction and what is optimal today suddenly doesn't look so clever. If anything, it's his mental game that allows him to make a better risk-benefit judgement compared to Kohli.

Definitely. That's his biggest advantage at the moment.

 

[Spark]

Great balance doesn't exist in a vacuum though. You see him immaculately balanced at the time of making contact because he perceives things (the hand-eye thing in this discussion I assume) perhaps a fraction earlier than others and the rest of his mental/physical apparatus follows suit. Shave off that fraction and what is optimal today suddenly doesn't look so clever. If anything, it's his mental game that allows him to make a better risk-benefit judgement compared to Kohli.

Well yeah but, as stated, this applies to everyone. The question is whether Smith is more susceptible to this sort of problem - he is not the first batsman to have a big back and across movement across his stumps, and I don't think those batsmen were noted for having particularly early declines.

The ones I can think of who did have a fast and early decline were either (a) \had a unusually heavy mental workload which eventually wore them down, typically because they were captain, or (b) tended to play well outside their body. It's category (b) that I think I'm sceptical of Smith falling into since he doesn't really do that, but (a) is a distinct possibility. It's really quite obvious even visually when he isn't quite as focussed as usual.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Did anyone say he would decline earlier due to hand/eye reliant technique? There’s no provable answer anyway. That’s why using words like “erroneous and dumb” for this sort of thing is “erroneous and dumb.”

 

[TheJediBrah]

Did anyone say he would decline earlier due to hand/eye reliant technique?

Well, essentially yes. The whole point of this discussion, that's been going on for years, is that people think he will decline more (and earlier I guess? otherwise what's the point of even discussing it) because his technique relies more on hand eye coordination. So erroneous and dumb.

Still yet to see a single legitimate reason why his technique is more dependant on his eye than other batsmen. As Spark suggested, does he play outside his body more at wide ones? That would be a fair reason, but I don't think it's true.

 

[the big bambino]

Well yeah but, as stated, this applies to everyone. The question is whether Smith is more susceptible to this sort of problem - he is not the first batsman to have a big back and across movement across his stumps, and I don't think those batsmen were noted for having particularly early declines.

The ones I can think of who did have a fast and early decline were either (a) \had a unusually heavy mental workload which eventually wore them down, typically because they were captain, or (b) tended to play well outside their body. It's category (b) that I think I'm sceptical of Smith falling into since he doesn't really do that, but (a) is a distinct possibility. It's really quite obvious even visually when he isn't quite as focussed as usual.

Which is another reason I don't want to see him captain again. Smith, by reports, thinks about his game and adjusting it for new challenges. I'm guessing he enjoys that kind of mental activity and finds it stimulating and even invigorate him as opposed to wearing him out. Now put captaincy on top of that expenditure of mental energy. He was cooked after the last home Ashes and then went on a too long tour of SA. It could have been fatigue as much as lacking the strength of personality to forcefully end the Warner/Bancroft sandpaper plot.

It can't be easy maintaining a mid 60s average and managing a weak team with strong characters. When I think about it like that I can understand him just wishing it away rather than putting it out. Even then I still have some reservations about his honesty (looking for guidance for DRS) and ability to stand up to difficult team mates. Maybe he can best serve the team and be kind to himself by just concentrating on batting.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well, essentially yes. The whole point of this discussion, that's been going on for years, is that people think he will decline more (and earlier I guess? otherwise what's the point of even discussing it) because his technique relies more on hand eye coordination. So erroneous and dumb.

Whether it’s to discuss his unorthodox technique in general or a belief that he’ll be dead by the end of the week, it’s still only an opinion, and one that a lot of knowledgeable cricket people have reasonably come to from watching him bat.

 

[trundler]

The coaching manual is geared towards utility. It's supposed to be adequate for most people. Obviously something generic is going to be less effective than a purpose-built technique made for and by a great athlete. Textbook technique can elevate a subpar player to mediocrity but also hold a good player back. Bradman, Smith and Viv all were varying degrees of unorthodox. Each obviously followed cricketing wisdom i.e playing late, staying balanced etc. I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that Smith is succeeding despite his technique. Or that his technique has big holes which bowlers of yesterday would thrive on. Bradman changed his game when his eye went. His SR went from high 50s to 40s I think. Viv didn't slow down and his average fell instead. Ponting kept falling over. So Smith's technique is more 'optimal' imo and his decline will depend on how he adjusts. Everything beyond this is speculation, which is fair enough.

Don't see why TJB got so worked up though. So defensive.

 

[Gob]

Can't you shits wait another four to five years so we can actually see whether his eye going would affect his batting or not jeez?

For the record if he starts missing straight balls, he is toast

 

[silentstriker]

For the record if he starts missing straight balls, he is toast

Great insight.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Can't you shits wait another four to five years so we can actually see whether his eye going would affect his batting or not jeez?

For the record if he starts missing straight balls, he is toast

We could all just shoot ourselves now and never debate anything again.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Don't see why TJB got so worked up though. So defensive.

see earlier:

I don't know why I get so invested in things like this. I don't mind dumb and erroneous opinions, but for some reason when I see one that seems to be widely held for no logical reason like this it triggers me a little bit. Looks to me that in this case it's the result of trying to look for an explanation and finding one that would fit and just going with it despite the fact that it's clearly nonsense.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can't you shits wait another four to five years so we can actually see whether his eye going would affect his batting or not jeez?

That's going to be the worst part of this rubbish. The same lack of critical thinking and intelligence that goes into the "uh he relies on his eye more than others" is still going to be there and you just know if he has a couple of low scores at some stage or gets lbw a couple of times the same people are going to be like "durr see he missed straight ball must be that hand-eye coordination that he relies so much on we were right"

edit: to give credit where it's due, someone did mention earlier something along the lines of microadjustments Smith makes to moving balls, pushing outside the line, being reliant on hand-eye coordination which at least made a bit of sense. Not sure if it really supports the opinion that he's more reliant than other batsmen but at least it was a logical point.

 

[Contra]

Its obviously Smith at the moment. Though its interesting to note that his last series in SA he had one of his worst ever series as a batsmen in the last few years, and personally (can't believe i'm saying this) I would have fancied our bowling attack against him during the Australia series that India won last season.

Smith obviously has capitalized across more series over a period of time, and Kohli's had a couple of really low scoring series among some really high scoring series.

Skill wise there isn't much of a difference though, Kohli just has to capitalize his run scoring ability more in tests and I do feel Smith will have a few bad series in the next few years where the averages will level out.

 

[Coronis]

The coaching manual is geared towards utility. It's supposed to be adequate for most people. Obviously something generic is going to be less effective than a purpose-built technique made for and by a great athlete. Textbook technique can elevate a subpar player to mediocrity but also hold a good player back. Bradman, Smith and Viv all were varying degrees of unorthodox. Each obviously followed cricketing wisdom i.e playing late, staying balanced etc. I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that Smith is succeeding despite his technique. Or that his technique has big holes which bowlers of yesterday would thrive on. Bradman changed his game when his eye went. His SR went from high 50s to 40s I think. Viv didn't slow down and his average fell instead. Ponting kept falling over. So Smith's technique is more 'optimal' imo and his decline will depend on how he adjusts. Everything beyond this is speculation, which is fair enough.

Don't see why TJB got so worked up though. So defensive.

Welcome.

 

[Chrish]

Assuming he plays till 36-37 years which is kind of a norm, I personally predict his average would end up between 55-60.

Happy to be proven wrong though. I really wanna see a player who can play that long and still average 65 or above in this lifetime.

 

[aussie tragic]

Even if Smith went blind tomorrow it would still take 32 ducks in a row to get his average below 50....Kohli on the other hand only needs 8 ducks for his to drop below 50....so I'll take a blind Smith