Batsmen that have a good eye but not a good technique

[slippy]

Marcus Trescothick
Herschelle Gibbs

 

[silentstriker]

Sehwag

 

[Prince EWS]

Marcus Trescothick
Herschelle Gibbs

Well you have your obvious ones like the above and Chris Gayle, but one I'd like to add that not many would think of would be Paul Collingwood. He's more known for his stickability than his eye but you'd need a seriously good eye to play with the technique he's adopted.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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

Fat Gray another, very bottom handed so always strangles his drives and looks a prime LBW candidate early on, but the BFF makes it work.

 

[NasserFan207]

KP is the biggest one, surely?

Chris Gayle and Sewhag don't have particularly bad techniques. People mistake being aggressive for having poor technique sometimes.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Exactly - someone define "good technique" for me, please?

I would place KP in the "****house shot selection" bracket rather than being undone by any technical shortcomings.

 

[Himannv]

Chris Gayle and Sewhag don't have particularly bad techniques. People mistake being aggressive for having poor technique sometimes.

Agree about Gayle having decent technique but not Sehwag. Players like Sehwag and Dilshan purely rely on exceptional hand eye coordination. If you notice their feet, they hardly ever move much.

These days technique doesn't count for much anyway possibly due to the excess of short formats. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether you're successful or not.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Since when did economy of movement = bad technique?

 

[Goughy]

but one I'd like to add that not many would think of would be Paul Collingwood.

I would. Great eye and fast hands.

 

[Himannv]

Hmm, well I just feel that foot movement is a key part of proper technique in a cricketer. I dont mean it as an insult to Dilshan or Sehwag though. Their lack of foot movement isn't exactly a bad thing as a good hand to eye coordination more than makes up for their lack of foot movement. As is clearly evident in both their scenarios.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Exactly - someone define "good technique" for me, please?

I would place KP in the "****house shot selection" bracket rather than being undone by any technical shortcomings.

Always took it as someone who does the textbook basics well: plays straight, feet to the pitch of the ball, head in line, etc

 

[silentstriker]

Since when did economy of movement = bad technique?

Since economy of movement became equated to feet like cement.

 

[HMas]

Imran Nazir

 

[G.I.Joe]

Since economy of movement became equated to feet like cement.

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

 

[aussie]

KP is the biggest one, surely?

Chris Gayle and Sewhag don't have particularly bad techniques. People mistake being aggressive for having poor technique sometimes.

KP is like C'Paul, G Smith, Hughes, Lara etc. They are unorthodox rather than have any major technical flaws, when executing various shots they end up playing very textbook. Sometimes you may think you can get them out a certain way - but on most occassions their percieved weakness is a stenght i.e Smith on his pads.

Gayle & Sehwag on the other hand certainly have poor/average techniques for openers test openers facing quality new-ball bowling. An agrressive test opener with a proper technique would be Gordon Greenidge.

 

[zaremba]

Colin Milburn and Tiger Pataudi spring to mind

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Surely technique involves maximising the runs you can score/rate you score them at. If Sehwag or Gayle employ a 'technique' of minimal foot movement and stand-and-deliver and score more than they could do if they themselves used a textbook 'technique', a good eye can equal a good technique?

Might be different for some Sunday league third-team slogger though.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Colin Milburn and Tiger Pataudi spring to mind

Technique wasn't bad though.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Always took it as someone who does the textbook basics well: plays straight, feet to the pitch of the ball, head in line, etc

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?

 

[Bahnz]

For New Zealand currently, Jesse Ryder and Martin Guptill.