Appreciating good techniques

[SJS]

I mentioned it once before on this forum and it raised a furore and i never got into an argument again. I am saying it a second time, Kim Hughes is the finest stroke player amongst all Australians I have seen in half a century of watching test cricket.

Here is a rare video of o=ne of his innings, a double century against india in 1981. The video is not about Kim Hughes but the Australian inings which is all the better because it puts Hughes's batting in perspective. He seems to be batting in a different game compared to his colleagues. the stroke play is sublime and the footwork is the finest one has seen captured on camera ever.

He starts off with jumping out to Dilip Doshi to balls pitched on the leg stump, slightly short of a length, in an effort to cramp him. He takes a couple of steps on lightening quick feet to reach the ball pitched on the leg stump and drives both exquisitely to covers as if they were half volleys pitched four inches outside the off stump.


A little later he steps out to a Shiv Lal Yadav off spinner pitching wide outside the off stump and reaches it and then drives it with a straight bat to the mid wicket fence.

there is a fabulous back foot drive to covers amongst so many other drives all on quick silver feet but the finest of about a dozen or so is when he steps out to Kapil Dev (then at the peek of his career) and drives him gloriously to the covers.

I dont care about the Australian politics of the times but to me its a tragedy that the Australian public has given such short shrift to one of its most talented post war batsman.

Have a look. I bet you will want to watch each of those shots more than once. I have done it many times

Kim Hughes - Australia vs india 1981-82

 

[Matt79]

Great video that. Sobers' bat speed, especially through the covers is just exceptional. Sobers really was a joy to watch!

On a slightly un-related note; is it just me, or have techniques become slightly more robotic and in some respects stiffer? You don't see many players nowadays really flowing into their shots like Sobers was in that innings. Bowlers too appear to be far slingier in their actions, you see far more bowlers, especially spinners with a very slingy type action in footage of the 70's and 80's. Is it a bi-product of over-coaching? or is it just one of the many evolutions of the game? or finally, am I just seeing things?

Heavier bats?

 

[Matt79]

Re Kim Hughes - I don't think it's too controversial opinion to say that he was a wonderfully talented batsman. His legacy is undoubtedly tarnished because of the manner of his departure - especially amongst us unlucky to have not seen him bat. It's not fair. But I understand that it might also be a question of having too large a gap between his best and his poor days.

There was a revisionist biographyof him published here recently - I haven't got around to reading it yet.

 

[SJS]

Re Kim Hughes - I don't think it's too controversial opinion to say that he was a wonderfully talented batsman. His legacy is undoubtedly tarnished because of the manner of his departure - especially amongst us unlucky to have not seen him bat. It's not fair. But I understand that it might also be a question of having too large a gap between his best and his poor days.

There was a revisionist biographyof him published here recently - I haven't got around to reading it yet.

His footwork was absolutely remarkable.

In one of the Wisden's (I think it was 1981) there was picture of him coming out of his crease on quick steps (as he does in the video I posted in the last post) and finding the ball outside the off stump, too far for him to drive to covers, swiveled 18 degrees before plonking his front foot far outside the off stump in such a way that he had his back completely towards the bowler and a line drawn between his right and left leg would have run exactly at 90 degrees to the wicket !

In this way he reached the pitch of the ball and proceeded to drive it, with an absolute straight bat, like an arrow in the direction of square point. If you removed the stumps from the picture and did not know the orientation of the wicket there was no way you could tell whether he was driving to covers or extra covers - point would have never occurred to you.

It remains to this day the most remarkable live shot of a cricket stroke I have ever seen.

He was unbelievably gifted.

He was also, it appears, a very sensitive young man. It is sad that he was asked to lead the side when he was. I am not sure with his temperament and the temperament of the prima donnas in his team it was not a disaster from the very outset.

The politics of the Packer series (the goings on of which are never clear to us so far from the scene) could not have helped.

When a young man is so very gifted, his skills (genius in some cases) needs to be nurtured and asking them to take additional responsibilities is rarely in the best interests of individual or team. India were lucky that the disastrous decision of asking Sachin to lead was changed and that he was strong enough to continue his imperious batting.

This is not to compare Hughes's batting with Tendulkar by the way

 

[Top_Cat]

From what I've read from Hughes/Lillee/Marsh, the dispute was exaccerbated by media reports. Remember reading one comment from Marsh which turned from a minor critique about Hughes' leadership into "Marsh wants the captaincy".

Share the Hughes love too. Have only seen highlights but he looked one hell of a player. His 100 against the WI on Boxing Day looked magnificent.

 

[Xuhaib]

People tend to look at the more defensive batsmen for perfect technique. Very often stroke players have rock solid technique as well. garfield Sobers is a great example.

I believe the same was the case with Frank Worrell.

Of the defensive players one has seen Hanif Mohammad stands out for his immaculate defense, concise and economical footwork and fabulously steady head. Gavaskar was almost a replica of Hanif with a slightly more aggressive attitude.

Hanif and my dad shared the same batting coach (Master Aziz) shame his batting talents were not even 1/100 of Hanif.

 

[King Pietersen]

Heavier bats?

Possibly explains the batting side of things, but bowlers appear to be far slingier in their actions and seem to me anyway to flow better. Guys like Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Michael Holding, Richard Hadlee and even Andy Roberts just appeared to have more flow and looked far less robotic than some of the quicker bowlers of today. You do have a few slingy bowlers in the modern era, guys like Shaun Tait, Shoaib Akhtar and Lasith Malinga, but I'd say for the most part there appears to have been a movement towards the more robotic, stiffer bowling actions. Am I just imagining it, or is there actually some truth behind it? and if so, is it one of the bi-products of an era of over coaching and the use of more and more bio-mechanical studying of bowling actions?

 

[SJS]

hanif and my dad shared the same batting coach (master aziz) shame his batting talents were not even 1/100 of hanif.

wow !

 

[BoyBrumby]

Possibly explains the batting side of things, but bowlers appear to be far slingier in their actions and seem to me anyway to flow better. Guys like Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Michael Holding, Richard Hadlee and even Andy Roberts just appeared to have more flow and looked far less robotic than some of the quicker bowlers of today. You do have a few slingy bowlers in the modern era, guys like Shaun Tait, Shoaib Akhtar and Lasith Malinga, but I'd say for the most part there appears to have been a movement towards the more robotic, stiffer bowling actions. Am I just imagining it, or is there actually some truth behind it? and if so, is it one of the bi-products of an era of over coaching and the use of more and more bio-mechanical studying of bowling actions?

Thommo was pretty slingy, tbf. Fidel Edwards is basically his Mini-Me.

 

[King Pietersen]

That was my point, that it appears to me that bowlers of that era, and eras gone by had slightly slingier actions and seemed to flow better in their actions. There are slingy bowlers in the modern era, but the majority of bowlers nowadays seem more robotic in their actions, which is something I believe stems from an era of over-coaching.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That was my point, that it appears to me that bowlers of that era, and eras gone by had slightly slingier actions and seemed to flow better in their actions. There are slingy bowlers in the modern era, but the majority of bowlers nowadays seem more robotic in their actions, which is something I believe stems from an era of over-coaching.

See what you mean. Bloke like Holding had a very smooth and flowing action, but he delivered the ball from a high arm still, so wouldn't call him "slingy" as such.

Shoaib's arm is far rounder on delivery but to my eye at least he isn't half as smooth, in fact he looks a little jerky sometimes, possibly because of his hyper-extension.

Agree with your broader point tho, I think coaches want to be seen to justify their worths so there's always the temptation to refine (read: tinker with) bowlers' actions. I guess the most famous well-intentioned intervention that went ary in recent years was Troy Cooley's attempt to change Anderson's head position on delivery. Ended up costing him his outswinger for a while.

Sometimes the unconventional is probably best left alone; you wouldn't try to get anyone to bowl like Malinga unless it came naturally, but it seems to work for him.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's a shame there isn't much (or possibly any) footage of Ken McEwan batting for Essex in First Class Cricket in the 70's. After Barry Richards he had one of the most solid techniques you will ever see. He would certainly walk straight into the South Afri............ England team if he was around today.

 

[Aritro]

I mentioned it once before on this forum and it raised a furore and i never got into an argument again. I am saying it a second time, Kim Hughes is the finest stroke player amongst all Australians I have seen in half a century of watching test cricket.

Here is a rare video of o=ne of his innings, a double century against india in 1981. The video is not about Kim Hughes but the Australian inings which is all the better because it puts Hughes's batting in perspective. He seems to be batting in a different game compared to his colleagues. the stroke play is sublime and the footwork is the finest one has seen captured on camera ever.

He starts off with jumping out to Dilip Doshi to balls pitched on the leg stump, slightly short of a length, in an effort to cramp him. He takes a couple of steps on lightening quick feet to reach the ball pitched on the leg stump and drives both exquisitely to covers as if they were half volleys pitched four inches outside the off stump.


A little later he steps out to a Shiv Lal Yadav off spinner pitching wide outside the off stump and reaches it and then drives it with a straight bat to the mid wicket fence.

there is a fabulous back foot drive to covers amongst so many other drives all on quick silver feet but the finest of about a dozen or so is when he steps out to Kapil Dev (then at the peek of his career) and drives him gloriously to the covers.

I dont care about the Australian politics of the times but to me its a tragedy that the Australian public has given such short shrift to one of its most talented post war batsman.

Have a look. I bet you will want to watch each of those shots more than once. I have done it many times

Kim Hughes - Australia vs india 1981-82

**** me what a remarkable knock that is. The timing and placement on those drives is breathtaking. Can't thank you enough for drawing my attention to it.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

It depends on all sorts of things. A quickish (130kph+) bowler who swings the ball a lot and bowls a lot of balls at the stumps is essentially unplayable, especially if he can bowl a well-disguised straight-on ball. Equally, if a bowler is swinging it less there's much more chance of nicks, if it goes late enough. It also depends on the strengths and weaknesses of the batsman's technique, and to some small extent the speed of the pitch - and to a much larger extent the bounce in it. Moderate outswing on a very low deck isn't often going to take many wickets because even if you get lots of edges most will fall short of the slips\wicketkeeper.

It's not just that. If the ball is swinging a mile then mentally it is going to play mindgames with the batsman whilst if it is slightly swinging then it won't affect the batsman's concentration anywhere near as much. A ball that swings a mile may not always get the batsman out, but it will mean that the chances of the batsman getting out to straighter delievery or a ball that doesn't do as much is much more higher. A ball that swings less is much more easier to negociate, which means that a straighter or poorer ball is much more easier to punish due to not having the fear of perhaps being cleaned up by an unplayable delievery.

The "still got a long way to go" nonsense has increasingly been thrown out of the window what with HawkEye, and good that it has been. Generally, these days it's realised that if the ball hits the batsman in line and the bowler doesn't bowl from a massive angle then it's probably going to hit the stumps. As for the bounce, unless you're playing at an old-school WACA, you can still bowl an in-between length and hit the stumps even with a batsman standing outside his crease. Meanwhile, finally, if the ball swings any length is potentially threatening provided the line is right. Even a full-toss can be a dangerous ball with large swing.

Nonsense. India 2008, when Hayden was batting about a foot outside of his crease facing up to Zaheer Khan, the ball swung in a touch and rapped Hayden on the pads and he was given out LBW. At first sight, it looked absolutely plumb, but then the Hawkeye actually showed that the ball was missing the stumps by a fair distance due to how far Hayden was standing outside of his crease.

 

[alternative]

Ganguly has awessome technique.

 

[andyc]

The "still got a long way to go" nonsense has increasingly been thrown out of the window what with HawkEye, and good that it has been. Generally, these days it's realised that if the ball hits the batsman in line and the bowler doesn't bowl from a massive angle then it's probably going to hit the stumps. As for the bounce, unless you're playing at an old-school WACA, you can still bowl an in-between length and hit the stumps even with a batsman standing outside his crease. Meanwhile, finally, if the ball swings any length is potentially threatening provided the line is right. Even a full-toss can be a dangerous ball with large swing.

TBF, the current referral system does have a proviso in place if the batsman is hit a certain length from the crease. Only saw it happen once during the summer so it must've been a fair distance, but there is something in place for it.

 

[honestbharani]

That was my point, that it appears to me that bowlers of that era, and eras gone by had slightly slingier actions and seemed to flow better in their actions. There are slingy bowlers in the modern era, but the majority of bowlers nowadays seem more robotic in their actions, which is something I believe stems from an era of over-coaching.

yeah but I guess with the volume of cricket being played, slingy actions have more of a risk of injuries than the others.. Just a personal opinion and I have never bowled, (only bowl occassional leggies), so stand to be corrected..

 

[Richard]

It's not just that. If the ball is swinging a mile then mentally it is going to play mindgames with the batsman whilst if it is slightly swinging then it won't affect the batsman's concentration anywhere near as much. A ball that swings a mile may not always get the batsman out, but it will mean that the chances of the batsman getting out to straighter delievery or a ball that doesn't do as much is much more higher. A ball that swings less is much more easier to negociate, which means that a straighter or poorer ball is much more easier to punish due to not having the fear of perhaps being cleaned up by an unplayable delievery.

I realise that - I am a swing bowler you know. The thing is, the best swing bowlers have the option of controlling whether they get lots or a bit of swing. They can choose to swing it lots or just a bit.

Nonsense. India 2008, when Hayden was batting about a foot outside of his crease facing up to Zaheer Khan, the ball swung in a touch and rapped Hayden on the pads and he was given out LBW. At first sight, it looked absolutely plumb, but then the Hawkeye actually showed that the ball was missing the stumps by a fair distance due to how far Hayden was standing outside of his crease.

I think you missed the "probably" in my post, which might have been the most important word within it.

 

[Matt79]

Back on track, given the discussion about the best exponent of the slower ball, what are the different techniques people have used, and their pros and cons? There's "out of the back of the hand", as I understand it there is also one where the bowler holds the ball "deeper" in the hand. Craig McDermott had a slow full toss that he used to great effect a few times.

 

[Spark]

TBF, the current referral system does have a proviso in place if the batsman is hit a certain length from the crease. Only saw it happen once during the summer so it must've been a fair distance, but there is something in place for it.

2.5m gives a "yellow" light.