• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Appreciating good techniques

Matt79

Global Moderator
An idea I was tossig around. Cricket conversation in general, and certainly on here, makes regular reference to the strength or weakness of a player's techniques. I suspect I can't be the only one here with a less than encyclopedic knowledge of what exactly, in technical detail, constitutes a sound technique for a batsman or an ideal technique for a bowler. For me at least, it's a bit like trying to define pornography - I feel I know it when I see it, but couldn't write it out for you. On the other hand, there are some real experts here who I'd love to learn from in terms of what to consciously look for when assessing a player.

A couple of caveats:
1) by all means please do use particular players as examples, but can we not turn this into debates relating to specific players?
2) I make this thread conscious that there is no consensus as to the importance of having a textbook technique (indeed, SJS' article regarding Sehwag a month or so ago prompted this line of thought for the thread), and
3) I also recognize there aren't hard and fast definite "best" methods.

To kick things off I'll ask a specific question - what exactly constitutes a theoretically "good" technique batting against swing bowling?
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
The obvious one is playing the ball late. This has been diluted quite a bit over recent times due to the use of ball machines, where people get themselves still and throw their hands at the ball. They get into a rhythm with their batting, and often "meet" the ball out in front of them, and muscle it down the ground.

Hayden was proof of this post-2000. He was a real devotee of the ball machine, and on pitches where there wasn't a great amount of side movement, it wouldn't matter how quick it was, where the ball pitched, Hayden could stroke it down the ground; in the air or along the ground, it didn't matter. It did, however, make him vulnerable to the swinging ball as he wasn't necessarily playing the ball "under his eyes".

If you rewatch his innings at the Oval (2005), you'll see how he played the ball a lot closer to his body, and under his eyes. It took away his fearsome driving power, but it allowed him to counter any movement generated by the English bowlers.

EDIT: please don't take this into a Hayden vs quality bowlers thing. But it was the most obvious example to think of.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Latest thinking seems to be that a keeping a still head is the single most important factor.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Latest thinking seems to be that a keeping a still head is the single most important factor.
Basically the premise of all technique though, not just "playing swing bowling".

Simply, if your eyes are moving, and the target (ball) is moving, then you are simply making it harder for yourself to hit the target with the bat. This is further exaggerated if there is horizontal movement from the ball.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Footwork becomes more important? To put yourself in a position where you can adjust to cover late movement without becoming unbalanced or leaving a gap between bat and pad?
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Jack - by diluted, you mean less commonly seen or less important? I suspect the former, although conditions have made swing a but less common.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Jack - by diluted, you mean less commonly seen or less important? I suspect the former, although conditions have made swing a but less common.
I guess a bit of both; not seen as often because (as you allude to) swinging conditions aren't that common.

Footwork becomes more important? To put yourself in a position where you can adjust to cover late movement without becoming unbalanced or leaving a gap between bat and pad?
Definitely. To take some Australian examples, the following players base their technique around being balanced, and often at the expense of footwork: Martyn, Haddin and Hodge. All three are prone to getting out to outswingers, wafting away their body, because their head isn't in line with the ball. They tend to look like pretty ordinary, "soft" dismissals. Herschelle Gibbs is another example, although further exaggerated as he almost moved away from the ball on occassions to free his arms and stroke through the ball, even in Test cricket.

Basically, getting your head in line with the ball allows you to better perceive any movement. If the ball moves outside the line of your eyes, then there is a good chance of it going past the stumps. Moving your head and keeping your eyes level involves moving your feet to get yourself into that position. If your head isn't in line with the ball at any stage, and it moves, you make it more likely that you are going to edge the ball.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I guess a bit of both; not seen as often because (as you allude to) swinging conditions aren't that common.


Definitely. To take some Australian examples, the following players base their technique around being balanced, and often at the expense of footwork: Martyn, Haddin and Hodge. All three are prone to getting out to outswingers, wafting away their body, because their head isn't in line with the ball. They tend to look like pretty ordinary, "soft" dismissals. Herschelle Gibbs is another example, although further exaggerated as he almost moved away from the ball on occassions to free his arms and stroke through the ball, even in Test cricket.

Basically, getting your head in line with the ball allows you to better perceive any movement. If the ball moves outside the line of your eyes, then there is a good chance of it going past the stumps. Moving your head and keeping your eyes level involves moving your feet to get yourself into that position. If your head isn't in line with the ball at any stage, and it moves, you make it more likely that you are going to edge the ball.
Yes. Peripheral vs foveal vision; I posted a link about this a few months back as it relates to baseball. The fovea has the greatest concentration of retinal cones in the eye and is for precise perception. Peripheral vision does more guesstimating, far lower acuity, etc. As the ball swings away from the bat, the perception of not only its position but also the degree and direction of the swing by the eye relies more and more on calculation/experience/guessing. Basically, not only do you lose your ability to track and predict the ball's path, your eyes can even perceive movement which isn't there, compounding the chances of a mistake/nick. Even the direction/speed/wobbliness of the seam as the ball comes down can impact on your perception of what the ball's doing and/or about to do. It's pretty freaky if you manipulate it enough in, say, a lab setting.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
One wonders at how much heavier bats have contributed to players not playing the ball as late too. Basically, with a 2lbs 4oz bat, you could play a lot later and if the ball ended up in a hitting zone, throw the wrists at it off front or back-foot and still get good power, especially through square. Guys using 3lbs bats makes this far harder to achieve. Lack of swinging conditions means it might not have been exploited as much.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
vic_orthdox said:
Definitely. To take some Australian examples, the following players base their technique around being balanced, and often at the expense of footwork: Martyn, Haddin and Hodge. All three are prone to getting out to outswingers, wafting away their body, because their head isn't in line with the ball. They tend to look like pretty ordinary, "soft" dismissals. Herschelle Gibbs is another example, although further exaggerated as he almost moved away from the ball on occassions to free his arms and stroke through the ball, even in Test cricket.
Just wanted to say, that there isn't that much wrong with such a technique. What it does require is a greater level of circumspection in terms of what balls to play and what balls to leave - you aren't going to be in position to hit as many balls as others with more active feet.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Seems to look much worse if you're not hitting them sweet and reckon its perceived differently. Guys who move their feet more, even if they're nicking out as much as a Martyn/Hodge type, are saved by "Well, at least he's getting a decent stride in" in selection stakes. Other guys just look lazy even when they're just having a run of outs.

EDIT: Unless your name is Mark Waugh.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Just wanted to say, that there isn't that much wrong with such a technique. What it does require is a greater level of circumspection in terms of what balls to play and what balls to leave - you aren't going to be in position to hit as many balls as others with more active feet.
Yeah, all techniques are a combination of different factors that need to work together - but different combinations can work for different people.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
One wonders at how much heavier bats have contributed to players not playing the ball as late too. Basically, with a 2lbs 4oz bat, you could play a lot later and if the ball ended up in a hitting zone, throw the wrists at it off front or back-foot and still get good power, especially through square. Guys using 3lbs bats makes this far harder to achieve. Lack of swinging conditions means it might not have been exploited as much.
One of the biggest reasons it's so frustrating that ball technology has, if anything, regressed while bat technology has improved.

Would be great to see bowlers being given the same improvements as batsmen.

All the posts so far have talked of batting technique, incidentally - as a swing bowler, one of the things I've come to appreciate a hell of a lot is something which seems so obvious when you think about it, but the combination of the position of the shoulder and the wrist. I've finally done some analysis on my bowling in recent years and have finally realised why I can bowl such massive outswingers despite never having really made a conscious decision to try - my action, which is relatively round-armed, has simply ended-up, by luck on my part, one that gets the seam into absolutely the perfect position for the outswinger. And by using a slightly more and less snappy flick of my wrist at the moment of delivery, I can bowl one that goes early and keeps going at the same rate, and one that goes early then sort of starts to go more as it keeps going down.

The real trick, of course, is not knowing how to do those things but being able to produce them to order with regularity - something that only comes through one thing, practice practice and more practice. Something I've never exactly been top-notch at bullying myself into doing, nor have I been fortunate to have much in the way of facilities.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
So, if I'm not irritating people by trying to reduce this down to simple criteria, what then defines good footwork to a pace bowler who's getting it to move a bit? If I were to try and define it, based on my very much armchair appreciation (my footwork in real life is absolutely tragic), it consists of:
- remaining balanced, in terms of being steady and with your weight able to be smoothly transferred without lurching or stretching;
- being definite: some guys seem to break this rule with elaborate trigger movements etc, but generally it seems that being able to pick a line and length early (not footwork, but again related) AND then making a definite move to either go forward or back;
- from what Jack and Corey have been saying, the other aim is to get yourself in a good 'viewing' position to watch the ball to the bat, ie. head level and as close to still as possible, while attaining those other factors.

Is that a fair summary?
 
Last edited:

Matt79

Global Moderator
All the posts so far have talked of batting technique, incidentally - as a swing bowler, one of the things I've come to appreciate a hell of a lot is something which seems so obvious when you think about it, but the combination of the position of the shoulder and the wrist.
Yeah, was going to say, by all means, if people have other aspects they want to get clarified, or discuss their understanding of, please jump in. I picked one area at random.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
So, if I'm not irritating people by trying to reduce this down to simple criteria, what then defines good footwork to a pace bowler who's getting it to move a bit? If I were to try and define it, based on my very much armchair appreciation (my footwork in real life is absolutely tragic), it consists of:
- remaining balanced, in terms of being steady and with your weight able to be smoothly transferred without lurching or stretching;
- being definite: some guys seem to break this rule with elaborate trigger movements etc, but generally it seems that being able to pick a line and length early (not footwork, but again related) AND then making a definite move to either go forward or back;
- from what Jack and Corey have been saying, the other aim is to get yourself in a good 'viewing' position to watch the ball to the bat, ie. head level and as close to still as possible, while attaining those other factors.

Is that a fair summary?
I think that you can simplify these points even further. The head determines both balance and vision.

1. Eyes level and over the ball.
2. This is achieved by forthright footwork.
3. Play the ball under your eyes.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yah and there's nothing to say you need to play at the ball. Having the head in good position means you'll be in a better position to judge leaving the ball if it's hooping which is almost as important.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
This is one of my favourite subjects so my posts are going to be long winded. I write as i think and do not want to go back and edit. Excuse me please :@

On Footwork

Its would be erroneous to consider footwork as synonymous with technique. But good footwork is one of the most vital ingredients of the 'learnt/taught' skills of the game.

Hands(including arms) and your bat are what deal with the ball so most of the stroke execution is about how these two are used but to be able to do that well you need to get the rest of your body in the right place and that is what your feet (or footwork) is supposed to do. Thus footwork comes first. The only thing that comes before is your eyes but here I am talking of footwork.

To learn the basics of footwork, one must, at the first step, leave lateral movement out. It makes it simpler.

All balls, particularly if there is no lateral movement, can be hit. What is needed is for the batsman to decide where he wants to meet the ball with his bat and how does he move to have the best chance of getting his bat at that spot at the right time. (By the way, when you get these three aspects perfectly you have achieved the 'difficult to define term of timing). It seems a tall claim to say that all balls can be hit, but it really is true and the modern game, particularly the shorter version is showing more examples of it than we had in the past. The problem, however, is to be able to decide where you want to meet the ball - in front of the popping crease or behind it. In other words, do you want to go forward or back. An over pitched delivery is more easily spotted and the decision is made quickly to go forward. Same is true for the really short ball and going back. The problem lies in between.

The good length ball is best defined as the ball where the batsman is not able to decide, quickly enough, whether to play back or forward. This is why bowlers are aiming to achieve this length and so many batsmen failing to score often off them.

My coach used to say a very interesting thing. He said, you can be scared of a good length ball because you are not able to hit it without risk but if you are good enough, you could look at it differently and say, "A good length ball is that which can be played of either feet. All you need is to judge its length early enough to move decisively forward or back."

Garfield Sobers in India at a function the other day said a very interesting thing. He said that having once been stumped, he decided never to be stumped again and it did not in any way hinder his stroke play. He either went fully forward or right back to the base of the stumps. This, with his height, gave hims something like 8-8.5 feet to play with. It was enough to play any length the bowlers bowled. All he needed was to decide early and move fully.

So the first part of footwork, after one has decided the line/length, is to move forward or back AND do it decisively.

A lot of batsmen suffer and not many are able to do what Sobers suggests because of their being either front footed or back-footed by inclination. Ideally one should be comfortable in both. Coaches, by and large, tend to reach front foot movements first and a predominance of turf wickets in coaching centers in many parts of the world make it easier for youngsters to prefer the front foot. This is unfortunate.

The greatest batsmen of the world have been those who have been great backfoot players. This is not to say that front foot play is not important enough but trust me, if you see the ball early enough, you can play almost all of them off the backfoot (assuming you know how to) while front foot is restrictive.

The video of Sobers's 254 (I think) against Lillee in Australia shows a shot where he goes back to what looks like a yorker and drives it on the half-volley (off his back foot) for a four.

I am digressing but I want to emphasise the back foot movement since that is what is the bigger problem with modern players, particularly from the sub-continent where the low bounce of domestic wickets makes it easier to score runs even with a front foot game. Hence the Yuvraj's of India and the host of openers from Pakistan.

to be continued....
 

wfdu_ben91

International 12th Man
Keeping your head inline with the ball isn't the best advice for playing swing bowling because that's how you get into a bad habit of falling across the crease. For example, if a bowler bowls several balls outside the offstump and you're trying to keep your head inline with the ball then your weight is going to be shifting to the offside; then the bowler bowls an inswinger and your weight is shifting to the offside then the likelyhood is that you're going to get rapped on the pads. You should keep your head still.

Ideally, the best way to counteract good swing bowling is to stand outside your crease (assuming that you play the short ball like a god or you're willing to wear acouple on the body). Also, if you wanna play the percentages then only play shots off of your body and generally cut off any offside shots for the time being. Do that, plus playing straight and only flicking through midwicket when the ball is on leg stump (not off and middle) and you should be fine. Take it for what it's worth; I scored my first ton in Sydney Grade Cricket (where the state players play, not average joe park cricket) last week. :cool:
 

Top