We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
A cricket supporter forever
Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.
Check out this awesome e-fed:
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Originally Posted by John Singleton
I've got a good example of why Marcuss' definition of technique is wrong.
If Bradman played as others advised him to, using the conventional, text-book technique, he wouldn't have scored as well.
According to Marcuss the conventional technique would have been classifed as 'good technique', yet Bradman would have been less successful. 'Good technique' leading to bad performance, clearly shows that the definition is wrong.
Rather Bradman adopted a technique, which personally, allowed him to maximise his potential. I.e. he adopted good technique which lead to good performance. The textbook technique for him, would have simply been bad technique resulting in bad perfomance.
Function isn't technique, function is largely directly proportional to ability. The better batsman you are, the more runs you'll make. Shocker.
Technique is entirely different, batsmen like Collingwood and Sehwag have been successful with less than stellar techniques. Collingwood is a particularly good example IMO, in the way that he plays he does limit his scoring shots and makes runs despite his technique. Look at him play, his technique hardly lends itself to glorious flowing shots all around the wicket does it? Yet he nudges and nurdles and accumulates runs for a number of reasons despite his technique.
What I took exception to was you saying that even if Sehwag averages 70 in his next 20 tests and demolishes South Africa in South Africa you'll still rate Ponting higher because of his technique.
Then when I questioned you, you said technique was about functionality and versatility... which contradicts your earlier statement because if Sehwag averages 70 in his next 20 Tests, he'll have a comparable run scoring record to Ponting, and will have scored runs in, pretty much, as many countries.
But having both a good technique and great ability is inherently better than having one or the other.
Being liable to pushing at a spinning ball with hard hands, or playing away from your body when the ball's seaming or closing the face of the bat on every shot you play is not a good thing. In such instances having a good technique would obviously decrease your chances of getting out and improve your chances of scoring more runs.
A bad technique can be a limiting factor to a batsman's success.
The best technique for a batsman is the one that allows him to score the most runs. However, "the most runs" for one batsman isn't equal to "the most runs for another". For example, I think Peter Forrest has a better technique than Paul Collingwood. Forrest isn't as good as Collingwood, but I think Forrest's technique better utilises his natural ability and other non-technical attributes than Collingwood's does his.
There's a big difference between this and textbook technique though, because Sehwag would probably be less effective and score less runs if he tried to played as per the MCC manual. This doesn't mean his technique is poor at all because he's making the best use of his natural ability he can. I think Paul Collingwood would perform a lot better if he could fundamentally change his technique, however.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 25-10-2010 at 08:12 AM.
There is no best technique. It's how it all comes into a package that counts.
The biggest measurement of how good your technique is how well you adjust. For example if you are going to play a straight drive and the ball swings away, if you are good enough you will successfully play a cover drive, if not you will play it like KP and get out
That is the holy grail of batting IMO, don't worry about your technique for individual shots, as long as you can adjust to any delivery which you do not initially expect.
"A technique which allows a batsman to maximise his run scoring ability in all conditions"
That doesn't go against what you said above does it?
And ftr, I also agree with the above definiton, just IMO that technique is pretty damn similar to the "traditional" technique. As I've said, you're more likely to score runs playing with a full face than trying to hit the ball with half a bat.
Last edited by Marcuss; 25-10-2010 at 08:19 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)