"Cricket turning into baseball - say it ain't so"

[Jono]

Sorry for the stuffed up duplicate thread, CW was running slow.

Article can be found here

Firstly, this isn't a "rag on Twenty20 thread". Nor is it denigrating Warner's awesome batting the other night. But rather a discussion regarding, a) the changing nature of cricket in general, b) batting technique.and c) whether Twenty20 can be a better, more balanced game, or does it not need to be.

Secondly...

"Not everybody can do what David can do but it will open the door for other young players to experiment and to go to the nets and say, well how am I going to hit this ball on a good length over mid-wicket," Campbell said.

I'd love to see these "young kids" swat balls landing on a good length over mid-wicket on a pitch similar to that seen on Day 5 in Sydney this year.

When batsman are being advised to no longer "play the ball on its merits", but rather "hitting nominated balls to a predetermined part of the field no matter where the ball is pitched", I think its time to have a serious look at the way we are preparing pitches for limited overs cricket.

I know we talk about flat pitches a lot, and I acknowledge that the crowds that flock to Twenty20 cricket want to see runs being scored, and plenty of boundaries and big hitting. But I'm sure most would also love a thrilling game of cricket, over both innings.

I also think they wouldn't mind some wickets comprising of edges to second slip, rather than your ridiculously high proportion of "caught at long on/deep mid-wicket".

I definitely think Twenty20 has a place in our sport now (be it domestically or internationally), and denying that is probably wishful thinking. However I do worry about batsman being trained and coached to play a certain way, i.e. baseball style, simply because the batsman can always trust that the ball will not move much, if at all, and also that there will never be any uneven bounce.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I don't know about you, but I've played 7 years of grade cricket and I've never played on a flat enough deck to do that. If kids do try and play like that, unless they're the absolute very best players, I doubt it would come off in most local grade comps.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Batting techniques move with the times. Now, it's about economy of movement and remaining balanced. This is just an extension to help increase the ability of players to hit powerfully; it's not something that will be (or should be) taught to replace basic technique.

 

[Langeveldt]

Hate it with a passion, but I'm still in the stuffy cucumber sandwich eating minority, so guess I'll have to go and watch some real baseball instead

 

[popepouri]

Cricket = hit people on the head with a 150km/h delivery = WIN!

 

[pup11]

I think moving the cricket ball is very important for a bowler to survive in the game, the way the things are today, the pitches have become really flat, and the bats have got bigger and better, and with the introduction of T20, batsmen too have started working on unique ways to hit a cricket ball in order for maximum results, so if the bowlers can't swing or seam the ball in such situations, it becomes rather easy for batsmen to improvise and hit the ball to parts of the ground.

Whether you are a batsman or a bowler, you got to have tremendous skill to suit T20 format of the game and ability to execute those skills in such a short space of time in order to survive, T20 is a new form of the game and its gonna have its implications on the other forms of the game too, and with more money being offered in T20 circuit, there are no prices for guessing which form the game most youngsters would like to excel in and would be lured into.

Having said that i don't think a good T20 players might necessarily end up as a good ODI or test cricketer, in both 50 over game and the 5 day game the skills of a cricketer are more minutely tested and any weakness of yours is more likely to be exposed in those formats, so i think a new specific breed of cricketers might emerge who might only be interested in playing T20 cricket and might be good at it only, whereas on the other hand we might see players with proper techniques and skill playing in test and ODI formats.

 

[Top_Cat]

Largely with Jack on this one; techniques have always evolved and will do so. There's more than one way to hit a ball.

I didn't see wild slogs with Warner at all. Just excellent hitting and technique, in the context of what he was trying to do. He obviously thought about when to take the swings too, not a numbers player by any stretch.

 

[Furball]

Afridi's been batting that way for years - his moderate to poor record in the limited overs formats tells you all you need to about the merits of trying to hit every ball out the ground.

Twenty20 isn't just about power hitting either - you've got to be able to score off every ball and turn 1s into 2s, 2s into 3s, which is why guys like Hussey will excel in it despite not being build like a brick ****house and possessing the ability to hit balls from Sydney to Tasmania.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Any good bowler will know how to bowl to people when they're in this sort of mood. If they dont then they deserve to get smashed.

 

[Langeveldt]

Hopefully Baseball will adapt and turn into cricket.. Looking for sacrificial bunts for six hours before a swing

 

[cricman]

Hopefully Baseball will adapt and turn into cricket.. Looking for sacrificial bunts for six hours before a swing

Would Bunting be Legal in Cricket?

Probably the best way to Play Murali and Mendis IMO

 

[Jamee999]

Yeah, you don't have to move the bat, I guess...

 

[Matt79]

Didn't Lillee tell someone who kept playing and missing to "just hold the bat still and I'll make sure the ball hits the edge FFS"...

 

[The Sean]

Said it to Beefy I think.

 

[Goughy]

I have not had chance to read the thread as Im in a rush but I hope my post fits with the theme.

Ive long held that coaches, players and analysts are far too conservative in what can be achieved when batting.

People expect a batsman to fit their preconceived notions of what a batsman should do, what shots to play and how they are to bat.

Frankly, Ive long thought that batting has been held back by this narrow mindset. Ive always believed that there are scoring shots to virtually every ball. Situations may mean that defensive batting is required but it should be a contingency plan rather than a designed strategy.

Im not talking about slogging or mindless thuggery but there is a lot that can still be explored about how a batsman can treat a ball without increasing the chance of dismissal a significant amount. Its about skill development and expanding the concept of batting than head up and swing.

For some reason the established wisdom is that it is better to get out to a defensive shot than an attacking shot. It is the wrong mindset and almost cowardly (id prefer a different word but cant think of one). It stops the batsman getting blamed as he tried to defend. Im not interested in a batsman looking to defect blame but a batsman to try and embrace success.

I think, for a long time, batting has been kept a little in the dark ages by people and coaches that have not explored the possibilities.

I stress that it isnt about slogging and swinging but taking greater advantage of the scoring opportunities presented by each ball that previously have been often under utilized. There is a creative flavor in batting that has long been suppressed by a conservative mentality that has taught that there is only 1 way to bat well.

 

[Uppercut]

I have not had chance to read the thread as Im in a rush but I hope my post fits with the theme.

Ive long held that coaches, players and analysts are far too conservative in what can be achieved when batting.

People expect a batsman to fit their preconceived notions of what a batsman should do, what shots to play and how they are to bat.

Frankly, Ive long thought that batting has been held back by this narrow mindset. Ive always believed that there are scoring shots to virtually every ball. Situations may mean that defensive batting is required but it should be a contingency plan rather than a designed strategy.

Im not talking about slogging or mindless thuggery but there is a lot that can still be explored about how a batsman can treat a ball without increasing the chance of dismissal a significant amount. Its about skill development and expanding the concept of batting than head up and swing.

For some reason the established wisdom is that it is better to get out to a defensive shot than an attacking shot. It is the wrong mindset and almost cowardly (id prefer a different word but cant think of one). It stops the batsman getting blamed as he tried to defend. Im not interested in a batsman looking to defect blame but a batsman to try and embrace success.

I think, for a long time, batting has been kept a little in the dark ages by people and coaches that have not explored the possibilities.

I stress that it isnt about slogging and swinging but taking greater advantage of the scoring opportunities presented by each ball that previously have been often under utilized. There is a creative flavor in batting that has long been suppressed by a conservative mentality that has taught that there is only 1 way to bat well.

Also known as "Boycott syndrome".

 

[G.I.Joe]

For some reason the established wisdom is that it is better to get out to a defensive shot than an attacking shot. It is the wrong mindset and almost cowardly (id prefer a different word but cant think of one). It stops the batsman getting blamed as he tried to defend. Im not interested in a batsman looking to defect blame but a batsman to try and embrace success.

Never thought of it from that angle before. Makes sense.

 

[Furball]

Virender Sehwag is probably the best example of what Goughy's talking about.

It's an interesting point.

 

[Nutter]

Yup, agree with Goughy.

 

[aussie]

I have not had chance to read the thread as Im in a rush but I hope my post fits with the theme.

Ive long held that coaches, players and analysts are far too conservative in what can be achieved when batting.

People expect a batsman to fit their preconceived notions of what a batsman should do, what shots to play and how they are to bat.

Frankly, Ive long thought that batting has been held back by this narrow mindset. Ive always believed that there are scoring shots to virtually every ball. Situations may mean that defensive batting is required but it should be a contingency plan rather than a designed strategy.

Im not talking about slogging or mindless thuggery but there is a lot that can still be explored about how a batsman can treat a ball without increasing the chance of dismissal a significant amount. Its about skill development and expanding the concept of batting than head up and swing.

For some reason the established wisdom is that it is better to get out to a defensive shot than an attacking shot. It is the wrong mindset and almost cowardly (id prefer a different word but cant think of one). It stops the batsman getting blamed as he tried to defend. Im not interested in a batsman looking to defect blame but a batsman to try and embrace success.

I think, for a long time, batting has been kept a little in the dark ages by people and coaches that have not explored the possibilities.

I stress that it isnt about slogging and swinging but taking greater advantage of the scoring opportunities presented by each ball that previously have been often under utilized. There is a creative flavor in batting that has long been suppressed by a conservative mentality that has taught that there is only 1 way to bat well.

Has a man that has played cricket, i feel this two points alot.

On the first point as another posted mentioned, Virender Sehwag is probably the best current example of a player who definately defies the coaching manual, KP too. But you got to have special talent to be able expand your repotoire as a batsman. I'd say all the games great batsmen did this as well.

If not staying conservative will do you quite well. Look at players like Langer or Kirsten, if they ever tried to play out of their comfort zones they would have found themselves in a lot of trouble.