thierry henry
International Coach
I agree, to an extent, with what Goughy has said. I think in recent years we have increasingly seen batsmen able to score at ridiculous run-rates without the expected loss of wickets that is supposed to go with it.
Seemingly, many (if not most) of the extremely talented individuals who become international batsmen are more than capable of swinging hard and aiming for the boundary at pretty much any sort of delivery, and the chances of them being dismissed are rather slimmer than perhaps was conventionally thought to be the case.
Nevertheless, the essence of batting in cricket is that, with one false stroke, you are dismissed. Therefore, the element of caution in batting is necessary, and, of course, wise. It is all a matter of degree and I certainly agree that batsmen in recent years have shown that the envelope can be pushed further in terms of aggressive batting, without the potential of losing one's wicket being greatly increased.
However, I still believe that 99% of batsmen are likely to survive any given delivery if they aim to play it defensively. Of course, it becomes a balancing act- perhaps a batsman can last an average of 80 balls and score 30 runs batting defensively, but only 60 balls while scoring 40 runs when he is more attacking. Therefore, in most situations the latter style of batting is more appropriate.
It might therefore be wise for batsman to play in a slightly more attacking vein than generally advised, but the essential dilemma of risk v reward, and the basic principles of batsmanship (not a word?) and shot selection still exist.
I always find it interesting, for example, how certain players (Ramnaresh Sarwan and Chris Gayle come to mind) actually have higher or similar averages in ODI cricket than test cricket. It completely defies logic. The only logical explanation imo is that these players are misusing their own skills in test cricket by "pretending" to be "conventional" test batsmen, when they would actually score more runs-per-innings by batting in the same style as they do in ODIs.
The irony is that if Gayle went out and averaged 40 off 45 balls in a test series, and kept on going down swinging, he would probably be accused of being irresponsible, whereas if he averaged 35 off 80 people would probably be more appreciative.
On the other hand, I know from my own personal experience that some batsmen are only of any value when they block everything. I used to be quite well regarded for my stonewalling opening batting where I would make, say, 30 off 110 balls. However, I always found that as soon as I stepped outside my plan of "conventional" defensive batting, I got myself out with my first shot in anger. I think someone like Mark Richardson was much the same- not talented enough to be an attacking top-order bat, but able to be test class when playing defensively.
Seemingly, many (if not most) of the extremely talented individuals who become international batsmen are more than capable of swinging hard and aiming for the boundary at pretty much any sort of delivery, and the chances of them being dismissed are rather slimmer than perhaps was conventionally thought to be the case.
Nevertheless, the essence of batting in cricket is that, with one false stroke, you are dismissed. Therefore, the element of caution in batting is necessary, and, of course, wise. It is all a matter of degree and I certainly agree that batsmen in recent years have shown that the envelope can be pushed further in terms of aggressive batting, without the potential of losing one's wicket being greatly increased.
However, I still believe that 99% of batsmen are likely to survive any given delivery if they aim to play it defensively. Of course, it becomes a balancing act- perhaps a batsman can last an average of 80 balls and score 30 runs batting defensively, but only 60 balls while scoring 40 runs when he is more attacking. Therefore, in most situations the latter style of batting is more appropriate.
It might therefore be wise for batsman to play in a slightly more attacking vein than generally advised, but the essential dilemma of risk v reward, and the basic principles of batsmanship (not a word?) and shot selection still exist.
I always find it interesting, for example, how certain players (Ramnaresh Sarwan and Chris Gayle come to mind) actually have higher or similar averages in ODI cricket than test cricket. It completely defies logic. The only logical explanation imo is that these players are misusing their own skills in test cricket by "pretending" to be "conventional" test batsmen, when they would actually score more runs-per-innings by batting in the same style as they do in ODIs.
The irony is that if Gayle went out and averaged 40 off 45 balls in a test series, and kept on going down swinging, he would probably be accused of being irresponsible, whereas if he averaged 35 off 80 people would probably be more appreciative.
On the other hand, I know from my own personal experience that some batsmen are only of any value when they block everything. I used to be quite well regarded for my stonewalling opening batting where I would make, say, 30 off 110 balls. However, I always found that as soon as I stepped outside my plan of "conventional" defensive batting, I got myself out with my first shot in anger. I think someone like Mark Richardson was much the same- not talented enough to be an attacking top-order bat, but able to be test class when playing defensively.