Playing your natural game or not ? - The Dravid Way Vs The Chappell Way

[honestbharani]

Often, we have heard Ian Chappell and a few other commentators talk about great players being able to play their "natural" game in any situation. And that method seemed to have informed coaching manuals and drills around the world. But the current India A and junior sides coach, and one of the greatest batsmen to have ever played the game, Rahul Dravid feels there should be no such thing as a natural game at the international level and players should always look to adapt and play to the situation they are presented with. Thoughts?



'Hardik has turned his career around' - Dravid - ESPNcricinfo

 

[weldone]

100% with Dravid

That's what separates the 'very good's from the greats
That's what separates the Sehwags from the Tendulkars

That's why I'm very happy to see the recent transition of David Warner.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

What's your z-score?

I reckon this follows a normal distribution.

 

[subshakerz]

I am not sure their views are so divergent. Ian Chappell talks about natural game but readily admits that players need to adapt this game based on circumstances. His latest article on David Warner hints at this.

Big four? What about Warner? - ESPNcricinfo

There obviously is something such as natural game, which is the style/pace/tempo of cricket that a batsman is most comfortable at. Sehwag would prefer to take on bowlers from the get go and get the upper hand, whereas Dravid would prefer to take time to settle. But cricket is about going outside your comfort zone, so playing the same way all the time is simply untenable. I agree with the comment above, this ability to adapt is what defines the truly all-time greats.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I am not sure their views are so divergent. Ian Chappell talks about natural game but readily admits that players need to adapt this game based on circumstances. His latest article on David Warner hints at this.

Big four? What about Warner? - ESPNcricinfo

There obviously is something such as natural game, which is the style/pace/tempo of cricket that a batsman is most comfortable at. Sehwag would prefer to take on bowlers from the get go and get the upper hand, whereas Dravid would prefer to take time to settle. But cricket is about going outside your comfort zone, so playing the same way all the time is simply untenable. I agree with the comment above, this ability to adapt is what defines the truly all-time greats.

The problem is "natural game" is used in a way that is synonymous with "attacking".

 

[OverratedSanity]

Dravid has commented on this before too. I think it was on a tour to NZ when Sehwag got out to a **** shot and Dravid was asked whether a batsman should always play his natural game, which prompted him to go on a rant about how that's a load of BS and that playing to the situation is what batsmen should aim to do. He didn't mean it as a shot at Sehwag but it was still amusing.

 

[cnerd123]

I think it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B.

Obviously you need to adapt your game to circumstances. But you shouldn't be trying to do things that don't suite you or that you're unfamiliar with. If you've got a weak defensive technique you're probably better off attacking balls on your stumps even if the situation doesn't call for it, but you can adapt by leaving deliveries outside offstump alone. If you're an over-spinner bowling in Asia you won't suddenly be able to bowl side-spin effectively on a week's notice, so you shouldn't try that, but you can change up the lines, speeds and fields you bowl to in order to suit conditions.

You should know your game and stick to it, but adapt wherever you can. A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B.

 

[Engle]

There is some sense to both arguments.
It is not easy for a batsman to change his game dramatically to suit the situation. Their game is finely tuned and a bit of deviation can be handled, but anything more will be counter-productive resulting in their dismissal and possibly throwing them off their groove.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, it is not as cut and dry as what a few of the posters earlier seem to be saying in this thread. Natural game, if defined as the manner in which the batsman is most comfortable playing, needs to be adapted to the situation of the team and the game and even the series etc. But if natural game is defined as what the batsman can best do given his technique and temperament, then its not very likely that batsmen will succeed greatly doing what they are not good at doing.