Showing posts with label technique. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technique. Show all posts
Monday 28 March 2022
Wednesday 26 January 2022
Highly structured coaching dehumanises cricket
Greg Chappell in Cricinfo
I believe that cricket coaches should have an oath not dissimilar to that laid down by Hippocrates in Of the Epidemics: "first do no harm".
At a time when the head coaching role with Australian cricket is in the spotlight, it is worth looking at the role of coaching in the game more broadly.
The developed cricket countries have lost the natural environments that were a big part of their development structure in bygone eras. In those environments, young cricketers learned from watching good players and then emulating them in pick-up matches with family and friends.
Usually any instruction that was received was rudimentary, and interference from adults generally was minimal. In these unstructured settings, players developed a natural style while learning to compete against older players, during which they learned critical coping and survival skills.
The Indian subcontinent still has many towns where coaching facilities are rare and youngsters play in streets and on vacant land without the interference of formal coaching. This is where many of their current stars have learned the game.
MS Dhoni, with whom I worked in India, is a good example of a batter who developed his talent and learned to play in this fashion. By competing against more experienced individuals on a variety of surfaces early in his development, Dhoni developed the decision-making and strategic skills that have set him apart from many of his peers. His is one of the sharpest cricket minds I have encountered.
England, on the other hand, have very few of these natural environments and their players are produced in a narrow band of public schools, with an emphasis on the coaching manual. This is why their batting has lost much of its flair and resilience.
The games that young people make up and play are dynamic and foster creativity, joy, flexibility in technical execution, tactical understanding and decision-making, which are often missing in batting at the highest levels.
Invariably, when an adult gets involved with kids playing cricket, they break up the game and kill its energy by emphasising correct technique. This reduces a dynamic, engaging environment that promotes learning to a flat and lifeless set of drills that do little to improve batting in games.
The growth in structured training in the preparation of batters has not only failed to take batting forward, it has actually resulted in a decline in batting. Highly structured environments, and an excessive focus on teaching players to perform "correct" technique, dehumanise cricket.
The environments that attempt to reduce batting to mastery of technique, and to break it up into a number of distinct components, reflect a misunderstanding of how complex batting is. Quality batting requires good imagination, creativity, and the ability to identify and respond to challenges in matches.
In response to this problem, we must change the education of coaches. From training them to be the font of all wisdom, we must instead enable them to become managers of creative learning environments in which young cricketers learn the game with minimal invasion and interference from adults.
In this approach the coaches' work involves setting up conditions for learning through engagement with the physical learning environment - which involves some degree of awareness and decision-making.
There are a couple of significant challenges to the status quo of coaching involved here. One is the shift from the idea of the coach as having all the knowledge that he hands down to the players as passive receivers, to one of the coach facilitating and guiding players in constructing their own knowledge as active learners.
I can hear those who believe batting is all about technique asking how these "free-range" cricketers will become technically adept, but I would remind them that for the first 100 years of Test cricket, that is how the very best were bred.
In his wonderful book The Art of Cricket published 64 years ago, Don Bradman wrote: "I would prefer to tell a young player what to do than how to do it." I would take this further by suggesting that good coaches should also help them learn when and why.
The author with MS Dhoni in 2006, whom he describes as "one of the sharpest cricket minds I have encountered" Dibyangshu Sarkar / AFP/Getty Images
Training must be focused on improving game play by locating learning in contexts that, to different degrees, replicate game conditions, so that improvements in practice sessions lead to improvements in matches.
This does not mean just playing cricket instead of practising. It means designing and managing modified games and activities aimed at particular outcomes that suit the skills, attitudes and motivations of the players and the preferred learning outcomes - whether for children learning to play or for batters at the highest levels.
The best coaches ask questions to get players thinking and working together to solve problems. The questions are aimed at drawing players out to come up with solutions to the problems presented to them.This does not neglect technique but, instead, develops it by having players learn and improve the execution of technique in the context of a match. This develops decision-making, flexibility of execution, awareness, and the ability to adapt to the range of challenges that batters face.
The greatest batters developed their talent over long periods of time by playing and learning in creative, informal learning environments from young ages without an excessive focus on perfecting someone else's idea of what an ideal technique should look like.
England would do well to look at their coaching methods and how the best batters develop their skills as part of any review that they initiate on the back of another resounding defeat in Australia. The England batting was bereft of class, short on imagination, and lacked resilience throughout this tour. If I was in charge of English cricket, I know what I would do first - but I won't be giving that information away for free!
If they don't do something drastic, they will be accused of behaving as in the aphorism that has often been misattributed to Albert Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I believe that cricket coaches should have an oath not dissimilar to that laid down by Hippocrates in Of the Epidemics: "first do no harm".
At a time when the head coaching role with Australian cricket is in the spotlight, it is worth looking at the role of coaching in the game more broadly.
The developed cricket countries have lost the natural environments that were a big part of their development structure in bygone eras. In those environments, young cricketers learned from watching good players and then emulating them in pick-up matches with family and friends.
Usually any instruction that was received was rudimentary, and interference from adults generally was minimal. In these unstructured settings, players developed a natural style while learning to compete against older players, during which they learned critical coping and survival skills.
The Indian subcontinent still has many towns where coaching facilities are rare and youngsters play in streets and on vacant land without the interference of formal coaching. This is where many of their current stars have learned the game.
MS Dhoni, with whom I worked in India, is a good example of a batter who developed his talent and learned to play in this fashion. By competing against more experienced individuals on a variety of surfaces early in his development, Dhoni developed the decision-making and strategic skills that have set him apart from many of his peers. His is one of the sharpest cricket minds I have encountered.
England, on the other hand, have very few of these natural environments and their players are produced in a narrow band of public schools, with an emphasis on the coaching manual. This is why their batting has lost much of its flair and resilience.
The games that young people make up and play are dynamic and foster creativity, joy, flexibility in technical execution, tactical understanding and decision-making, which are often missing in batting at the highest levels.
Invariably, when an adult gets involved with kids playing cricket, they break up the game and kill its energy by emphasising correct technique. This reduces a dynamic, engaging environment that promotes learning to a flat and lifeless set of drills that do little to improve batting in games.
The growth in structured training in the preparation of batters has not only failed to take batting forward, it has actually resulted in a decline in batting. Highly structured environments, and an excessive focus on teaching players to perform "correct" technique, dehumanise cricket.
The environments that attempt to reduce batting to mastery of technique, and to break it up into a number of distinct components, reflect a misunderstanding of how complex batting is. Quality batting requires good imagination, creativity, and the ability to identify and respond to challenges in matches.
In response to this problem, we must change the education of coaches. From training them to be the font of all wisdom, we must instead enable them to become managers of creative learning environments in which young cricketers learn the game with minimal invasion and interference from adults.
In this approach the coaches' work involves setting up conditions for learning through engagement with the physical learning environment - which involves some degree of awareness and decision-making.
There are a couple of significant challenges to the status quo of coaching involved here. One is the shift from the idea of the coach as having all the knowledge that he hands down to the players as passive receivers, to one of the coach facilitating and guiding players in constructing their own knowledge as active learners.
I can hear those who believe batting is all about technique asking how these "free-range" cricketers will become technically adept, but I would remind them that for the first 100 years of Test cricket, that is how the very best were bred.
In his wonderful book The Art of Cricket published 64 years ago, Don Bradman wrote: "I would prefer to tell a young player what to do than how to do it." I would take this further by suggesting that good coaches should also help them learn when and why.
The author with MS Dhoni in 2006, whom he describes as "one of the sharpest cricket minds I have encountered" Dibyangshu Sarkar / AFP/Getty ImagesTraining must be focused on improving game play by locating learning in contexts that, to different degrees, replicate game conditions, so that improvements in practice sessions lead to improvements in matches.
This does not mean just playing cricket instead of practising. It means designing and managing modified games and activities aimed at particular outcomes that suit the skills, attitudes and motivations of the players and the preferred learning outcomes - whether for children learning to play or for batters at the highest levels.
The best coaches ask questions to get players thinking and working together to solve problems. The questions are aimed at drawing players out to come up with solutions to the problems presented to them.This does not neglect technique but, instead, develops it by having players learn and improve the execution of technique in the context of a match. This develops decision-making, flexibility of execution, awareness, and the ability to adapt to the range of challenges that batters face.
The greatest batters developed their talent over long periods of time by playing and learning in creative, informal learning environments from young ages without an excessive focus on perfecting someone else's idea of what an ideal technique should look like.
England would do well to look at their coaching methods and how the best batters develop their skills as part of any review that they initiate on the back of another resounding defeat in Australia. The England batting was bereft of class, short on imagination, and lacked resilience throughout this tour. If I was in charge of English cricket, I know what I would do first - but I won't be giving that information away for free!
If they don't do something drastic, they will be accused of behaving as in the aphorism that has often been misattributed to Albert Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Monday 18 February 2019
Why players are ill equipped to play short bowling these days
Ian Chappell in Cricinfo
Following the tragically unlucky death of Phillip Hughes when he was struck by a short-pitched delivery, Cricket Australia conducted a review into safety in the game.
At the time I asked CA's CEO, James Sutherland, if that review included batting technique. He was unsure but eventually the answer came back that the review didn't include technique.
The ignorance of that decision is now being exposed as batsmen are regularly being hit in the helmet in all forms of the game.
As a result of the review, the knowledge about the damage done to the brain by blows to the head has greatly increased and sensible concussion rules have been put in place. The concussion rules are non-negotiable, and if a batsman is unable to pass the on-field test, he can take no further part in the match.
This is even more reason why batting technique in respect to short-pitched deliveries should be given far greater importance. With just a few runs required for victory in a Test but only one wicket in hand, a game can be lost if a batsman is felled by a bouncer.
The main reason for more batsmen being hit by short-pitched bowling is the advent of helmets and protective equipment, and the increased amount of T20 cricket, which has led to a drastic change in batting technique.
Before helmets, batting technique was more inclined to the back foot, succinctly summed up by former Australia batsman Stan McCabe's edict: "Drive or play back." Now there's an increasing tendency to charge onto the front foot, emboldened by the impression that the chances of injury are severely reduced than in days past. This change in attitude makes it harder to evade short-pitched deliveries, and this is exacerbated if the batsman takes his eyes off the ball.
When talking to young players about playing short-pitched deliveries, I emphasise that it's better to ensure the ball misses the target rather than relying on chance.
If a batsman is in position to move onto the back foot once he senses a short-pitched delivery, he can make sure his head is inside the line of the delivery, thereby ensuring that even if he misses an attempted hook shot, the ball passes by harmlessly. Once a player's head is inside the line of the ball he is far more likely to watch the delivery closely because he knows he has reduced the danger.
Conversely, if a batsman is trying to hook a ball that is unerringly on a line for his head, he is almost certain to avert his eyes. This is when trouble occurs and it's more likely to happen when the player has prematurely charged onto the front foot. Once the weight is planted firmly on the front foot, it's virtually impossible to get the head inside the line of the ball unless the original path of the delivery placed the head inside the line.
There are players who have no intention of hooking but duck immediately on seeing a short-pitched delivery, and in doing so, take their eyes off the ball. This is inviting trouble, especially if the ball doesn't bounce as high as expected.
Before helmets, fewer players were hit in the head, because they had an interest in avoiding contact: it was going to hurt. Therefore they tended to watch the ball closely to make sure they didn't get hit.
Players who play the hook are rarely hit because it's a difficult shot to play and requires the player to watch the ball closely. The biggest danger for a player who hooks is of a top edge deflecting the ball onto the head.
With the increased emphasis on fast scoring in the modern game, there's a tendency to encourage young players to practise fancy shots like reverse sweeps and scoops. My advice would be to learn the traditional shots first, and, as it could cause injury and the possible loss of a match, ensure you know how to deal with the short-pitched delivery before attempting to practice any fancy shots.
Following the tragically unlucky death of Phillip Hughes when he was struck by a short-pitched delivery, Cricket Australia conducted a review into safety in the game.
At the time I asked CA's CEO, James Sutherland, if that review included batting technique. He was unsure but eventually the answer came back that the review didn't include technique.
The ignorance of that decision is now being exposed as batsmen are regularly being hit in the helmet in all forms of the game.
As a result of the review, the knowledge about the damage done to the brain by blows to the head has greatly increased and sensible concussion rules have been put in place. The concussion rules are non-negotiable, and if a batsman is unable to pass the on-field test, he can take no further part in the match.
This is even more reason why batting technique in respect to short-pitched deliveries should be given far greater importance. With just a few runs required for victory in a Test but only one wicket in hand, a game can be lost if a batsman is felled by a bouncer.
The main reason for more batsmen being hit by short-pitched bowling is the advent of helmets and protective equipment, and the increased amount of T20 cricket, which has led to a drastic change in batting technique.
Before helmets, batting technique was more inclined to the back foot, succinctly summed up by former Australia batsman Stan McCabe's edict: "Drive or play back." Now there's an increasing tendency to charge onto the front foot, emboldened by the impression that the chances of injury are severely reduced than in days past. This change in attitude makes it harder to evade short-pitched deliveries, and this is exacerbated if the batsman takes his eyes off the ball.
When talking to young players about playing short-pitched deliveries, I emphasise that it's better to ensure the ball misses the target rather than relying on chance.
If a batsman is in position to move onto the back foot once he senses a short-pitched delivery, he can make sure his head is inside the line of the delivery, thereby ensuring that even if he misses an attempted hook shot, the ball passes by harmlessly. Once a player's head is inside the line of the ball he is far more likely to watch the delivery closely because he knows he has reduced the danger.
Conversely, if a batsman is trying to hook a ball that is unerringly on a line for his head, he is almost certain to avert his eyes. This is when trouble occurs and it's more likely to happen when the player has prematurely charged onto the front foot. Once the weight is planted firmly on the front foot, it's virtually impossible to get the head inside the line of the ball unless the original path of the delivery placed the head inside the line.
There are players who have no intention of hooking but duck immediately on seeing a short-pitched delivery, and in doing so, take their eyes off the ball. This is inviting trouble, especially if the ball doesn't bounce as high as expected.
Before helmets, fewer players were hit in the head, because they had an interest in avoiding contact: it was going to hurt. Therefore they tended to watch the ball closely to make sure they didn't get hit.
Players who play the hook are rarely hit because it's a difficult shot to play and requires the player to watch the ball closely. The biggest danger for a player who hooks is of a top edge deflecting the ball onto the head.
With the increased emphasis on fast scoring in the modern game, there's a tendency to encourage young players to practise fancy shots like reverse sweeps and scoops. My advice would be to learn the traditional shots first, and, as it could cause injury and the possible loss of a match, ensure you know how to deal with the short-pitched delivery before attempting to practice any fancy shots.
Sunday 25 November 2018
Thursday 1 December 2016
Cricket: Why you need to master defence to score runs
Jon Hotten in Cricinfo
Technique is a servant, not a master. Take the example of Jonny Bairstow, and his successful comeback to the England Test side
Dropped from the Test side after a run of low scores, Jonny Bairstow worked out his technical flaws and became a prolific run scorer © Getty Images
Graham Gooch once said, "I don't coach batting, I coach run-scoring." In a sentence he defined the requirements of the game's highest levels: those who arrived there already knew how to bat; what they needed to know was how to prosper on the mean streets, where the pressure was greatest and where any and every weakness would be found and exploited.
It suggested, too, that technique is a servant rather than a master, a means to an end rather than the end itself. Ugly runs count the same as pretty ones; David Gower's and Shivnarine Chanderpaul's look just the same in the scorebook, if not the history book. And as Alastair Cook, Gooch's most famous pupil, has moved inexorably onto the list of the all-time top ten Test match run scorers, and Goochie himself got more than anyone else across all forms of cricket, he's probably on to something.
Like all good buzzwords, technique has been thrumming through Test series between England and India, and Australia and South Africa. There's nothing like a batting collapse to begin the self-evisceration. Speaking to the Guardian for a thoughtful examination of Australian concepts of batting written by Sam Perry, Ed Cowan said: "One of [our] biggest issues is the attitude of 'attack at all costs', which I think is defunct in Test cricket. The message feeds through that we've got to pick attacking cricketers and that you need to be an attacking cricketer to be picked."
In India, Haseeb Hameed is the new poster boy for doing it right, the "baby Boycott", a kid with arms like sticks who hits through the covers with all of the easy power of a natural ball-player. Ben Duckett and Gary Ballance, having got it wrong, well, how must it feel to be them, to keep touring knowing that your tour is over and that stretching ahead is exile, and in that exile there are hard truths to be faced, hard labour to be undertaken.
They will join a list of recent discards, from Alex Hales to Sam Robson, Nick Compton to Adam Lyth, James Vince to Ian Bell, who have various hopes of a recall somehow, someday.
In that, they can look to Jonny Bairstow, who knows the feeling. When he was dropped from the side he averaged 27. He was out for 18 months and went through what he called some "dark spots". In the summer of 2014 he missed six weeks of domestic cricket with a broken finger and afterwards his renaissance began.
Bairstow addressed a point of technique. He felt that he was crouching too low in his stance, which led to a rigid right elbow and back and made him lunge at the ball, a fault compounded by a low backlift that often had him playing shots well in front of his body. He began standing up straighter and holding his hands higher, the bat hovering almost baseball-style as he waited. He still waggled the bat, but it came at the ball from a steeper angle and because of that it arrived later, which meant the interception point was under his eyes, where he was perfectly balanced. He laid waste to county attacks and was recalled for the 2015 Ashes. In 2016 he has made 1355 runs, more than any wicketkeeper in a calendar year, at an average of 64.52.
"You got two options," he says of being dropped. "You either run and hide or you front up."
It wouldn't have happened without a technical change, but then the technical change would not have happened without the desire to improve, to escape that darkness. He had what seems like the right attitude to technique, that it existed to serve him, to help him score runs. If he wasn't scoring runs, then he needed to find out why.
Dean Jones, the former Australia batsman, has published a book called Dean Jones' Cricket Tips (The Things They Don't Teach You At The Academy), about the kind of small improvements players need to make to evolve from being good professional sportsmen to international stars. He analysed a typical Sachin Tendulkar century, which took 180 deliveries, and found that Tendulkar left or defended around 70% of them - about 126 deliveries.
It suggested that the ability to stay in remains a great batsman's primary quality. His array of of scoring strokes, however wide and thrilling, are restricted to one ball in three. What all players looking to score runs must be able to do is defend forward and back and leave the ball well. To score runs, you begin by knowing how to not score them too.
It's interesting that the most discussed technical flaws always apply to defensive technique. England's most improved players, Bairstow and Ben Stokes, have improved most in that area. The problems of Duckett and Ballance lie there. For all of modern batting's pyrotechnics, finding a way to stay in remains the key to it all, as Cook and Gooch continue to show.
Technique is a servant, not a master. Take the example of Jonny Bairstow, and his successful comeback to the England Test side
Dropped from the Test side after a run of low scores, Jonny Bairstow worked out his technical flaws and became a prolific run scorer © Getty ImagesGraham Gooch once said, "I don't coach batting, I coach run-scoring." In a sentence he defined the requirements of the game's highest levels: those who arrived there already knew how to bat; what they needed to know was how to prosper on the mean streets, where the pressure was greatest and where any and every weakness would be found and exploited.
It suggested, too, that technique is a servant rather than a master, a means to an end rather than the end itself. Ugly runs count the same as pretty ones; David Gower's and Shivnarine Chanderpaul's look just the same in the scorebook, if not the history book. And as Alastair Cook, Gooch's most famous pupil, has moved inexorably onto the list of the all-time top ten Test match run scorers, and Goochie himself got more than anyone else across all forms of cricket, he's probably on to something.
Like all good buzzwords, technique has been thrumming through Test series between England and India, and Australia and South Africa. There's nothing like a batting collapse to begin the self-evisceration. Speaking to the Guardian for a thoughtful examination of Australian concepts of batting written by Sam Perry, Ed Cowan said: "One of [our] biggest issues is the attitude of 'attack at all costs', which I think is defunct in Test cricket. The message feeds through that we've got to pick attacking cricketers and that you need to be an attacking cricketer to be picked."
In India, Haseeb Hameed is the new poster boy for doing it right, the "baby Boycott", a kid with arms like sticks who hits through the covers with all of the easy power of a natural ball-player. Ben Duckett and Gary Ballance, having got it wrong, well, how must it feel to be them, to keep touring knowing that your tour is over and that stretching ahead is exile, and in that exile there are hard truths to be faced, hard labour to be undertaken.
They will join a list of recent discards, from Alex Hales to Sam Robson, Nick Compton to Adam Lyth, James Vince to Ian Bell, who have various hopes of a recall somehow, someday.
In that, they can look to Jonny Bairstow, who knows the feeling. When he was dropped from the side he averaged 27. He was out for 18 months and went through what he called some "dark spots". In the summer of 2014 he missed six weeks of domestic cricket with a broken finger and afterwards his renaissance began.
Bairstow addressed a point of technique. He felt that he was crouching too low in his stance, which led to a rigid right elbow and back and made him lunge at the ball, a fault compounded by a low backlift that often had him playing shots well in front of his body. He began standing up straighter and holding his hands higher, the bat hovering almost baseball-style as he waited. He still waggled the bat, but it came at the ball from a steeper angle and because of that it arrived later, which meant the interception point was under his eyes, where he was perfectly balanced. He laid waste to county attacks and was recalled for the 2015 Ashes. In 2016 he has made 1355 runs, more than any wicketkeeper in a calendar year, at an average of 64.52.
"You got two options," he says of being dropped. "You either run and hide or you front up."
It wouldn't have happened without a technical change, but then the technical change would not have happened without the desire to improve, to escape that darkness. He had what seems like the right attitude to technique, that it existed to serve him, to help him score runs. If he wasn't scoring runs, then he needed to find out why.
Dean Jones, the former Australia batsman, has published a book called Dean Jones' Cricket Tips (The Things They Don't Teach You At The Academy), about the kind of small improvements players need to make to evolve from being good professional sportsmen to international stars. He analysed a typical Sachin Tendulkar century, which took 180 deliveries, and found that Tendulkar left or defended around 70% of them - about 126 deliveries.
It suggested that the ability to stay in remains a great batsman's primary quality. His array of of scoring strokes, however wide and thrilling, are restricted to one ball in three. What all players looking to score runs must be able to do is defend forward and back and leave the ball well. To score runs, you begin by knowing how to not score them too.
It's interesting that the most discussed technical flaws always apply to defensive technique. England's most improved players, Bairstow and Ben Stokes, have improved most in that area. The problems of Duckett and Ballance lie there. For all of modern batting's pyrotechnics, finding a way to stay in remains the key to it all, as Cook and Gooch continue to show.
Saturday 26 November 2016
Warne and Jayawardene Tutorial on Bowling Spin and Batting against Spin
Warne and Jayawardene on Bowling and Battling Spin
Monday 24 October 2016
Batting against the bouncer
Ashley Mallett in Cricinfo
Fast bowlers use the short ball as a legitimate weapon to unsettle any batsman. It is a fair and reasonable tactic that has stood the test of time.
On that terrible day at the SCG in November 2014, Phillip Hughes appeared to misjudge the pace of the ball and looked to be through his hook shot before he was struck in the neck, clear of the protective face of the helmet.
It was a shocking, freak accident and, especially for Phil's family and friends, so terrible in its finality.
In the wake of the Hughes' tragedy there has been a disturbing number of quality batsmen being struck on the helmet. The "hit" list is not dominated by mid- to lower-order batsmen. In recent times players of the calibre of Steven Smith, Shane Watson, Michael Clarke, Chris Rogers and Virat Kohli have copped heavy blows to the helmet.
When looking at footage of the incidents, you see all too clearly that all of the players who were hit were not watching the ball and they were struck on the side of the helmet.
Just a couple of weeks after Hughes' tragic death, Australia played India at the Adelaide Oval. The ground was packed but the silence was deafening the instant Kohli was hit on the helmet from the first ball he faced from Mitchell Johnson.
Kohli, one of the best and most exciting batsmen in the world, was not watching the ball.
If some of the world's best batsmen are taking their eye off the ball, what's happening to batting technique among the young, emerging cricketers?
All parents want their children to be safe, but just sticking a helmet on them is not the only solution here. Youngsters need to learn to watch the ball like a hawk and to play short-pitched bowling.
Junior coaches everywhere must look at what they are doing. Proper technique against short-pitched bowling starts the day the youngster picks up a cricket bat, eager to learn the game. The Chappells were five years old when they did.
Former Test opening batsman Ashley Woodcock coaches juniors and seniors at University Cricket Club in Adelaide. He learnt the rudiments of batting from his older brother Steve.
"Two basic shots are the backward defence and the forward defence," Woodcock said. "With the modern-day forward press, it makes life difficult to get back and across to a short-pitched delivery. In the days before helmets a batsman had no choice. He had to watch the ball."
Long-time South Australian captain Les Favell used to invite a current State player to accompany him on coaching trips to the country areas. He stressed to the youngsters that "all the attacking shots are linked to two basic shots: the forward and back defence."
When a batsman plays back, the movement is back and across. From that position he can cut, pull or hook. Shots developed from the forward defence are the off and the cover drives and shots off the pads.
Among the list of players who accompanied Favell on those trips were Garry Sobers and Barry Richards. Both men had a back-and-across first movement. Those basic movements are important, all done while never taking your eye off the ball.
Against fast bowling a back-and-across first movement allows the batsman to get in behind the line of flight. If the ball is wide he can allow it to pass, but he can hook a short ball that is passing over leg stump if he is back and across his stumps, with his head inside the line of flight. This technique is terrific because even if he makes a mistake and misses the ball, his head is inside the line and out of harm's way.
England's Colin Cowdrey scored centuries against West Indian speedsters Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith in the early 1960s. He likened the challenge of facing a fast bowler to be akin to a boxer moving his feet swiftly, never taking his eyes off his opponent, easily swaying away from danger.
Ian Redpath, a former Australian Test opener, rarely hooked the ball, yet he scored three centuries in 1975-76 against West Indies, whose attack included Andy Roberts and Michael Holding. Redpath's method was make the West Indies bowlers bowl to him. Anything short, shoulder to head high, he swayed out of the way, waiting for a ball of full length to drive for four.
Last Friday, during the elimination final of the Matador Cup at Drummoyne Oval, New South Wales opening batsman Daniel Hughes was struck on the side of his helmet as he attempted to hook a short ball from Victoria's Peter Siddle. Hughes fell to his knees as concerned fieldsmen rushed to his side. The medical officer at the ground, Dr John Orchard, immediately ordered Hughes to take a concussion test. After undergoing the test, Hughes (retired hurt on 23) was ruled out of taking further part in the match. A "concussion substitute" (Nick Larkin) took his place.
Fellow NSW batsman Nic Maddinson replaced Hughes in the order. He too was struck a blow on the helmet and was assessed under Cricket Australia's new Concussion and Head Trauma Police by medical staff on the ground and allowed to bat on. He played on and belted a match-winning 86.
These incidents further highlight how dangerous the game has become mainly because of poor technique against short-pitched bowling and batsmen taking their eye off the ball.
Former Test captain Ian Chappell was a good hooker and I can't remember him being hit in the head at any stage of his first-class career.
"When you're quickly on to the front foot it's impossible to get inside the line of the delivery to play the shot more safely," he said.
"I can't believe they [Cricket Australia] held a review of safety and it didn't include the technique of playing the short ball."
Bob Simpson, a former Australian Test opener and captain, was adamant that technique against fast bowling generally seemed to be lacking.
"I think the helmet gives a batsman a false sense of security," he said.
Don Bradman reckoned the most important aspect of batting was to watch the ball. Arguably Australia's best batsman since Bradman, Greg Chappell, nowadays Cricket Australia's talent manager, said the bigger issue is that the helmets are now heavier and cause players to stand more upright to manage that weight.
"This puts their weight back on their heels more than the players of the past who were more on the balls of their feet," Greg said. "They find it harder to change position quickly so they are more prone to get hit than a nimble-footed player.
"The fact that they know that they are less likely to get badly hurt, there is not the same incentive to develop a good method to deal with short balls. We didn't have that luxury so we had to get into a better position.
"The two keys to not getting hit are to be on the balls of your feet and to watch the ball."
In relation to coaching youngsters in the art of batting, Greg suggested starting with a soft ball. "Unlike our father [Martin Chappell], I wouldn't recommend using a hard ball from the start.
"Use a soft ball and include short balls early by getting a youngster to hit to areas. What I mean by hitting to areas is to set the session up anywhere but a net. A tennis court is ideal so the kid has a feeling of space around them, but the ball can't go too far. Apart from ensuring that the grip and stance are comfortable, relaxed and efficient, I wouldn't 'teach' the kid anything else."
Greg advocated setting three "scoring zones" - square of the wicket on the off-side, square of the wicket on the leg side and straight back past the bowler.
"If one can cut, pull and drive, one can be a great player. Think Graeme Pollock - those three shots were all he needed. Every other shot is a derivative of those three anyway."
Greg sets up a coaching session by bowling from the net of a tennis court to the youngster batting on the base line. Scoring zones are from the back corner of the net to mid-pitch both sides. He lobs the ball to the batsman and direct them to a target. For example, if the ball is lobbed full and straight, Greg will say, "Okay son, I want you to hit it to the net straight past me".
If a cut shot to the point boundary is required, the ball is lobbed short and wide of the off stump.
"I include balls bouncing up to chest and head height very early so it becomes part of the whole rather than a separate part of the learning," Greg said.
"Most kids quickly work out that if they shift their body to the off side of the short ball they can hit it hard through the leg-side target area. As they get more proficient, I cramp them for room with more speed to see how they cope. If they have a problem, I ask them what they think the solution is rather than 'telling them what to do. It generally works extremely well and the kids progress quickly."
Martin Chappell gave his three boys this advice: "You have a bat in your hand for one reason and one reason only and that is to score runs. Learn to use the bat properly and you will never get hit."
Greg believes good footwork is nothing more than developing the ability to shift one's body from one position to another to free one's arms to hit the ball to the intended target area.
"This is what Bradman did better than the rest of us," he said.
For the sake of the health of our international and emerging batsmen, let's hope the administrators take heed of the sound advice from three of Australia's batting legends.
By all means, let's have lighter, stronger batting helmets, but the very first step in safety for batsmen against any bowler is to watch the ball.
The ICC can't afford to take its eye off the ball over this safety issue. Safety for batsmen is a global priority. Batsman getting hit on the head - whether while wearing a helmet or not - are vulnerable to serious injury.
Proper technique when playing the short stuff is paramount and every batting coach from the grassroots to the Test arena needs to take heed.
Fast bowlers use the short ball as a legitimate weapon to unsettle any batsman. It is a fair and reasonable tactic that has stood the test of time.
On that terrible day at the SCG in November 2014, Phillip Hughes appeared to misjudge the pace of the ball and looked to be through his hook shot before he was struck in the neck, clear of the protective face of the helmet.
It was a shocking, freak accident and, especially for Phil's family and friends, so terrible in its finality.
In the wake of the Hughes' tragedy there has been a disturbing number of quality batsmen being struck on the helmet. The "hit" list is not dominated by mid- to lower-order batsmen. In recent times players of the calibre of Steven Smith, Shane Watson, Michael Clarke, Chris Rogers and Virat Kohli have copped heavy blows to the helmet.
When looking at footage of the incidents, you see all too clearly that all of the players who were hit were not watching the ball and they were struck on the side of the helmet.
Just a couple of weeks after Hughes' tragic death, Australia played India at the Adelaide Oval. The ground was packed but the silence was deafening the instant Kohli was hit on the helmet from the first ball he faced from Mitchell Johnson.
Kohli, one of the best and most exciting batsmen in the world, was not watching the ball.
If some of the world's best batsmen are taking their eye off the ball, what's happening to batting technique among the young, emerging cricketers?
All parents want their children to be safe, but just sticking a helmet on them is not the only solution here. Youngsters need to learn to watch the ball like a hawk and to play short-pitched bowling.
Junior coaches everywhere must look at what they are doing. Proper technique against short-pitched bowling starts the day the youngster picks up a cricket bat, eager to learn the game. The Chappells were five years old when they did.
Former Test opening batsman Ashley Woodcock coaches juniors and seniors at University Cricket Club in Adelaide. He learnt the rudiments of batting from his older brother Steve.
"Two basic shots are the backward defence and the forward defence," Woodcock said. "With the modern-day forward press, it makes life difficult to get back and across to a short-pitched delivery. In the days before helmets a batsman had no choice. He had to watch the ball."
Long-time South Australian captain Les Favell used to invite a current State player to accompany him on coaching trips to the country areas. He stressed to the youngsters that "all the attacking shots are linked to two basic shots: the forward and back defence."
When a batsman plays back, the movement is back and across. From that position he can cut, pull or hook. Shots developed from the forward defence are the off and the cover drives and shots off the pads.
Among the list of players who accompanied Favell on those trips were Garry Sobers and Barry Richards. Both men had a back-and-across first movement. Those basic movements are important, all done while never taking your eye off the ball.
Against fast bowling a back-and-across first movement allows the batsman to get in behind the line of flight. If the ball is wide he can allow it to pass, but he can hook a short ball that is passing over leg stump if he is back and across his stumps, with his head inside the line of flight. This technique is terrific because even if he makes a mistake and misses the ball, his head is inside the line and out of harm's way.
England's Colin Cowdrey scored centuries against West Indian speedsters Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith in the early 1960s. He likened the challenge of facing a fast bowler to be akin to a boxer moving his feet swiftly, never taking his eyes off his opponent, easily swaying away from danger.
Ian Redpath, a former Australian Test opener, rarely hooked the ball, yet he scored three centuries in 1975-76 against West Indies, whose attack included Andy Roberts and Michael Holding. Redpath's method was make the West Indies bowlers bowl to him. Anything short, shoulder to head high, he swayed out of the way, waiting for a ball of full length to drive for four.
Last Friday, during the elimination final of the Matador Cup at Drummoyne Oval, New South Wales opening batsman Daniel Hughes was struck on the side of his helmet as he attempted to hook a short ball from Victoria's Peter Siddle. Hughes fell to his knees as concerned fieldsmen rushed to his side. The medical officer at the ground, Dr John Orchard, immediately ordered Hughes to take a concussion test. After undergoing the test, Hughes (retired hurt on 23) was ruled out of taking further part in the match. A "concussion substitute" (Nick Larkin) took his place.
Fellow NSW batsman Nic Maddinson replaced Hughes in the order. He too was struck a blow on the helmet and was assessed under Cricket Australia's new Concussion and Head Trauma Police by medical staff on the ground and allowed to bat on. He played on and belted a match-winning 86.
These incidents further highlight how dangerous the game has become mainly because of poor technique against short-pitched bowling and batsmen taking their eye off the ball.
Former Test captain Ian Chappell was a good hooker and I can't remember him being hit in the head at any stage of his first-class career.
"When you're quickly on to the front foot it's impossible to get inside the line of the delivery to play the shot more safely," he said.
"I can't believe they [Cricket Australia] held a review of safety and it didn't include the technique of playing the short ball."
Bob Simpson, a former Australian Test opener and captain, was adamant that technique against fast bowling generally seemed to be lacking.
"I think the helmet gives a batsman a false sense of security," he said.
Don Bradman reckoned the most important aspect of batting was to watch the ball. Arguably Australia's best batsman since Bradman, Greg Chappell, nowadays Cricket Australia's talent manager, said the bigger issue is that the helmets are now heavier and cause players to stand more upright to manage that weight.
"This puts their weight back on their heels more than the players of the past who were more on the balls of their feet," Greg said. "They find it harder to change position quickly so they are more prone to get hit than a nimble-footed player.
"The fact that they know that they are less likely to get badly hurt, there is not the same incentive to develop a good method to deal with short balls. We didn't have that luxury so we had to get into a better position.
"The two keys to not getting hit are to be on the balls of your feet and to watch the ball."
In relation to coaching youngsters in the art of batting, Greg suggested starting with a soft ball. "Unlike our father [Martin Chappell], I wouldn't recommend using a hard ball from the start.
"Use a soft ball and include short balls early by getting a youngster to hit to areas. What I mean by hitting to areas is to set the session up anywhere but a net. A tennis court is ideal so the kid has a feeling of space around them, but the ball can't go too far. Apart from ensuring that the grip and stance are comfortable, relaxed and efficient, I wouldn't 'teach' the kid anything else."
Greg advocated setting three "scoring zones" - square of the wicket on the off-side, square of the wicket on the leg side and straight back past the bowler.
"If one can cut, pull and drive, one can be a great player. Think Graeme Pollock - those three shots were all he needed. Every other shot is a derivative of those three anyway."
Greg sets up a coaching session by bowling from the net of a tennis court to the youngster batting on the base line. Scoring zones are from the back corner of the net to mid-pitch both sides. He lobs the ball to the batsman and direct them to a target. For example, if the ball is lobbed full and straight, Greg will say, "Okay son, I want you to hit it to the net straight past me".
If a cut shot to the point boundary is required, the ball is lobbed short and wide of the off stump.
"I include balls bouncing up to chest and head height very early so it becomes part of the whole rather than a separate part of the learning," Greg said.
"Most kids quickly work out that if they shift their body to the off side of the short ball they can hit it hard through the leg-side target area. As they get more proficient, I cramp them for room with more speed to see how they cope. If they have a problem, I ask them what they think the solution is rather than 'telling them what to do. It generally works extremely well and the kids progress quickly."
Martin Chappell gave his three boys this advice: "You have a bat in your hand for one reason and one reason only and that is to score runs. Learn to use the bat properly and you will never get hit."
Greg believes good footwork is nothing more than developing the ability to shift one's body from one position to another to free one's arms to hit the ball to the intended target area.
"This is what Bradman did better than the rest of us," he said.
For the sake of the health of our international and emerging batsmen, let's hope the administrators take heed of the sound advice from three of Australia's batting legends.
By all means, let's have lighter, stronger batting helmets, but the very first step in safety for batsmen against any bowler is to watch the ball.
The ICC can't afford to take its eye off the ball over this safety issue. Safety for batsmen is a global priority. Batsman getting hit on the head - whether while wearing a helmet or not - are vulnerable to serious injury.
Proper technique when playing the short stuff is paramount and every batting coach from the grassroots to the Test arena needs to take heed.
Monday 12 September 2016
Ian Healy on Wicketkeeping: 'Stay low, watch the ball and get your head over your gloves'
What's the main difference between keeping in Australia and elsewhere in the world?
You get more consistent bounce in Australia, so you have more time to move your feet, like Australian keepers want to. We want to move our feet to get outside the line of the ball and take the ball on the inside hip as you move towards the slips.
At Adelaide or Melbourne, at times, it doesn't bounce through consistently so you've got to work hard. But traditionally, Perth, Brisbane, Hobart, Sydney, they are good pitches that bounce through and give you time to move.
Wicketkeeping to the spinners is generally pretty consistent in Australia too. When the legspinner is on, the ball won't often not spin when it's supposed to. It might slide on a bit sometimes, but it won't do anything ridiculous. I think it's a nice place to keep.
What about in Asia?
In the subcontinent, the biggest challenge is reverse swing to the fast bowlers. Everyone thinks keeping up to the spinners is hard work in those places. But I think those pitches are pretty consistent. They might be slow, but again it won't suddenly drag, or really spin or bounce very often. But when you keep to Wasim Akram, standing quite close to the stumps because the ball carries through low, with it swinging late, that is really difficult - a very hard part of those wicketkeepers' jobs.
Keeping in the West Indies is quite hard, because it doesn't bounce through like it does in Australia, which means you've got to move up a little bit, which cuts down the time you've got to move your feet to those fast men.
In England, the bounce is good, comes through to you nicely, but it does wobble. Sometimes you've just got to survive and watch it into your gloves and not worry too much about moving. Just watch the ball and catch it.
What does a wicketkeeper need to be successful in all of those conditions?
A really solid set of basics. You need an idea of how your feet should go, your body height, your hands and your gloves. And most importantly, to be watching the ball, not watching for what might happen. If you have a good body position, you'll be able to react. You've got to trust that and take anything that you have to take. And then you have to do that 600 times in a day.
How important is it to practise well?
If you have a solid awareness of basics, then when the pressure comes on in a game, when it's getting tight or you're running out of time to win the match, you're not thinking bad stuff. You're not thinking ahead, or worrying about the outcome. You know what you have to put in to do your job the best. And before you know it, the game is over, things are done and you've had a good afternoon.
Mastering your basics is important so you know what works for you when you start thinking badly. You can go back to a set of simple statements that get you back on the ball.
Where should a wicketkeeper take the ball - on the inside or outside of the body?
Australian wicketkeepers, when we're standing back to the quicks and the ball is bouncing nice and consistently, we like to take it on the inside hip. So that's the left hip if it's a right-handed batsman and the right hip for a left-hander. We get our feet going and our body just outside the line of the ball.
If it starts wobbling or if you haven't got time for that, you just have to survive and catch it right in front of you. I've got no problems resorting to that for a little period until you get used to that wobble or that inconsistent bounce.
What are the advantages of that technique?
I think the wicketkeeper is moving better, doing that. Their rhythm is set up to go with the ball, whether the batsman misses or edges it. That allows your slips to spread out a bit more and you get a greater coverage from your slips cordon.
Sometimes that doesn't work, though. Because some days a wicketkeeper doesn't feel as good as other days, so you have to position the slips based on how you're feeling on that day. You don't want to have a big wide gap between yourself and first slip if you're not moving very well. You'll get caught out and the misery will get worse and worse.
Should a keeper watch the ball or the edge of the bat?
You have to only watch the ball. You have to forget the bat. Forget the batsman is there. Watch it and expect the batsman to miss it every ball. Be in position to take the ball, even when they hit it, just in case. If you concentrate on that for 15 to 20 minutes, it becomes natural and your brain is just doing that and the session goes well.
When there is a nick and you're in great form, it feels like slow motion. It's just a delight to hear that edge. Here comes the ball, it's on its way. If you're watching it, that is.
What happens if you do watch the bat and not the ball?
You'll be a split-second late. Either your fingers won't grasp around the ball, or it'll be a jerky movement at the end, maybe to your right. You won't be powerful and smooth in your movement into the catch. You have a big chance of dropping it. Just those final reflexes will be too slow. If you are watching the bat, you'll look surprised if the ball comes through. That's when you know that you weren't watching the ball.
What's the ideal body position for a wicketkeeper?
It varies for different body shapes. You need to make sure you've got some power in your quads. That means knees slightly bent and your weight on the balls of your feet, not flat-footed, not on your heels or toes. You've got to have some power, ready to go if you need it. If you're watching the ball only, you'll be able to move nice and strongly to wherever you have to be.
How do you know when the ball feels right in your hand?
There's a difference between catching the ball and catching the ball right. The sound it should make going into your gloves should be a clean nice thud. You can hear when the ball scrapes into your gloves.
You learnt a lot from Queensland wicketkeeper Peter Anderson. What did he teach you?
He had a sharpness and fanaticism over the stumps over everything he practised. Head over your gloves, having the power so you can get the gloves towards the bails quickly. You just practise that for hours so that it feels natural and that's how you do it in a match. We'd probably practise eight hours a week together on all facets of wicketkeeping.
In the Australian team, how did you work together with your slips?
We practised a lot. I'm not sure teams do that enough at the moment, and when they do, they do it really hard - throw it hard, hit the ball really hard at the fielders.
You can actually vary it - short and sharp catches, longer ones that put their hands under a bit of pressure. Or middle-range ones, where you're not only practising catching but the cordon practises decisions, whether to go or not to go.
You've got to get a good feel for the person next to you, as to what they know and feel about you. So Mark Taylor, at first slip, would have a fair knowledge of when I was going to go, so he either backed up or backed off. Those decisions are more important than actual catching practice. That's what you're cementing and reinforcing - your coordination and knowledge between each other. We had a wonderful slips cordon: Taylor, Allan Border, if he needed to go in there, Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh at gully, [Shane] Warney snuck in there. So yeah, good catchers.
Does the standard of today's wicketkeeping frustrate you?
Yes, I think so. I don't mind the keepers who are good enough to do the job quite well. I don't mind that they are more known for their batting than their wicketkeeping if they do a job behind the stumps. There aren't too many absolute part-timers in there now. I think we see a few too many of them attempting it in T20, and T20, for me, is the game where you need your best keeper. The wickets don't do too much, so the impact of a brilliant stumping off a medium-pacer, or a class spinner, is huge in T20. So is the impact of a missed dismissal. You pick your best keeper because you don't need another batsman in 20 overs. You can bat the keeper anywhere you like. You don't really need all your batsmen in 20 overs.
Who's the best current international wicketkeeper?
They all have their moments. It's pretty even. Pakistan's Sarfraz Ahmed seems to cope well with the tricky spinners they've got. I saw the Sri Lankan wicketkeeper, Dinesh Chandimal, in this year's Test at Galle against Australia. He kept unbelievably well to the left-arm chinaman [Lakshan Sandakan], the right-arm offie [Dilruwan Perera] and the left-arm orthodox, [Ranganna] Herath. Chandimal is as good as it gets. Peter Nevill is a very good technician. England are still toing and froing with part-timers.
What about MS Dhoni?
Dhoni has been an unbelievable keeper for India. He should make so many more errors the way he keeps, but he doesn't. He gets the job done.
He doesn't seem to practise very often, but his No. 1 priority is to get the job done. He doesn't care whether he sticks the foot out sometimes and stops it with his pad. As captain, he's got to think about the team, its fortune, and he's got a high level of spin bowler to keep to in difficult conditions. It's a real challenge and I'm amazed how durable he's been, how long he's been able to maintain that position as wicketkeeper, captain and gun batsman.
Did Adam Gilchrist finish off the traditional non-batting keeper as a member of an international side?
Not really, no. I think that Gilly was good enough with the gloves. He was a wicketkeeper and an outstanding batsman. Probably the best batsman in the team and a more-than-adequate wicketkeeper to do the job for Australia. Never sell his gloves anything short of that, because I think he was fine. He wasn't as good in his early years as he could have been. But he got it right towards the end. He doesn't fit into that category of wicketkeeper that's in there because of his batting. He was good enough with the gloves.
Have teams since tried to copy the Gilchrist role, wanting first and foremost a front-line batsman, and if they can keep a bit, that's an advantage?
Maybe, but you're playing with fire there, trying to match Gilchrist's batting. Good luck with that. It's like all the kids who've been bowling legspin over the last 20 years. We've developed maybe one or two, that's it. Players like Gilchrist and Warne are once-in-a-generation players and may be impossible to emulate.
I thought after Gilly what Australia needed was the best wicketkeeper, because our bowlers weren't that good. Our bowlers weren't creating the opportunities that Glenn McGrath and Warne used to. We had to make sure we took every single chance, so we needed a really strong wicketkeeper after Adam. You've got to change what you need when the cycles of your team change.
Does a wicketkeeper's eyesight have to be really good?
I kept in contact lenses. To be a first-class athlete in any sport, you need good eyesight, so yeah, it's probably underrated. A lot of people don't know that they haven't got good eyesight. It's certainly worth checking out.
Did you ever get any vision training?
No, not really. My optometrist always tried to get me to do some exercises to improve my vision. But she was always disappointed.
Does a wicketkeeper have to be as fit as an outfielder?
Fitter than an outfielder. A wicketkeeper has to be one of the fittest in the team. Batsmen get out and don't have to concentrate any more. A bowler is out of the attack and doesn't have to think about his set skill for a while. But a keeper has to do it day in day out for long periods.
It's a real combination between aerobic fitness, to get through a day, and psychological fitness, so you can concentrate for a whole day. You have to ration out your concentration and switch down a lot.
You have to be confident that your physical fitness is high, so you don't start thinking, "Hell, I've got two and a half hours to go here." That should never enter into your mind. And the days it does, you're in a bit of trouble. You need strength, speed, aerobic fitness, some endurance.
How did you ration your concentration during a long day?
You set the session up in the first 15 to 20 minutes. Make sure you're getting into really good habits. Then it'll look after itself a little bit, so you're not anxious, you're not having to tell yourself all the time to do these things. It just flows much better. Then relax with your team-mates and find some fun out there. Then, before you know it, it's lunch and then, before you know it, it's tea. And then the day is over.
What about taking stumpings? What's the strategy and technique there?
The whole goal of standing up to the stumps is to get your head over your gloves. So when you're catching the ball, you want your eyes right over the top of the gloves - a little bit of cushion in the catch, soft gloves. And then be as quick as you can to get it back and get the bail off. Forget the bat, watch the ball. It's about having the balance to do all that.
Did keeping to Shane Warne make it easier to play him when you were batting?
Not really. What you need when batting against Warne is a good technique. It doesn't matter how fast your feet are if you make a bad decision. You need a solid plan and an array of shots to keep some pressure on him. And then to get away with a risk or two, because most of the run-scoring options on a pitch that's supporting him are risky. Get away with your first few risks and then play a few shots, like a sweep shot, to get off strike; and work with the spin. Then you're a chance, but that's all.
And to keep to him? What's the secret?
You need a real solid set of basics. Stay low, watch the ball and get your head over your gloves. You don't need anything more.
You get more consistent bounce in Australia, so you have more time to move your feet, like Australian keepers want to. We want to move our feet to get outside the line of the ball and take the ball on the inside hip as you move towards the slips.
At Adelaide or Melbourne, at times, it doesn't bounce through consistently so you've got to work hard. But traditionally, Perth, Brisbane, Hobart, Sydney, they are good pitches that bounce through and give you time to move.
Wicketkeeping to the spinners is generally pretty consistent in Australia too. When the legspinner is on, the ball won't often not spin when it's supposed to. It might slide on a bit sometimes, but it won't do anything ridiculous. I think it's a nice place to keep.
What about in Asia?
In the subcontinent, the biggest challenge is reverse swing to the fast bowlers. Everyone thinks keeping up to the spinners is hard work in those places. But I think those pitches are pretty consistent. They might be slow, but again it won't suddenly drag, or really spin or bounce very often. But when you keep to Wasim Akram, standing quite close to the stumps because the ball carries through low, with it swinging late, that is really difficult - a very hard part of those wicketkeepers' jobs.
Keeping in the West Indies is quite hard, because it doesn't bounce through like it does in Australia, which means you've got to move up a little bit, which cuts down the time you've got to move your feet to those fast men.
In England, the bounce is good, comes through to you nicely, but it does wobble. Sometimes you've just got to survive and watch it into your gloves and not worry too much about moving. Just watch the ball and catch it.
What does a wicketkeeper need to be successful in all of those conditions?
A really solid set of basics. You need an idea of how your feet should go, your body height, your hands and your gloves. And most importantly, to be watching the ball, not watching for what might happen. If you have a good body position, you'll be able to react. You've got to trust that and take anything that you have to take. And then you have to do that 600 times in a day.
How important is it to practise well?
If you have a solid awareness of basics, then when the pressure comes on in a game, when it's getting tight or you're running out of time to win the match, you're not thinking bad stuff. You're not thinking ahead, or worrying about the outcome. You know what you have to put in to do your job the best. And before you know it, the game is over, things are done and you've had a good afternoon.
Mastering your basics is important so you know what works for you when you start thinking badly. You can go back to a set of simple statements that get you back on the ball.
Where should a wicketkeeper take the ball - on the inside or outside of the body?
Australian wicketkeepers, when we're standing back to the quicks and the ball is bouncing nice and consistently, we like to take it on the inside hip. So that's the left hip if it's a right-handed batsman and the right hip for a left-hander. We get our feet going and our body just outside the line of the ball.
If it starts wobbling or if you haven't got time for that, you just have to survive and catch it right in front of you. I've got no problems resorting to that for a little period until you get used to that wobble or that inconsistent bounce.
What are the advantages of that technique?
I think the wicketkeeper is moving better, doing that. Their rhythm is set up to go with the ball, whether the batsman misses or edges it. That allows your slips to spread out a bit more and you get a greater coverage from your slips cordon.
Sometimes that doesn't work, though. Because some days a wicketkeeper doesn't feel as good as other days, so you have to position the slips based on how you're feeling on that day. You don't want to have a big wide gap between yourself and first slip if you're not moving very well. You'll get caught out and the misery will get worse and worse.
Should a keeper watch the ball or the edge of the bat?
You have to only watch the ball. You have to forget the bat. Forget the batsman is there. Watch it and expect the batsman to miss it every ball. Be in position to take the ball, even when they hit it, just in case. If you concentrate on that for 15 to 20 minutes, it becomes natural and your brain is just doing that and the session goes well.
When there is a nick and you're in great form, it feels like slow motion. It's just a delight to hear that edge. Here comes the ball, it's on its way. If you're watching it, that is.
What happens if you do watch the bat and not the ball?
You'll be a split-second late. Either your fingers won't grasp around the ball, or it'll be a jerky movement at the end, maybe to your right. You won't be powerful and smooth in your movement into the catch. You have a big chance of dropping it. Just those final reflexes will be too slow. If you are watching the bat, you'll look surprised if the ball comes through. That's when you know that you weren't watching the ball.
What's the ideal body position for a wicketkeeper?
It varies for different body shapes. You need to make sure you've got some power in your quads. That means knees slightly bent and your weight on the balls of your feet, not flat-footed, not on your heels or toes. You've got to have some power, ready to go if you need it. If you're watching the ball only, you'll be able to move nice and strongly to wherever you have to be.
How do you know when the ball feels right in your hand?
There's a difference between catching the ball and catching the ball right. The sound it should make going into your gloves should be a clean nice thud. You can hear when the ball scrapes into your gloves.
You learnt a lot from Queensland wicketkeeper Peter Anderson. What did he teach you?
He had a sharpness and fanaticism over the stumps over everything he practised. Head over your gloves, having the power so you can get the gloves towards the bails quickly. You just practise that for hours so that it feels natural and that's how you do it in a match. We'd probably practise eight hours a week together on all facets of wicketkeeping.
In the Australian team, how did you work together with your slips?
We practised a lot. I'm not sure teams do that enough at the moment, and when they do, they do it really hard - throw it hard, hit the ball really hard at the fielders.
You can actually vary it - short and sharp catches, longer ones that put their hands under a bit of pressure. Or middle-range ones, where you're not only practising catching but the cordon practises decisions, whether to go or not to go.
You've got to get a good feel for the person next to you, as to what they know and feel about you. So Mark Taylor, at first slip, would have a fair knowledge of when I was going to go, so he either backed up or backed off. Those decisions are more important than actual catching practice. That's what you're cementing and reinforcing - your coordination and knowledge between each other. We had a wonderful slips cordon: Taylor, Allan Border, if he needed to go in there, Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh at gully, [Shane] Warney snuck in there. So yeah, good catchers.
Does the standard of today's wicketkeeping frustrate you?
Yes, I think so. I don't mind the keepers who are good enough to do the job quite well. I don't mind that they are more known for their batting than their wicketkeeping if they do a job behind the stumps. There aren't too many absolute part-timers in there now. I think we see a few too many of them attempting it in T20, and T20, for me, is the game where you need your best keeper. The wickets don't do too much, so the impact of a brilliant stumping off a medium-pacer, or a class spinner, is huge in T20. So is the impact of a missed dismissal. You pick your best keeper because you don't need another batsman in 20 overs. You can bat the keeper anywhere you like. You don't really need all your batsmen in 20 overs.
Who's the best current international wicketkeeper?
They all have their moments. It's pretty even. Pakistan's Sarfraz Ahmed seems to cope well with the tricky spinners they've got. I saw the Sri Lankan wicketkeeper, Dinesh Chandimal, in this year's Test at Galle against Australia. He kept unbelievably well to the left-arm chinaman [Lakshan Sandakan], the right-arm offie [Dilruwan Perera] and the left-arm orthodox, [Ranganna] Herath. Chandimal is as good as it gets. Peter Nevill is a very good technician. England are still toing and froing with part-timers.
What about MS Dhoni?
Dhoni has been an unbelievable keeper for India. He should make so many more errors the way he keeps, but he doesn't. He gets the job done.
He doesn't seem to practise very often, but his No. 1 priority is to get the job done. He doesn't care whether he sticks the foot out sometimes and stops it with his pad. As captain, he's got to think about the team, its fortune, and he's got a high level of spin bowler to keep to in difficult conditions. It's a real challenge and I'm amazed how durable he's been, how long he's been able to maintain that position as wicketkeeper, captain and gun batsman.
Did Adam Gilchrist finish off the traditional non-batting keeper as a member of an international side?
Not really, no. I think that Gilly was good enough with the gloves. He was a wicketkeeper and an outstanding batsman. Probably the best batsman in the team and a more-than-adequate wicketkeeper to do the job for Australia. Never sell his gloves anything short of that, because I think he was fine. He wasn't as good in his early years as he could have been. But he got it right towards the end. He doesn't fit into that category of wicketkeeper that's in there because of his batting. He was good enough with the gloves.
Have teams since tried to copy the Gilchrist role, wanting first and foremost a front-line batsman, and if they can keep a bit, that's an advantage?
Maybe, but you're playing with fire there, trying to match Gilchrist's batting. Good luck with that. It's like all the kids who've been bowling legspin over the last 20 years. We've developed maybe one or two, that's it. Players like Gilchrist and Warne are once-in-a-generation players and may be impossible to emulate.
I thought after Gilly what Australia needed was the best wicketkeeper, because our bowlers weren't that good. Our bowlers weren't creating the opportunities that Glenn McGrath and Warne used to. We had to make sure we took every single chance, so we needed a really strong wicketkeeper after Adam. You've got to change what you need when the cycles of your team change.
Does a wicketkeeper's eyesight have to be really good?
I kept in contact lenses. To be a first-class athlete in any sport, you need good eyesight, so yeah, it's probably underrated. A lot of people don't know that they haven't got good eyesight. It's certainly worth checking out.
Did you ever get any vision training?
No, not really. My optometrist always tried to get me to do some exercises to improve my vision. But she was always disappointed.
Does a wicketkeeper have to be as fit as an outfielder?
Fitter than an outfielder. A wicketkeeper has to be one of the fittest in the team. Batsmen get out and don't have to concentrate any more. A bowler is out of the attack and doesn't have to think about his set skill for a while. But a keeper has to do it day in day out for long periods.
It's a real combination between aerobic fitness, to get through a day, and psychological fitness, so you can concentrate for a whole day. You have to ration out your concentration and switch down a lot.
You have to be confident that your physical fitness is high, so you don't start thinking, "Hell, I've got two and a half hours to go here." That should never enter into your mind. And the days it does, you're in a bit of trouble. You need strength, speed, aerobic fitness, some endurance.
How did you ration your concentration during a long day?
You set the session up in the first 15 to 20 minutes. Make sure you're getting into really good habits. Then it'll look after itself a little bit, so you're not anxious, you're not having to tell yourself all the time to do these things. It just flows much better. Then relax with your team-mates and find some fun out there. Then, before you know it, it's lunch and then, before you know it, it's tea. And then the day is over.
What about taking stumpings? What's the strategy and technique there?
The whole goal of standing up to the stumps is to get your head over your gloves. So when you're catching the ball, you want your eyes right over the top of the gloves - a little bit of cushion in the catch, soft gloves. And then be as quick as you can to get it back and get the bail off. Forget the bat, watch the ball. It's about having the balance to do all that.
Did keeping to Shane Warne make it easier to play him when you were batting?
Not really. What you need when batting against Warne is a good technique. It doesn't matter how fast your feet are if you make a bad decision. You need a solid plan and an array of shots to keep some pressure on him. And then to get away with a risk or two, because most of the run-scoring options on a pitch that's supporting him are risky. Get away with your first few risks and then play a few shots, like a sweep shot, to get off strike; and work with the spin. Then you're a chance, but that's all.
And to keep to him? What's the secret?
You need a real solid set of basics. Stay low, watch the ball and get your head over your gloves. You don't need anything more.
Saturday 15 November 2014
Cricketing technique is a myth
Trying to hit a ball through the covers is totally different from being taught the proper way to cover-drive. One makes robots, the other makes runs © Getty Images
Technique is a myth.
For every technical perfectionist, there are many more who defy the copybook. Even Bradman, with his unusual backlift, was no stranger to the unorthodox. Yet you could argue that he is the greatest sportsman of all time; certainly the greatest batsman in the stats book. Bradman is far from alone. If I were to ask you to name the technical masters you could give me a list of grand heroes: Dravid, Boycott, Gavaskar and so on. Yet if I asked you to name some greats regardless of technique your list would likely be much longer.
You might argue that within this elite group, there are similarities. All great batsmen watch the ball with a still head. All great bowlers have exceptional balance. The variations are fine, but the core is essentially the same. There's a fair chance you were told these by a coach or heard it from a TV commentator with first-class experience. Reliable sources everyone, so why would you think otherwise?
Except, the more we look into technical elements scientifically, the more we see that even the core of skill has variation between individuals. Some people are moving at the point of delivery. Some people are not watching the ball closely. Some bowlers generate pace with horrible actions. These are tested and proven facts.
-----Also Read
-----Also Read
Why are Asians under represented in English cricket?
------
It makes sense when you think about it. Cricket is played by the imperfect mess that is a human being. Each one is genetically unique from height to physical strength to preferred hand and eye (yes, we all have a stronger eye). We all move differently and think differently. From that primal soup of genes, we are thrown into a culture that influences us further. To expect a boy growing up on the streets of Mumbai with a tennis ball to have the same method as a girl from Surrey with hours of formal coaching at a club is ridiculous. And, isn't that the joy of cricket anyway: It can accommodate every type of person from anywhere in the world? Not many sports can offer the same inclusiveness, even at the highest level.
I'm a coach for my day job and I was brought up on "proper technique". You play straight. You bowl side on. You iron out flaws in players who are doing it incorrectly. As the years passed I began to soften to what was correct. I started to realise that there is scope for variety, scope for what works for an individual. Then one day I realised that there was nothing left in the correct column any more. Everything was open to negotiation. Coaching was no longer about correcting technique, and all about helping the player find his or her best technique. Sometimes - most of the time - that means shutting up and letting the players work it out for themselves. That takes a heck of a lot of confidence because on the outside you look like someone who knows nothing and has nothing to say. In fact, you know that a player will understand himself far more that you will ever understand him. It's your job to help accelerate that process. That's why mystery spinners appear most often from cultures where there is little formal coaching. Players have to work it out for themselves and are never told they are doing it wrong. The ones who do that best end up playing Test cricket, often out of nowhere.
There is still a role for the coach at every level. Learning happens faster with someone to guide you. It's just that the modern coach has a different approach. Players are given challenges to complete and asked to work out the answer for themselves. For example, trying to hit a ball through a gap in the covers is totally different from being taught the proper way to cover drive. One makes robots, the other makes runs.
A world with flexible technique is a fun world to watch as well as coach. Bowlers and batsmen who are different are much more watchable. Imagine a team of technical grinding batsmen and right arm medium-fast bowlers. Now throw in someone like a Pietersen, who has a crazy uncoachable technique and approach to batting. Add a Narine with the ball and equally individual method. Now we are having a good time. For this reason I'm glad the idea of technical perfection is dying. Cricket is all the better for variety at every level. So, the next time your team's coach - or your son's coach - is quiet instead of prescriptive, or doesn't just run a net and bark instructions, give him a nod of silent recognition that you understand.
Monday 27 October 2014
On Batting - Why the perfect technique is the one that disappears
The various acts that are involved in playing cricket well happen best intuitively, when we aren't consciously perfection in them
Ed Smith in Cricinfo
October 27, 2014
The key to batting could be described as being not so much about watching the ball as getting in sync with it, matching the rhythm of the shot with the arrival of the ball © AFP
Last weekend I was chopping firewood with an axe in my garden. The trick, obviously, is to land the blade of the axe in roughly the same part of the trunk every time. Each accurately aimed blow widens a V-shaped wedge, until, eventually, you cut through the whole tree. If you're inaccurate, you end up stabbing the trunk and messily scarring the firewood.
I was surprised by what I noticed. When I concentrated intently on the spot I was aiming for, when I tried to be precise and particular, I was in fact quite clumsy. But when I merely casually noted the target and focused more on the rhythm of the swing and the naturalness of the motion, I found that the axe landed in exactly the right spot. In fact, every single "good swing" - by which I mean something lazy, fluid, languid, with the weight of the blade being first unweighted then dropping almost casually - ended in hitting the target.
Accuracy was best served not by trying to be accurate, but by a sense of rhythm. Precision was achieved not by seeking it but by absorption in free, uninhibited (but not wild or uncontrolled) movement. When I tried to force the axe to go exactly where I wanted, it rarely did. When I allowed myself to work with the axe, it cooperated.
Eventually I realised this is exactly like batting.
We talk too much about "watching the ball", as though straining to identify the target is always the answer. (This is my second article challenging central tenets of the coaching manual - the first took issue with the "head still" theory.) In fact, a batsman can watch the ball too anxiously, to the point that the process inhibits his response to the ball. Instead, we have to be alert to the ball, to get in sync with it, to match the rhythm of the shot with the arrival of the ball. And these things happen best intuitively, when we aren't consciously pursuing them.
This is not a new idea. It was articulated by the golfer James Baird in 1914. He criticised players who fixate with desperate intensity on the point of impact. Instead, in a good swing, "The dispatching of the ball from the tee by the driver in the downward swing is merely an incident of the whole business [my italics]." A few years ago, I chatted about golf with Colin Montgomerie at Gleneagles. He took a few swings exactly as Baird suggested: the ball was almost incidental, a momentary obstacle in the natural movement of the club. The swing happened, the ball just got in the way.
That is not always easy, especially in cricket, when the ball is moving. I've never liked the cliché that cricket is "a simple game". All taken together, the art of batsmanship is very complex - the tension between attack and defence; the balance between protecting against lbws and yet not opening up the edge to the slips; the ability to transfer weight decisively forward and back; sustaining concentration, switching on and off.
And yet most batsmen would agree that when they're doing it well, batting feels simple and natural, sometimes even easy. Bowling is the same. Every fast bowler I've known, when asked why he was able to bowl so fast and well on a particular day, tends to answer, "Because I had good rhythm." I've not heard one bowler yet reply, "Because I tried harder and thought more intently."
The best coach I worked with would sometimes stand behind the nets with his eyes closed. He'd listen to the bowler's steps arriving at the crease, the noise of the batsman's footwork, the thud of the ball on the turf, and finally the crack of leather on willow. "That was good," he'd say, "you had rhythm." Or sometimes, "No, you had no touch, no finesse." All with his eyes closed, or with his body turned away from the net. And he'd be right, every time. The coach was able to distinguish between the right process (an open and uninhibited mindset, a lack of predetermination, a natural swing of the bat) and the outcome of the shot in narrow terms. He knew that if you play a high enough proportion of good shots, the runs will inevitably follow.
| Because the important things are hard to coach, it is tempting to take refuge in the small, irrelevant things because they are easy | |||
There is a mystical element here. By crudely reducing things in the hope of "explaining them", we often simply distort them. Batting is not like rummaging around in a bag of machinery, looking for a pre-moulded tool. Instead, it is the ability to answer a question posed by a particular ball - batting as a form of conversation. As every ball is slightly different, so is every good shot. As Roger Federer put it brilliantly, "I need a different point every time."
In elite sport we overstate the importance of trying hard. After all, players are highly incentivised to do well (money, glory, fame - need we go on?). Conversely we hugely underestimate the value of achieving that sense of lightness and freedom - the feeling I had swinging the axe, and, sometimes, when I was swinging a cricket bat. There is truth in the cliché: "You learn about batting when you've already scored a hundred." What you learn is how good you could be if you learned always to trust yourself, to play free from restraints and anxiety, without the suffocating influence of what Arsene Wenger calls "handbrake-age".
The question follows, obvious but very rarely addressed: how can we make batting and bowling feel easy more often, given that is the feeling we get when we are doing them well?
First, we misunderstand technique. Technique is not a thing, an object that can be owned. It is a means. The goal is not technique but to hit the ball sweetly. Technique allows us to do it better, to achieve that goal more often and completely. For that reason, the perfect technique is the technique that disappears: it is no longer in the way. We are not conscious of it at all. We track the ball, swing the bat in rhythm, and everything else organises itself intuitively.
Secondly, we overstate the value of rational intelligence and analysis. I am not sure that the subject of this article can be "coached" in the conventional sense of the word. Coaches can help you to understand the process, perhaps even help you get there more quickly. But, at best, the coach can only support and enable a journey that the player must undertake on his own.
Because the important things are hard to coach, it is tempting to take refuge in the small, irrelevant things because they are easy. Too much bottom hand, getting squared up, playing too early, closing the face of the bat? All symptoms, but unlikely to be the ultimate cause. That is probably much simpler and yet harder to put right: the bat isn't working as part of your body but in opposition to it.
As the literary critic Steven Connor wrote about tennis: "If I wish the racket to become me, I must first become it, or become the kind of me that it requires and will most readily respond to."
-----Rahul Dravid on playing spin as quoted by Bryon Coverdale from Pietersen's book
One of the most fascinating passages in Kevin Pietersen's recent autobiography relates not to which team-mates he dislikes or how badly he was treated, but to advice given to him by Rahul Dravid on how to play spin. It is worth seeking out the book just to read the email Dravid sent. Australia's batsmen should certainly read it.
Dravid advises soft hands, be prepared to come forward but do not overcommit, let the ball come to you, recognise there are scoring opportunities off the back foot too. He suggests a novel training method, telling Pietersen he should face Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar in the nets while not wearing pads.
"When you have no pads it will force you, sometimes painfully, to get the bat forward of the pads and will force you to watch the ball," Dravid writes. "Also the leg will be less keen to push out without any protection. My coach would tell me you should never need pads to play spin!!"
Sunday 10 August 2014
Poor basics have brought down the standard of cricket
Test teams are more competitive these days, but it's probably because the fundamentals of backing up, running between the wickets and catching are being ignored
Ian Chappell in Cricinfo
August 10, 2014
Are pre-game routines designed to build on cricket's fundamental skills? © Getty Images
The wildly fluctuating series between India and England reflects Test cricket in the last decade. Where there was once domination by West Indies and then Australia, we now have parity, at least among the top five or six teams. Certainly there's a tendency towards home advantage, but as we've seen with India and England, there's very little standing between the top teams.
Is parity better for the game than dominance?
There's no doubt cricket is a more interesting spectacle when there's a genuine tussle, as witnessed in the contrasting Tests played at Trent Bridge and Lord's. Give bowlers some encouragement and the contest can be compulsive viewing.
Unfortunately, parity has come about because the standard of the better sides has slipped a little rather than it being a case of the lesser teams raising the bar. Still, it's preferable having a logjam at the top of the table rather than one standout team followed in the distance by a bunch of also-rans.
Why has parity only been achieved through a dip in standards?
We are constantly told that batsmen are more dominant these days and that fielding standards are better than ever, but the information doesn't match reality. Batting survival techniques have deteriorated. It's power-hitting that has dramatically improved. And while some amazing catches and saves are enacted near the boundary, in the crucial area of the close cordon, chances are too often spilt because simple but critical footwork is lacking. The pursuit of the spectacular has outstripped the desire to master basics.
Much of the pre-game routines are fairy-floss rather than the meat and potatoes that help win cricket matches. One of my main concerns when the idea of international coaches was first mooted was that decisions would be taken to justify a large contract rather than be in the best interests of the player. It seems that many coaches want to leave a monument behind, and consequently there are numerous theories in existence replacing good old-fashioned tried and tested techniques.
It's interesting to reflect on the thoughts of two great practitioners of their art, Australia's Bill O'Reilly and West Indies' Sir Garfield Sobers. O'Reilly once advised a young cricketing hopeful: "If you see a coach coming, son, run a mile." Sobers was even less subtle. When some ill-informed official had the temerity to suggest he didn't have the required qualifications to coach, Garry exploded: "What do you think I got my f#@%&*! knighthood for, singing?"
Sobers deplored the fact that "great cricketers are treated as freaks; admired for their feats but ignored for the way in which they achieved them".
The basics of backing up, running between wickets, catching in the slips, and some to do with ground fielding, are being ignored. There's a tendency to salivate over the latest fashionable theory but gag on tried and tested techniques.
Two classic examples are slip catching and running between wickets. Many chances go down in the cordon because of the failure to initiate the slight turn of the foot that balances a fielder before attempting a catch away from the body. The tendency is to attempt a spectacular catch by simply falling sideways - at the risk of spilling the chance.
Why do batsmen turn blind, not watch the ball leave the bowler's hand when backing up, and insist on running down the on side of the pitch after playing a stroke when that greatly increases the chance of a collision with a partner?
These are violations of simple basics that have brought good results. They should be learnt before a budding cricketer reaches teenage years, and be ingrained in him by the time he reaches voting age.
While many coaches seek fame, players tend to concentrate on methods most likely to earn their fortune. While the former is lamentable, the latter approach is understandable.
No other sport has three vastly different forms of competition, and this complicates the issue of technique, especially in batting. However, Kumar Sangakkara is a classic example of how you don't have to sacrifice the basics in order to succeed in all three forms.
The aim should be to achieve parity by raising the overall standard.
Thursday 18 July 2013
Cricket - Dhoni and the revelation that at first wasn’t noticed
APDhoni’s success did not come overnight. Nor was his selection in the Indian team a fluke.
Watching Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s career graph can make any one believe in miracles. The man with the Midas touch has been a revelation to experts ever since he arrived on the scene.
Dhoni’s success did not come overnight. Nor was his selection in the Indian team a fluke. He had been playing the Ranji Trophy for Bihar from 2000. But where Dhoni’s fate was different from that of others like him was the introduction of the Talent Resource Development Wing (TRDW) of the BCCI. No one noticed talent in his zone, which tended to promote players from one state, something the then selection committee chairman Kiran More objected to.
TRD officers P.C. Podar and Raju Mukherjee were scavenging for talent, hopping from one match to another in Jamshedpur during the Ranji one-dayers in 2003-04.
They came across a 22-year-old opener who was whacking bowlers all over the place. They promptly fed their assessments on the National Cricket Academy website and the chief TRDO Dilip Vengsarkar strongly recommended Dhoni for the India ‘A’ tour of Kenya.
MUST THANK HIS STARS
Within a year, Dhoni was in the Indian team to Bangladesh. Everything said and done, Dhoni has to thank his lucky stars for getting noticed in the first place.
He was fortunate that Vengsarkar’s recommendations were accepted by More’s selection committee.
More, being a wicketkeeper himself, wasn’t happy initially with Dhoni’s keeping abilities but every decision maker felt that Dhoni was a special talent. Dhoni gave the impression that he enjoyed pressure situations.
In an interview in Dr. Rudi Webster’s book, ‘Think Like a Champion’, Dhoni says, “I see pressure as an opportunity to do well. If you are under pressure you should not see it as a danger and give in to it.
DEALING WITH PRESSURE
“People say a lot of negative things about pressure. Pressure to me is just an added responsibility.
That is how I look at it. It’s not pressure when God gives you an opportunity to be a hero for your team and country.
“If you expect pressure and have a plan to deal with it you will know exactly what to do when it comes, and more often than not you will use it in a positive and productive way.
“The best way to deal with it is to stay in the moment and not get trapped in the past or caught up in the future on the result or on what might happen.
If you stay in the moment, calm your mind and focus on the process you won’t feel much pressure.”
The way Dhoni plays in the death overs is a mystery beyond explanation but these words of his certainly unravel some secrets. Webster’s book deals with many interviews of V.V.S. Laxman, Rahul Dravid, Sir Garfield Sobers and Greg Chappell.
It focuses on the psychological aspects of cricket, which is often referred to as “mental strength”.
Dhoni is candid in admitting that his technique isn’t of international standard. However, a glance at his performance (11567 international runs, 424 catches and 111 stumpings) shows that he has done what many great technicians of the game haven’t. To him, performance counts.
Technique is important of course, but Dhoni isn’t the kind to be a slave to technique.
The psychological aspect of the game that he emphasises should be an eye opener for people who are stuck with the baggage of technique.
Technique without performance is worthless; it can be at best used for technical comparison and nothing else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)