It is time to talk about the state of Test batting

[Pure_Ownage]

I have had a bit of time to ruminate on this - I missed a lot of the Adelaide match dealing with some other shit but watched most of Melbourne.

There’s no right or wrong way to handle tough batting conditions, as much as the ‘up in arms’ brigade want to have you believe that there are.

What I believe the issue is, is that in modern cricket, everyone, more or less anyway, has the SAME way.

The obvious example is Harry Brook.

Now Brook has become a bit of a pin up boy for criticism at times because of how he gets dismissed and the way it looks and his perceived lack of willingness to change his game. But is his perceived lack of willingness really any different to a Rahul Dravid or Jacques Kallis who rarely if ever changed theirs? They had a method and it worked. So they stuck with it and only deviated from it a little when the situation would allow, where their strike rate would go from their normal range of 35-45, above 50 and up to 60.
Brook is similar. He has his method, it works, and he bases his small variations around it - he will almost always operate in an attacking space, sometimes it will be with a LOT of boundaries, other times it will be with a very high rotation of strike but almost always it will be with a strike rate above 75, and sometimes up to 90+.
For HIM, it works.
And regardless of whether his critics want to acknowledge it, it has worked a number of times on pitches helping bowlers out, either on a large scale, such as his 180 in NZ in 2022, or over there earlier this year with his 120 (I’ll exclude his 170 as he was dropped 5-6 times). Even this series on the two most difficult pitches, it was he who handled the day one Perth pitch best with a half century, and he looked completely untroubled on day one in Melbourne (first ball excepted) until he was dismissed and he actually got out playing a perfectly normal forward push. He trusts it, and his freak eye allows it to work with reasonable regularity. It’s worked on some spin friendly pitches in the second and third tests in his first away series in Pakistan too (the first test in that series was a road). It’s often forgotten that in the last Ashes at The Oval, in the two first innings’ Smith was the only other batsman to pass 47 from either team; Brook clobbered 85 from 91 to set up England in a match they won after Hazlewood, Cummins and Marsh had them in trouble on the first morning.

The ‘problem’ is that his method or similar seems to be the norm for basically everyone and that won’t work for many players. Travis Head can do it when he’s in form, Aidan Markram has his moments, Rishabh Pant has them occasionally, I would think at some point in the future a player like Jaiswal will probably play the odd innings similar as well.

The only player who jumps off the page at me since Brathwaite completely forgot how to bat, as a dig-in, pure tough conditions ‘specialist’ is Temba Bavuma. He just has a method of digging in and playing the ball with soft hands, late, and keeping it down.

Then you have one very small group of other players who I would consider ‘problem solvers’ who aren’t locked into one method of playing but DO actually assess the conditions, and try and make adjustments to them and there’s no prizes for guessing that Smith is the best of them. He’s not committed to one way, he grafts, he leaves, he drops the ball into the offside, he changes where he stands, he squares up, he bats deep in his crease, he plays late. He will attack and take the bowling on if he needs to.

Williamson is arguably the best in the world at playing the ball late and getting it to ground when he is faced with those pitches but seems to have a bit of an Achilles heel when the pitch is fast. It helps him that the Kiwi pitches are slower.
Root is in a trot in the last two games but he generally finds a way whether the pitches are spinning (he sweeps, reverse sweeps, uses his feet, uses the crease) or seaming and can up the ante if that’s the way forward. He thinks about the game.

The other left field one that comes to mind is KL Rahul, and it’s probably why all but 2 of his centuries have come away from home; he doesn’t have a great average but once he survives the early stages he seems to find a way to get on top of the ball, guide the seaming ball down, soft hands etc, he is very patient, rides bounce well, and lets bowlers come to him.

Essentially there is nothing wrong with approaching tough conditions with an attack-first mindset, IF that is something you’re capable of doing. Unfortunately I’d say nearly 80 per cent of top 7 batsmen around the world have talked themselves into believing that that’s how they have to play when things get tough now when in reality about 10-15 per cent of them are capable of actually pulling it off with any regularity.

That's a t20 mindset though.
Everyone plays one super match winning ball bashing innings then thinks that it will work for them in test cricket every month. Bar a select few it wont.

 

[PhatBoy]

That's a t20 mindset though.
Everyone plays one super match winning ball bashing innings then thinks that it will work for them in test cricket every month. Bar a select few it wont.

I’m not really offering an opinion on where it comes from. I have my own views on it that are a bit varied. I think it (T20) has a bit to do with it but also a ‘it works for so-and-so ergo it’s what I need to do’ mindset. To me that’s stupidity at its peak; it’s like looking at ABDV sweeping a 145km delivery conventionally over fine leg like he would to an off break and deciding it’s the normal way to play fast bowling just because HE can do it. Sure that’s ok IF you are ABDV but you aren’t. Players need to do some self assessment and establish what’s best for them. It’s one of the reasons I actually have a great deal of admiration for Ben Stokes’ overall batting savviness. He owns perhaps the most destructive innings of the millenium in a meaningful sense at Newlands (with due respect to Astle, his freak innings was in a lost cause) but he can also sit on the same score for 50 balls if he has to.

 

[Run n Spread]

Technique is the most over rated thing on earth.
Hand eye coordination fitness strength skill and reflexes + mindset are way more important.
There are 2 problems with test batting atm.
1. They crap themselves the second there are bowler friendly conditions and play stupid shots. Mindset issue
2. The approach is all skewered. Batsmen seem to change their approach mid innings Start positive then go back to their shell and end up getting out anyway. Skill issue. A lot of that thou is coming to grips with the natural evolution of the sport.
Harnessing a skillset and excelling is ultimately what drives performance.
Technique is basically what you're born with and doesn't really change to spite a one size fits all approach being tried and forever failing. Harnessing skill and developing that is way more important and is what produces results and champions at any level in any endeavour.
Steve Smith for all intents and purposes has a crap technique and Cam Greens is excellent . One has brilliant hand eye and reflexes and has mastered his skill set the other simply is not test standard.

 

[Yoda_]

the overall consensus of this thread seems to be mindset. T20 has certainly watered down the "grind" we've seen in innings like Faf Du Plessis in Australia on his debut series etc.

Most international cricketers are good enough, it's the mindset that will enable them to succeed. I played with a premier cricketer at my local club, he was one of the very best run makers in Melbourne but never got the opportunity to step up to Vic 2nd XI but a gun none the less.

We played a match where the ball was hooping, he and I came together at 3/11, ended up departing 4/170ish and that was due to grinding it out where it gets easier the longer you bat. It seems batters dont want to do this anymore. That shot from Cam Green epitomises how far batting has regressed. He is batting for his future and played a dumb backing away shot like he did in a recent test shows the little care they have.

 

[crows dude]

Technique is the most over rated thing on earth.
Hand eye coordination fitness strength skill and reflexes + mindset are way more important.
There are 2 problems with test batting atm.
1. They crap themselves the second there are bowler friendly conditions and play stupid shots. Mindset issue
2. The approach is all skewered. Batsmen seem to change their approach mid innings Start positive then go back to their shell and end up getting out anyway. Skill issue. A lot of that thou is coming to grips with the natural evolution of the sport.
Harnessing a skillset and excelling is ultimately what drives performance.
Technique is basically what you're born with and doesn't really change to spite a one size fits all approach being tried and forever failing. Harnessing skill and developing that is way more important and is what produces results and champions at any level in any endeavour.
Steve Smith for all intents and purposes has a crap technique and Cam Greens is excellent . One has brilliant hand eye and reflexes and has mastered his skill set the other simply is not test standard.

Technique is very important unless you have a great eye like Smith. Most dont.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Technique is the most over rated thing on earth.
Hand eye coordination fitness strength skill and reflexes + mindset are way more important.
There are 2 problems with test batting atm.
1. They crap themselves the second there are bowler friendly conditions and play stupid shots. Mindset issue
2. The approach is all skewered. Batsmen seem to change their approach mid innings Start positive then go back to their shell and end up getting out anyway. Skill issue. A lot of that thou is coming to grips with the natural evolution of the sport.
Harnessing a skillset and excelling is ultimately what drives performance.
Technique is basically what you're born with and doesn't really change to spite a one size fits all approach being tried and forever failing. Harnessing skill and developing that is way more important and is what produces results and champions at any level in any endeavour.
Steve Smith for all intents and purposes has a crap technique and Cam Greens is excellent . One has brilliant hand eye and reflexes and has mastered his skill set the other simply is not test standard.

? Technique is what saves you when the hand-eye coordination, reflexes and mindset fail. Technique is the only thing you AREN'T born with? I'd argue poor Technique is probably second only to poor shot selection (mindset) in causing dismissals now.

Smith's technique - for all his movements, quirks, etc is actually pretty good. He's maximised his stump protection, is still and balanced as the bowler delivers, and more often than not is using correct mechanics in his shots. Him getting out bowled was a genuine shock.

Play the line of the ball, straight bat, cover your stumps with your body/pads, use your feet to get to the pitch of the ball. Soft hands, bat and pad close together. Get INSIDE the line of the ball and work to leg.

A left hand batsman should never get bowled by a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket and moving the ball away. Nick certainly if they're good enough to beat you - but if it gets passed your body it should be missing the stumps.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Technique is the most over rated thing on earth.
Hand eye coordination fitness strength skill and reflexes + mindset are way more important.
There are 2 problems with test batting atm.
1. They crap themselves the second there are bowler friendly conditions and play stupid shots. Mindset issue
2. The approach is all skewered. Batsmen seem to change their approach mid innings Start positive then go back to their shell and end up getting out anyway. Skill issue. A lot of that thou is coming to grips with the natural evolution of the sport.
Harnessing a skillset and excelling is ultimately what drives performance.
Technique is basically what you're born with and doesn't really change to spite a one size fits all approach being tried and forever failing. Harnessing skill and developing that is way more important and is what produces results and champions at any level in any endeavour.
Steve Smith for all intents and purposes has a crap technique and Cam Greens is excellent . One has brilliant hand eye and reflexes and has mastered his skill set the other simply is not test standard.

Over-analysed perhaps. So long as the bat comes through straight on straight bat shots, who cares if the backlift is a bit high and pointing to gully. Unorthodox grip or stance, whatever works and feels comfortable; sustained concentration is more likely if physically comfortable at the crease.
There are some non-negotiables, which aid maximising a chance of success even with a superb natural ability. Bat and pad together unless playing attacking shots, where giving yourself room is now the go-to move. But for defence or the push past the bowler to rotate the strike, close the gap, if the ball comes back in you are far more likely to be bowled than LBW - its just the way the LBW law works so minimise the risk for the same chance of reward.
Skill is what you are born with. Practiced and instinctive technique along with mindset and match awareness are how you harness it. It doesn't need to be classical technique in all respects but some elements. When conditions don't suit what you do naturally counts, and that is your learned technique honed over many years.

Mindset and shot selection are crucial, but a sloppy technique is going to inform both. If you can't defend tightly or nudge for singles safely, playing a grinding innings in difficult conditions or against good bowling just won't happen. You have little choice but to play high risk shots, sometimes it comes off (Konstas last year) and most of the time it won't.

 

[Run n Spread]

? Technique is what saves you when the hand-eye coordination, reflexes and mindset fail. Technique is the only thing you AREN'T born with? I'd argue poor Technique is probably second only to poor shot selection (mindset) in causing dismissals now.

Smith's technique - for all his movements, quirks, etc is actually pretty good. He's maximised his stump protection, is still and balanced as the bowler delivers, and more often than not is using correct mechanics in his shots. Him getting out bowled was a genuine shock.

Play the line of the ball, straight bat, cover your stumps with your body/pads, use your feet to get to the pitch of the ball. Soft hands, bat and pad close together. Get INSIDE the line of the ball and work to leg.

A left hand batsman should never get bowled by a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket and moving the ball away. Nick certainly if they're good enough to beat you - but if it gets passed your body it should be missing the stumps.

Smith's success is based on skill execution. He at his peak could hit runs off his stumps forcing bowlers to bowl wide and than cover drive beautifully. High risk high reward.
The left hand right arm bowler is more poor skill execution on the part of the bowler
Bowlers simply don't bowl at the stumps enough. Especially with an old ball.
Bowl at the stumps and set a ring field. Yet modern bowlers are obsessed with getting the nick rather than opening up all other modes of dismissal

 

[PhatBoy]

Technique is very important unless you have a great eye like Smith. Most dont.

If your technique is ‘tight’ it doesn’t really matter how it happens.

There are two ways of looking at it: is your technique classical or does your technique allow you to give you the best chance to survive. Some will say the former allows you the latter.

But Faf du Plessis was mentioned earlier in the thread. He had his hands miles apart on the bat, got himself very front on at times and did a lot of things you theoretically shouldn’t. Yet when he wanted to you couldn’t get the ball past him. Hashim Amla waved the bat around like a magic wand but could bed down for hours at the crease when he wanted with the bat way out in front of his pad yet still looking like a barn door.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

 

[sabso]

? Technique is what saves you when the hand-eye coordination, reflexes and mindset fail. Technique is the only thing you AREN'T born with? I'd argue poor Technique is probably second only to poor shot selection (mindset) in causing dismissals now.

Smith's technique - for all his movements, quirks, etc is actually pretty good. He's maximised his stump protection, is still and balanced as the bowler delivers, and more often than not is using correct mechanics in his shots. Him getting out bowled was a genuine shock.

Play the line of the ball, straight bat, cover your stumps with your body/pads, use your feet to get to the pitch of the ball. Soft hands, bat and pad close together. Get INSIDE the line of the ball and work to leg.

A left hand batsman should never get bowled by a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket and moving the ball away. Nick certainly if they're good enough to beat you - but if it gets passed your body it should be missing the stumps.

Ditto a right hand bat to a left armer… how did starc ever have a career then?

 

[Themanbun]

Grassroots bowling standards have completely dropped off over the past 10 years. I took a bit of time out of the game and was a bit taken aback by how far it's fallen. That cannot be good for batting quality going forward.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Ditto a right hand bat to a left armer… how did starc ever have a career then?

? For the exact same reason (poor batting techniques).

For Starc specifically, primarily his Pace was his biggest weapon early in his career. Regularly topping 150k he was simply too quick for many batsmen to play naturally... resulting in rushed shots - especially those with technique flaws. He blasted batsmen out and was regularly used as our 3rd, or even 4th bowler - short spells full of bouncers and yorkers - effort balls six times an over. He had little control of swing (or direction for that matter) and regularly resorted to bowling cross seam to 'force' the ball to go straight. I'm sure I would have been highly critical of his early career.

I'm not sure if there was a moment of clarity that led to the change, or just his growing maturity as a bowler and development of his craft, but I feel he has been a reliable new-ball bowler now for most of his career. You cannot question his dedication (to supreme fitness, and giving everything on the day) such that as he has got older and slower, he has actually become a far more accomplished bowler.

As to why this issue (poor batting techniques) has gotten increasingly worse throughout Starc's career, the answer is simple -- $$$$

===
Consider the timeline of Starc's career:

Starc made his Test debut for Australia on 1 December 2011, in the first Test of the two-Test series against New Zealand.

...earlier that year...

9 Jan 2011 · India star Gautam Gambhir is snapped up for $2.4 million at Indian Premier League auction.

...and a few years later...(by which time IPL had more than doubled team salaries)

25 Oct 2014 - The top-end talent in Australian cricket, a select group of around 20 players who are contracted by Cricket Australia each year, earn a minimum annual salary of $250,000...International players also receive match payments of $13,100 per Test, $5243 per one-day international and $3932 for a T20 international, as well as performance bonuses.

===

Players could earn up to 10x their ANNUAL salary at IPL auction.
Cricket Australia reduced funding for Shield to push the BBL (still only ~10% of IPL salaries).
20/20 and ODI events were split from the Test schedules, and hosting a Test Series became significantly more expensive.
Prime-Time (school holidays) given to BBL, with test matches pushed to start and finish of season.

1. 3-day tests led to massive $$$ losses - while 20/20 was a guaranteed money-spinner. Curators started preparing flatter wickets for Test Matches, guaranteeing games going at least into day 4, if not day 5.
2. With nothing in the pitch for the bowlers, matches would head towards a draw - especially at domestic level (this was hidden somewhat by our incredible success over the last decade).
3. There was no need for defensive minded players anymore - attacking players 'created' results. So teams loaded up with attacking batsmen.
4. Attacking players get a pitch with just a hint of movement, collapses. Media Complaints, $$$ lost. Go back to Step 1.

All caused by the $$$ incentives for short form games over Test Cricket. It's not going to change, so I'm just an old man yelling at a cloud. I remember what Cricket was supposed to be.

 

[sabso]

? For the exact same reason (poor batting techniques).

For Starc specifically, primarily his Pace was his biggest weapon early in his career. Regularly topping 150k he was simply too quick for many batsmen to play naturally... resulting in rushed shots - especially those with technique flaws. He blasted batsmen out and was regularly used as our 3rd, or even 4th bowler - short spells full of bouncers and yorkers - effort balls six times an over. He had little control of swing (or direction for that matter) and regularly resorted to bowling cross seam to 'force' the ball to go straight. I'm sure I would have been highly critical of his early career.

I'm not sure if there was a moment of clarity that led to the change, or just his growing maturity as a bowler and development of his craft, but I feel he has been a reliable new-ball bowler now for most of his career. You cannot question his dedication (to supreme fitness, and giving everything on the day) such that as he has got older and slower, he has actually become a far more accomplished bowler.

As to why this issue (poor batting techniques) has gotten increasingly worse throughout Starc's career, the answer is simple -- $$$$

===
Consider the timeline of Starc's career:

Starc made his Test debut for Australia on 1 December 2011, in the first Test of the two-Test series against New Zealand.

...earlier that year...

9 Jan 2011 · India star Gautam Gambhir is snapped up for $2.4 million at Indian Premier League auction.

...and a few years later...(by which time IPL had more than doubled team salaries)

25 Oct 2014 - The top-end talent in Australian cricket, a select group of around 20 players who are contracted by Cricket Australia each year, earn a minimum annual salary of $250,000...International players also receive match payments of $13,100 per Test, $5243 per one-day international and $3932 for a T20 international, as well as performance bonuses.

===

Players could earn up to 10x their ANNUAL salary at IPL auction.
Cricket Australia reduced funding for Shield to push the BBL (still only ~10% of IPL salaries).
20/20 and ODI events were split from the Test schedules, and hosting a Test Series became significantly more expensive.
Prime-Time (school holidays) given to BBL, with test matches pushed to start and finish of season.

1. 3-day tests led to massive $$$ losses - while 20/20 was a guaranteed money-spinner. Curators started preparing flatter wickets for Test Matches, guaranteeing games going at least into day 4, if not day 5.
2. With nothing in the pitch for the bowlers, matches would head towards a draw - especially at domestic level (this was hidden somewhat by our incredible success over the last decade).
3. There was no need for defensive minded players anymore - attacking players 'created' results. So teams loaded up with attacking batsmen.
4. Attacking players get a pitch with just a hint of movement, collapses. Media Complaints, $$$ lost. Go back to Step 1.

All caused by the $$$ incentives for short form games over Test Cricket. It's not going to change, so I'm just an old man yelling at a cloud. I remember what Cricket was supposed to be.

You’ll love Greg Chappells latest cricinfo article then, it really is an old man yelling at a cloud. With loads of irrelevant tangents and callbacks thrown in.

Mitchell Johnson really did make a career out of bowling at poor techniques, at no point was he anything more than quite good.

 

[PhatBoy]

You’ll love Greg Chappells latest cricinfo article then, it really is an old man yelling at a cloud. With loads of irrelevant tangents and callbacks thrown in.

Mitchell Johnson really did make a career out of bowling at poor techniques, at no point was he anything more than quite good.

Yeah I doubt the best in the world SA side that he terrorised for a time agree with that. His 8, 7 and 6 wicket hauls against them suggest he was, ‘at a point’ more than quite good, considering SA were a side who lost two series in a decade.

 

[sherb]

You’ll love Greg Chappells latest cricinfo article then, it really is an old man yelling at a cloud. With loads of irrelevant tangents and callbacks thrown in.

Mitchell Johnson really did make a career out of bowling at poor techniques, at no point was he anything more than quite good.

I just read it.

Sure, it involved "back in my day" romanticism, but it also equally involved a number of extremely valid observations.

The hysteria about the 4th Test pitch has been way over the top and it's good to see the spotlight placed on the batsmen, given the mauling the head groundsman has copped.