Next Generation

[hugecannon]

Give up on technique at Test level - you’re asking for trouble - Smith is unique, you can’t or shouldn’t coach it - Head is more about attitude,his technique is still ok, it’s just that he’s way more attacking with his mindset. If Ollie Davies is serious he bats at 4 not 6 or 7 not behind Gilkes & Moises

I like that NSW let him stay at 6 for the year rather than push him up to 3-4 after his first 100 though, maybe push him to 5 next season and if he has another strong year then move him to 4 after that.

I feel like too many states push the youngsters up the order too early while the more seasoned players are lower in the order behind them.

He’s 23 he’s developing well give him time to consolidate his spot.

 

[Black Diamond]

The most valuable asset is runs.

I really think the technique debate is an overrated one. Temperament is more important imo. Smith, Root, Kohli and Williamson all have different techniques and styles, 2 average over 55 and all over 49. Williamson imo has the most "correct" technique of the 4, and is the worst of the 4 against the best bowling. Smith arguably has the worst, but is the best of the 4 by a mile and in particular against the best bowling in all conditions.

If it so happens there is a player with a bad technique who is a consistent scorer then ok, pick him.

Reality is there have been very, very few of these players.

A decent technique is what allows a player to hit the ball correctly in the first place, and therefore score.

I know I’m a lone voice on this but I think Smith’s technique is quite classical.

 

[Coops93]

If it so happens there is a player with a bad technique who is a consistent scorer then ok, pick him.

Reality is there have been very, very few of these players.

I know I’m a lone voice on this but I think Smith’s technique is quite classical.

How is good technique defined? It's way more varied than people think.

Pontings technique wasn't classical. He had a high back lift, lunged forward, played with hard hands, pulled fuller balls than standard. You wouldn't coach those things into young players.
Hayden stood tall, again played hard handed and with a big press forward. Not really what you coach.
Langer was crafty and cagey, didn't have pure movement, his was mostly temperament and grinding out.
Gilchrist had a loose and slashy technique but averaged over 45 and is the best batter-keeper ever seen.
Labuschagne now is a mish mash of trying to be traditional mixed in with some Steve Smith.
Khawaja stands right back deep in his crease and barely wants to come forward even to full balls.
Kevin Pieterson stood tall, was wristy but in a power way, not finesse, didn't have great bat-pad integrity and played across the line. Cook was as stiff as they come but had great timing.

Would I say any of them have a bad technique? No, but I wouldn't say any are textbook either. They're all different and, yet, all successful at test level.

I semi-agree with your Smith point. I wouldn't describe it as classical, but I do think it solves a lot of problems for batters and does put you in a great position for a lot of shots. Then it's described as a horrible technique you wouldn't coach, but why? It's very effective - some have said it's actually similar to Bradmans in a lot of ways (I can't say I've seen enough technical footage on Sir Donalds technique, but I've heard commentators and such say so, Kerry O'Keefe in particular has said it a few times)


This whole "technique" issue is exaggerated imo. Very few actually have what could be described as a textbook technique. Most players have techniques that are their own and not out of a coaching manual. I don't think it's the downfall it's made out to be.

 

[Black Diamond]

How is good technique defined? It's way more varied than people think.

Pontings technique wasn't classical. He had a high back lift, lunged forward, played with hard hands, pulled fuller balls than standard. You wouldn't coach those things into young players.
Hayden stood tall, again played hard handed and with a big press forward. Not really what you coach.
Langer was crafty and cagey, didn't have pure movement, his was mostly temperament and grinding out.
Gilchrist had a loose and slashy technique but averaged over 45 and is the best batter-keeper ever seen.
Labuschagne now is a mish mash of trying to be traditional mixed in with some Steve Smith.
Khawaja stands right back deep in his crease and barely wants to come forward even to full balls.
Kevin Pieterson stood tall, was wristy but in a power way, not finesse, didn't have great bat-pad integrity and played across the line. Cook was as stiff as they come but had great timing.

Would I say any of them have a bad technique? No, but I wouldn't say any are textbook either. They're all different and, yet, all successful at test level.

I semi-agree with your Smith point. I wouldn't describe it as classical, but I do think it solves a lot of problems for batters and does put you in a great position for a lot of shots. Then it's described as a horrible technique you wouldn't coach, but why? It's very effective - some have said it's actually similar to Bradmans in a lot of ways (I can't say I've seen enough technical footage on Sir Donalds technique, but I've heard commentators and such say so, Kerry O'Keefe in particular has said it a few times)


This whole "technique" issue is exaggerated imo. Very few actually have what could be described as a textbook technique. Most players have techniques that are their own and not out of a coaching manual. I don't think it's the downfall it's made out to be.

Players have different gates, different heights and other visible and non-visible attributes which means they all look slightly different at the wicket.

A high back lift is not against the traditions. If comes naturally, you do it.

Do you prefer to stand tall or crouch? Doesn’t really matter.

What I really think is that certain elements of a good/bad technique we have wrong, and there are possibly fewer key elements than we have thought. Bradman and Smith have me thinking this way.

These two are the greatest ever IMO. Both played or play with a split grip, heavily rotated and heavy bottom hand, and quite a square stance. Each would play back to full deliveries and could hit very full balls with straight-ish pulls that other players would use a vertical bat for. Each would have a backlift to gully.

None of this is textbook. But somehow every junior does these things instinctively before it is coached out of them.

At this point, I think the key non-negotiables for technique are a high front elbow, playing the ball under the eyes, moving back and across, weight transfer, and hitting through the line. With some of those it is hard to draw the line between temperament and technique, I admit.

The players you listed all do or did those things IMO.

The various great white hopes of this thread do not.

After that, it is temperament to play for a long time, and back to the basics of playing in the V and keeping it on the ground early.

 

[western royboy]

Players have different gates, different heights and other visible and non-visible attributes which means they all look slightly different at the wicket.

A high back lift is not against the traditions. If comes naturally, you do it.

Do you prefer to stand tall or crouch? Doesn’t really matter.

What I really think is that certain elements of a good/bad technique we have wrong, and there are possibly fewer key elements than we have thought. Bradman and Smith have me thinking this way.

These two are the greatest ever IMO. Both played or play with a split grip, heavily rotated and heavy bottom hand, and quite a square stance. Each would play back to full deliveries and could hit very full balls with straight-ish pulls that other players would use a vertical bat for. Each would have a backlift to gully.

None of this is textbook. But somehow every junior does these things instinctively before it is coached out of them.

At this point, I think the key non-negotiables for technique are a high front elbow, playing the ball under the eyes, moving back and across, weight transfer, and hitting through the line. With some of those it is hard to draw the line between temperament and technique, I admit.

The players you listed all do or did those things IMO.

The various great white hopes of this thread do not.

After that, it is temperament to play for a long time, and back to the basics of playing in the V and keeping it on the ground early.

The basics of batting technique are very simple - grip, backlift and stance - get that right and you’ve got a good chance of making runs at any level. When I am asked to assist Batters at any level, this is where I start.

Bradman and Smith to a lesser extent are simply freaks. Their technique’s were honed by relentless practice and combined with hand eye coordination that is off the chart and concentration levels well above normal. You shouldn’t and cannot coach it.

In todays day and age of Milo / Woolies Cricket - most of the kids today have no idea how to hold the bat and are all bottom hand dominant. Under pressure the only way they can score is a slog to leg.

If that makes me a great white hope of this thread - then so be it. But I’m a relatively highly accredited coach and been doing it for a fair while - I’m like George Costanza’s Lawyer, I don’t follow the trends simply because the basics of batting haven’t changed for over 100 years. Yes the games have changed but aside from freaks like the above mentioned and Sehwag, very few have made it at high level without having the grip, backlift and stance stuff sorted.

I have been critical of the changes made to the way the game is taught / learnt in this country for well over 20 years. We are reaping what was sown. We have no depth in our batting and no emerging players to speak of. In todays electronic age - bowlers have more information than ever at the elite level to exploit weaknesses in a batsman’s game. It happens at lower levels if you’re good enough at it.

Interestingly Bradman thought the player that most resembled him was Tendulkar, pretty classical technique.

 

[Santana]

A population of 1.4 billion helps.

Sure but it has been pointed out a huge amount of their population is still very poor and opportunities for professional sports careers is still limited.

Big population and all but at the end of the day they still make Cricket a priority. The same can't be said here

 

[Black Diamond]

The basics of batting technique are very simple - grip, backlift and stance - get that right and you’ve got a good chance of making runs at any level. When I am asked to assist Batters at any level, this is where I start.

Bradman and Smith to a lesser extent are simply freaks. Their technique’s were honed by relentless practice and combined with hand eye coordination that is off the chart and concentration levels well above normal. You shouldn’t and cannot coach it.

In todays day and age of Milo / Woolies Cricket - most of the kids today have no idea how to hold the bat and are all bottom hand dominant. Under pressure the only way they can score is a slog to leg.

If that makes me a great white hope of this thread - then so be it. But I’m a relatively highly accredited coach and been doing it for a fair while - I’m like George Costanza’s Lawyer, I don’t follow the trends simply because the basics of batting haven’t changed for over 100 years. Yes the games have changed but aside from freaks like the above mentioned and Sehwag, very few have made it at high level without having the grip, backlift and stance stuff sorted.

I have been critical of the changes made to the way the game is taught / learnt in this country for well over 20 years. We are reaping what was sown. We have no depth in our batting and no emerging players to speak of. In todays electronic age - bowlers have more information than ever at the elite level to exploit weaknesses in a batsman’s game. It happens at lower levels if you’re good enough at it.

Interestingly Bradman thought the player that most resembled him was Tendulkar, pretty classical technique.

Off the top, I don't consider you a great white hope of this thread. That is not what I meant at all. That comment was about the players who are anointed by consensus. Not the posters. I have enjoyed (and agreed) with the huge balance of your contributions on batsmanship for more than 10 years now.

After we were skittled at Trent Bridge in 2015, Gerard opened Sports Day that following evening referring to it. Must have been the first set of callers, there was a [redacted] who called in to talk about the way we teach batting and how this will happen again and again. I was at the start of an 8 year break from this forum, but it was obvious who the caller was. I remember the first name.

Bradman may be a freak but I don't think Smith is to the same degree. I totally reject the "talent ID" and "pathways" approach which has dominated cricket recruitment and coaching for far too long.

But if you look at early-days Ian and Greg Chappell, some (not all) of what they did is like what I described in the previous post. Back foot play to full balls, strong bottom hand, front on. And those two were brought up by and around high quality cricketers.

Greg himself in The Making of Champions (before he became crazy) talked about things like how a straight backlift was biomechanically poor. His book has photos of Bradman as examples of how to do this and that. The split grip, rotated hands, backlift to gully, this is what kids do, and all of them can pull and hook balls which are quite full. Who is capable of doing this at the top level? But then it is coached out of them. Greg talks about this in the book.

In the context of what is and isn't the right technique, with the right mindset for long innings, I do wonder if a player can thrive being coached to just a handful of points (high elbow, under the eyes etc) without being an oil painting at the wicket.

 

[Coops93]

Players have different gates, different heights and other visible and non-visible attributes which means they all look slightly different at the wicket.

A high back lift is not against the traditions. If comes naturally, you do it.

Do you prefer to stand tall or crouch? Doesn’t really matter.

What I really think is that certain elements of a good/bad technique we have wrong, and there are possibly fewer key elements than we have thought. Bradman and Smith have me thinking this way.

These two are the greatest ever IMO. Both played or play with a split grip, heavily rotated and heavy bottom hand, and quite a square stance. Each would play back to full deliveries and could hit very full balls with straight-ish pulls that other players would use a vertical bat for. Each would have a backlift to gully.

None of this is textbook. But somehow every junior does these things instinctively before it is coached out of them.

At this point, I think the key non-negotiables for technique are a high front elbow, playing the ball under the eyes, moving back and across, weight transfer, and hitting through the line. With some of those it is hard to draw the line between temperament and technique, I admit.

The players you listed all do or did those things IMO.

The various great white hopes of this thread do not.

After that, it is temperament to play for a long time, and back to the basics of playing in the V and keeping it on the ground early.

I agree essentially with what you're saying, and I think we broadly agree that the overall technique debate is overblown.

There's some key elements that are required, I'll agree with that, but the finer points of technique are greatly exaggerated. With the points you listed there's no need to follow a technical guide to get to the result, as mentioned all those players bat differently yet all hit those key points. Same as Smith.

I think the temperament more than technique is what has changed from players this generation to previous and that could be down to t20. It could also be caused by broader society and a society that's in a hurry. Whatever the case, I believe that's more the cause than simply blaming technique.

 

[Coops93]

Sure but it has been pointed out a huge amount of their population is still very poor and opportunities for professional sports careers is still limited.

Big population and all but at the end of the day they still make Cricket a priority. The same can't be said here

That works for and against them.

Guys like Jaiswal and Gill did nothing in childhood but play cricket. Jaiswal avoided school to play cricket, left home to play cricket, his whole life was to become a cricketer. Gill was groomed by his Dad his whole life to play cricket, nothing else was a priority. Jasprit Bumrah was found from nowhere and developed a game based around only being able to bowl in his Mums hallway.

You don't get that here. We don't have as many desperate situations (which is a very good thing, btw) and our lives have many other priorities, through comfort or other distractions, that the drive to use cricket as a tool to save your families lives isn't as much of a reality. Who in our team has a story like leaving home and coming from the slums to play cricket for the sake of his families livelihood? Or having a parent groom them only to play cricket for their livelihood?

We lose talent due to the opportunities afforded to our youth. Many of our good cricketers leave the sport in favour of footy, such is our breadth of opportunity.

 

[RightWingRoo]

That works for and against them.

Guys like Jaiswal and Gill did nothing in childhood but play cricket. Jaiswal avoided school to play cricket, left home to play cricket, his whole life was to become a cricketer. Gill was groomed by his Dad his whole life to play cricket, nothing else was a priority. Jasprit Bumrah was found from nowhere and developed a game based around only being able to bowl in his Mums hallway.

You don't get that here. We don't have as many desperate situations (which is a very good thing, btw) and our lives have many other priorities, through comfort or other distractions, that the drive to use cricket as a tool to save your families lives isn't as much of a reality. Who in our team has a story like leaving home and coming from the slums to play cricket for the sake of his families livelihood? Or having a parent groom them only to play cricket for their livelihood?

We lose talent due to the opportunities afforded to our youth. Many of our good cricketers leave the sport in favour of footy, such is our breadth of opportunity.

The closest example we'd have, would be Davey Warner coming from a Matraville public housing unit.
I always felt that explained a lot of his combativeness, cricket was his way to a better life. It meant a lot more to him than most

 

[Black Diamond]

The closest example we'd have, would be Davey Warner coming from a Matraville public housing unit.
I always felt that explained a lot of his combativeness, cricket was his way to a better life. It meant a lot more to him than most

And an example of being brought up to play cricket and leaving school is Michael Clarke. He wasn't escaping poverty though.

Ponting and Smith also left school early.

 

[Around the Wicket]

You don't get that here. We don't have as many desperate situations (which is a very good thing, btw)

it does help if they have motivation as a kid, huge reason alot of the best NRL players come from Western Sydney, they have it tough growing up.

 

[RightWingRoo]

And an example of being brought up to play cricket and leaving school is Michael Clarke. He wasn't escaping poverty though.

Ponting and Smith also left school early.

Also remember Punter writing in his book, that Mowbray was somewhat of a battler area when he was growing up.

 

[Gough]

Also remember Punter writing in his book, that Mowbray was somewhat of a battler area when he was growing up.

I think Cummins is the first captain to have finished school since Waugh and the first with a degree since Tubby.

 

[RightWingRoo]

I think Cummins is the first captain to have finished school since Waugh and the first with a degree since Tubby.

It's interesting that most seem to have lived and breathed cricket to the exclusivity of all else.
Cummins may not have done that degree, if he hadn't missed so much time with injury in his early 20s though.

 

[big_e]

I find this little snippet about Corey Rocchiccioli quite revealing.

The 26-year-old worked at Bunnings when he was 20 and was still playing fourth grade, then remarkably has won three shield titles in his three domestic seasons.

People develop at different rates. Just because we don't have a bunch of 21-year-olds dominating, it's not the end of the world.

 

[Black Diamond]

I find this little snippet about Corey Rocchiccioli quite revealing.



People develop at different rates. Just because we don't have a bunch of 21-year-olds dominating, it's not the end of the world.

Marnus was still playing 4s in his late teens too IIRC.

Both of these guys would not get a look in the current NSW system.

 

[western royboy]

Some very relevant points here - batsmen take time to develop - yet we’ve gutted the testing ground and some are lost - seems like idiocy to me.

Having stood behind the stumps again for another season I saw zero young kids that interested me as potentially going to go higher - the comp was won by a team with a token kid who made 0 in the GF with the majority of the batsmen all 30+

 

[Black Diamond]

NSW Premier Final is this weekend if anyone is interested.

St George vs Manly

 

[Cleavy]

NSW Premier Final is this weekend if anyone is interested.

St George vs Manly

any notable names involved?

 

[Black Diamond]

any notable names involved?

Kurtis Patterson for St George.

Hazlewood plays for St George too. He isn’t playing IPL but highly unlikely to play the grade final.

Starc is with Manly. Obs not playing.

 

[BGman]

I enjoy being proven correct, with the announcement this morning that Xavier Bartlett is set to be added to the Central Contract list for 24/25. Like Spencer Johnson and Aaron Hardie to join him. Agar, Stoinis are expected to lose their contracts while Warner has now retired so that makes four new spots open. Is Wade still a viable white baller or now surplus to requirements. There must be others too on their last national legs. Time for a changing of the guard in both formats after the T20 WC..

 

[BGman]

Davies has to be have the most "village" batting technique for a bloke with a 1st class average over 50 I've ever seen. Plonk the front foot down the line and slash a cover drive or cut with any width, play straight if on the pads.

I totally agree. The way he steps back to make room for most shots has me wincing. He is a magnet for a top quality seamer like Hazlewood, Sami or Bumrah. Promising seamer Lawrence Neil-Smith sorted him out when the Blues played Tassie twice before the BBL break. Davies is perfect for the shorter formats. Can be devastating as he showed when he became the only guy to ever hit a national U19 double ton.

 

[BGman]

I really think the technique debate is an overrated one.

Other aspects to being a class batsman than technique. Mental strength to absorb pressure, temperament to bat time and pinpoint hand/eye coordination for starters. The four players you alluded too have all these attributes. Smith proved that he could still be a great bat after he changed his technique...

 

[western royboy]

Other aspects to being a class batsman than technique. Mental strength to absorb pressure, temperament to bat time and pinpoint hand/eye coordination for starters. The four players you alluded too have all these attributes. Smith proved that he could still be a great bat after he changed his technique...

What is technique? It’s what you do under pressure - people who think technique is overrated are seriously deluded - look what is coming thru the pipeline…