Sam Konstas: Are you on board with him?

[western royboy]

Have you ever played volleyball?

His change of stance basically puts him into a volleyball digging position from where it's really easy to move your upper body in either direction or get low. Easier than standard stance. The shot itself is really similar to a volleyball dig with a wrist flick and he's set to sway and he does sway, otherwise he'll flick straight balls straight into his face.

It’s a premeditated move. I’ll come back at you, have you ever faced a 140kmh bowler?

At that pace with feet planted, he’s the ultimate sitting duck. Looks good when you pull it off…

 

[Bedi]

Interesting article on the ramp shot. Given its success nearly a quarter century ago, am suprised we have seen it so rarely

The sporting innovators — how Ryan Campbell and Doug Marillier both have claims to cricket's ramp shot - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

 

[sr36]

It’s a premeditated move. I’ll come back at you, have you ever faced a 140kmh bowler?

At that pace with feet planted, he’s the ultimate sitting duck. Looks good when you pull it off…

A standard batting stance is premiditated. And you're in a worse position to move away from something coming at you.

I wasn't trying to be insulting with the volleyball question. No I haven't faced a 140km bowler. But have you ever gotten front on to one and tried that way? If you haven't, you're not in a better position to judge which way is easier to avoid a throat ball. Logic though suggests it's the position where you can move more easily in a variety of directions - front on with knees flexed. But most importantly you're never trying to get on top of the ball.

The move that gets the most batsmen in trouble is standing up to play it, having it get too high and then swaying backwards, because you've initially looked to get on top of it and you haven't got time to adjust and then from a side on upright position, you can't sway your head far backwards, but front on knees crouched it's easy to drop your head in either direction and you're not standing up trying to get on top of it to begin with. We haven't seen yet, but I honestly don't think it will be an issue at all. I think what you're viewing as a weakness will actually be a strength - if it gets too big on you you'll be out of the way of it and it'll go straight through to the keeper - because you're not initially standing up trying to get on top of it.

 

[PhatBoy]

A standard batting stance is premiditated. And you're in a worse position to move away from something coming at you.

I wasn't trying to be insulting with the volleyball question. No I haven't faced a 140km bowler. But have you ever gotten front on to one and tried that way? If you haven't, you're not in a better position to judge which way is easier to avoid a throat ball. Logic though suggests it's the position where you can move more easily in a variety of directions - front on with knees flexed. But most importantly you're never trying to get on top of the ball.

The move that gets the most batsmen in trouble is standing up to play it, having it get too high and then swaying backwards, because you've initially looked to get on top of it and you haven't got time to adjust and then from a side on upright position, you can't sway your head far backwards, but front on knees crouched it's easy to drop your head in either direction and you're not standing up trying to get on top of it to begin with. We haven't seen yet, but I honestly don't think it will be an issue at all. I think what you're viewing as a weakness will actually be a strength - if it gets too big on you you'll be out of the way of it and it'll go straight through to the keeper - because you're not initially standing up trying to get on top of it.

That’s fine for avoiding the ball.

It’s when you might have to play a controlled shot or defend it that it becomes a bit of a problem.

And yes the whole point of playing it is that you’re essentially saying ‘wherever this is, I’m not GOING to defend it’ and I acknowledge that, but you have so much less control over your hands and the bat itself that if the ball isn’t quite where it needs to be to play the shot effectively, then the room for error becomes a lot greater.

And when it does the blowback is big: exhibit A - Joe Root

 

[western royboy]

A standard batting stance is premiditated. And you're in a worse position to move in most directions.

No I haven't faced a 140km bowler. But have ever gotten front on to one and tried that way? If you haven't, you're not in a better position to judge which way is easier to avoid a throat ball. Logic though suggests it's the position where you can move more easily in a variety of directions - front on with knees flexed.

The move that gets the most batsmen in trouble is swaying backwards, because from a side on position, you can't sway that far, but front on knees crouched it's easy to drop your head in either direction.

Standard batting stance is actively neutral - you are coiled like a spring, you can go forward or back, defend or attack. Most great players make a small move to the off side with their back foot as the ball is released to get into that position. Players get hit when they don’t get inside the line of the ball or are fixed in a position. Swaying out if the way is not proper technique. I look forward to Konstas trying this in Sth Africa if he ever gets back there. I’ve got a feeling it won’t end well.

I’ll happily set up a bowling machine and let you test the theory out. There’s enough variation in them if you don’t screw them down to test it out.

 

[Soggy2112]

A few questions for selectors:

Do you endorse Konstas’ approach?
If not, have you told him?
If you do endorse it, why is he not in the ODI side already? Why is his approach worse than JFM or Connolly for example?

I mean its possible he’s a 19 year old still working out his game.

If you listen to him speak he’s pretty open about that.

 

[sr36]

That’s fine for avoiding the ball.

It’s when you might have to play a controlled shot or defend it that it becomes a bit of a problem.

And yes the whole point of playing it is that you’re essentially saying ‘wherever this is, I’m not GOING to defend it’ and I acknowledge that, but you have so much less control over your hands and the bat itself that if the ball isn’t quite where it needs to be to play the shot effectively, then the room for error becomes a lot greater.

And when it does the blowback is big: exhibit A - Joe Root

He's in a good position to hit balls on the stumps, so I don't see defence as much of an issue. I don't see it as more dangerous than trying to flick balls off your stumps through square leg, which has become standard - I think it's less dangerous than that

Youve got more control of your hands and bat. You change your grip. And your bat doesn't go through a big arc - it's a small scoop. There's not really anything that can go wrong with the bat plane like with traditional shots.

He'll need a traditional game, as a fielder back and it's too dangerous and you've closed off the majority of the field and can't get it anywhere else than behind you. But adding it to a conventional game seems fine to me. Gets some runs in a way that I don't think is very dangerous and then likely to see a catcher moved to what becomes a useless fielding position when he shouldn't play the shot.

 

[sr36]

Standard batting stance is actively neutral - you are coiled like a spring, you can go forward or back, defend or attack. Most great players make a small move to the off side with their back foot as the ball is released to get into that position. Players get hit when they don’t get inside the line of the ball or are fixed in a position. Swaying out if the way is not proper technique. I look forward to Konstas trying this in Sth Africa if he ever gets back there. I’ve got a feeling it won’t end well.

I’ll happily set up a bowling machine and let you test the theory out. There’s enough variation in them if you don’t screw them down to test it out.

They get hit in the head when they're initially trying to get on top of it or play it to the offside but cant

It's the first reaction of trying to get on top of a ball that's too high and play it down that sees blokes get a hit. Or thinking the ball is outside off but jags back at them. Once you're in a position that you can't get inside the line you're in trouble if the ball gets big. I don't see how it's going to be an issue the way Sam plays it. Time will tell. I don't think he'll play it much though because the field will go straight back.

 

[iDon]

I mean its possible he’s a 19 year old still working out his game.

If you listen to him speak he’s pretty open about that.

I guess being gifted a baggy green allows him the freedom to "work his game out" at first class level and still be picked for the next test series. Must be nice for him.

 

[PhatBoy]

He's in a good position to hit balls on the stumps, so I don't see defence as much of an issue. I don't see it as more dangerous than trying to flick balls off your stumps through square leg, which has become standard - I think it's less dangerous than that

Youve got more control of your hands and bat. You change your grip. And your bat doesn't go through a big arc - it's a small scoop. There's not really anything that can go wrong with the bat plane like with traditional shots.

He'll need a traditional game, as a fielder back and it's too dangerous and you've closed off the majority of the field and can't get it anywhere else than behind you. But adding it to a conventional game seems fine to me. Gets some runs in a way that I don't think is very dangerous and then likely to see a catcher moved to what becomes a useless fielding position when he shouldn't play the shot.

There has to be a reason that in 150 years of the game, no coach has said ‘this is just how you should play all the time to straight deliveries.’

ABDV is in my top 5 players of all time and the man was a genius but even he recognised that the game was built around being able to play conventionally first, and expansively second.

Playing those shots makes no allowance whatsoever for more than a ball width of movement. French cricket alignment - I’m not talking about protection of self I’m talking about not getting our leg before or dismissed - if that ball seams or swings a bat width and is below stump height he’s gone. There’s basically nothing he can do about it.

 

[jannissary]

There has to be a reason that in 150 years of the game, no coach has said ‘this is just how you should play all the time to straight deliveries.’

ABDV is in my top 5 players of all time and the man was a genius but even he recognised that the game was built around being able to play conventionally first, and expansively second.

Playing those shots makes no allowance whatsoever for more than a ball width of movement. French cricket alignment - I’m not talking about protection of self I’m talking about not getting our leg before or dismissed - if that ball seams or swings a bat width and is below stump height he’s gone. There’s basically nothing he can do about it.

ABDV also saw and hit the ball much better than konstas presently does, and similarly has the results to back it up. at his destructive best (late games in his ODI career come to mind) he was devastating everywhere around the ground. conversely, konstas is far less reliable on the easy to play shots.

 

[sr36]

There has to be a reason that in 150 years of the game, no coach has said ‘this is just how you should play all the time to straight deliveries.’

ABDV is in my top 5 players of all time and the man was a genius but even he recognised that the game was built around being able to play conventionally first, and expansively second.

Playing those shots makes no allowance whatsoever for more than a ball width of movement. French cricket alignment - I’m not talking about protection of self I’m talking about not getting our leg before or dismissed - if that ball seams or swings a bat width and is below stump height he’s gone. There’s basically nothing he can do about it.

You wouldn't play like that all the time to straight deliveries. You've locked off most of the ground and can only hit it to a small part of it. And if there are fielders there you wouldn't play like that at all. You wouldn't set up like that at all, as they'd just put a fieldsman back and you're stuffed.

Im certainly not suggesting he won't have to be able to bat conventionally. I think he'll end up as a conventional batsman with that shot added when there's no fieldsman back for it.

How can you watch the game with relatively recent additions like reverse swing, cross seam deliveries, reverse sweeps as standard and think that anything any good would have been coached for 150 years.

It'll be easier to adjust for seam movement - not harder, as you don't have to fight the bat arc on its way down. It's the ultimate in playing the ball late.

I think it'll become a standard shot. I think you're assuming it's a shot with major issues, because it's unconventional, but I just don't think it's very risky, and will either produce runs or make a fielder useless.

We'll see in the future, but to me, that shot is a keeper. The other stuff he was doing was simply high risk slogging that has to go if he wants to be a test match opener rather than just a novelty.

 

[RookiePick]

Anyone who can bowl a half decent cutter would be salivating watching the batsman trying to ramp it and giving up the stumps.

I think Konstas is just experimenting. He's a long way from being a finished package and that should be exciting not upsetting for Aussie cricket fans.

 

[sr36]

Anyone who can bowl a half decent cutter would be salivating watching the batsman trying to ramp it and giving up the stumps.

The one where he gets inside it and goes over the leg side is dangerous, but the reverse ramp over the slips is a winner.

 

[PhatBoy]

You wouldn't play like that all the time to straight deliveries. You've locked off most of the ground and can only hit it to a small part of it. And if there are fielders there you wouldn't play like that at all. You wouldn't set up like that at all, as they'd just put a fieldsman back and you're stuffed.

Im certainly not suggesting he won't have to be able to bat conventionally. I think he'll end up as a conventional batsman with that shot added when there's no fieldsman back for it.

How can you watch the game with relatively recent additions like reverse swing, cross seam deliveries, reverse sweeps as standard and think that anything any good would have been coached for 150 years.

It'll be easier to adjust for seam movement - not harder, as you don't have to fight the bat arc on its way down. It's the ultimate in playing the ball late.

I think it'll become a standard shot. I think you're assuming it's a shot with major issues, because it's unconventional, but I just don't think it's very risky, and will either produce runs or make a fielder useless.

We'll see in the future, but to me, that shot is a keeper. The other stuff he was doing was simply high risk slogging that has to go if he wants to be a test match opener rather than just a novelty.

Sorry I can’t agree with that logic at all. The ball has been moving sideways for a century and I’m yet to see that be calculated as the means of best countering it in terms of adjustment for it

 

[sr36]

Sorry I can’t agree with that logic at all. The ball has been moving sideways for a century and I’m yet to see that be calculated as the means of best countering it in terms of adjustment for it

Players didn't used to contemplate changing their stance when pace bowlers were delivering. If you have one stance, the Konstas french cricket reverse ramp stance is a shocker, as you've got one shot to one part of the ground. Put a fieldsman there and you're stuffed. You're not going to teach it as a base stance.

The other short form stance changes open up the stumps, so not good for first class cricket. He needs to drop those.

But that one, as long as he's covering the stumps (which he doesn't always do yet) is pretty safe.

It's not more dangerous for bouncers as you're not locking yourself into an upright position when you misjudge the bounce or line, which is when players get hit. The risk of getting hit is more from his own shot though.

You can move sideways and you actually release and commit to the shot when the ball is far closer to the bat than any other shot, so you're actually in a better position to adjust to seam.

He needs a conventional game, but I'm confident it will become a standard shot when there's no fieldsman back for it, like skipping down the pitch is.

Would you do what India did and put in a fly slip on the fence to stop the shot or would you leave it open to encourage him to play it? Fly slip for me.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I think Konstas is just experimenting. He's a long way from being a finished package and that should be exciting not upsetting for Aussie cricket fans.

I'm thinking along the same lines. As he is only 19, we need to give him some time to settle on a technique that works for him. Yes, I'm old school, and the shots the players play these days can drive me up the wall, but I have always considered most of us with average talent need all the coaching we can get and adopt a more orthodox approach.

On the other side of the ledger, some (if not most) of the truly great batsmen, even going back to Bradman, had a style of their own, a style you couldn't teach. Hopefully Konstas will develop into such a player, only time will tell.

 

[t_94]

Would like the pro brigade to pop back in and defend that innings.

Easy. He is 19 and will learn. Next

 

[iDon]

Easy. He is 19 and will learn. Next

Do you think someone should "learn" at test level? Because i don't think that's the place.

Let him play a few seasons of shield cricket and county cricket, has serious technical and temperament concerns at the moment. "Learn" at shield level not test level, will kill our top order

 

[western royboy]

Do you think someone should "learn" at test level? Because i don't think that's the place.

Let him play a few seasons of shield cricket and county cricket, has serious technical and temperament concerns at the moment. "Learn" at shield level not test level, will kill our top order

Not much learning is occurring at the levels below because T20 has stripped out all the experienced journeyman types and the elite players are hanging on for longer.

It’s a tough one

 

[iDon]

Not much learning is occurring at the levels below because T20 has stripped out all the experienced journeyman types and the elite players are hanging on for longer.

It’s a tough one

That's a bit of a shift of narrative. It's now the fault of other players that Konstas has to play Test Cricket to develop.

 

[western royboy]

That's a bit of a shift of narrative. It's now the fault of other players that Konstas has to play Test Cricket to develop.

No…it’s just reality, you can only play against what’s put in front of you but in age level Pathway cricket there’s not much learning and in the two areas where most of the learning used to occur have been stripped out

 

[Mr5000]

Another super shot this morning

 

[revo333]

The Australian tall poppy syndrome media is loving this.

Main articles of him every time he doesn't make runs.

That's ok, I'm sure they will tell us when he makes runs as well...

 

[SC_Power]

The Australian tall poppy syndrome media is loving this.

Main articles of him every time he doesn't make runs.

That's ok, I'm sure they will tell us when he makes runs as well...

Is there a difference between someone who has earned a spot at the top and people want to cut them down, against someone who doesn’t appear to have earned their spot at the top?