“Skillfulness’ in the command of fundamentals deriving from
practice and familiarity” is a dictionary meaning of the word technique. In
cricket you often hear this word, with respect to certain players having that
in abundance and others not necessarily accomplished with that attribute. So
what are the fundamentals of batting? Can they be listed into bulleted points?
Or is cricket or any sport for that matter an exhibition of diversity of
skills, ability and methods to exploit talent? A boundary is a boundary, yet it
appears vastly different from a Gayle’s bat than when it comes from say Trott. Sehwag
and Gambhir open the batting for India, yet the former has a boundary (combined
4s & 6s) hitting frequency of 8.5 balls, while the latter clears the fence
every 15 balls. So what brings about this difference? Is it mere batting ‘technique’
or does it have to do with approach?
Just like a bowler has to adjust his radar to left &
right handers, he has to do that with respect to the type of batsman he is
bowling. He would try and dismiss say a Dravid by bowling relentlessly to a
worked out line but his plans go out of the window when somebody like a Gayle
is batting; for not only does the latter have the ability to hit good length deliveries
but also due to his intent of searching for runs off every opportunity. Somebody
like Strauss could wear down bowlers but somebody like a Sehwag can dent the confidence
of bowlers. Those who have played the game at the highest level say that
cricket is a more of a mind game, even though you have to be physically
involved in it! You could infer, thus, that mentally stronger players could be more
successful in cricket than their physically stronger compatriots.
Dravid wasn’t the greatest off-side player when he started
off, but when he ended you could doubt his off-side play. Did this big change
happen only because he had the technique to adjust? If he was a Sehwag would
that have been difficult? Dravid, Trott, Kallis, Ponting, Amla, Tendulkar (and
you could add names!) belong to the school of textbook batting; whereas likes
of Sehwag, Gayle, Pietersen are more of powerhouses with mighty impact on the
game. You would associate words like class, consistency with the first set of
names and adjectives like powerful, aggressive, and impactful. The game is
lucky to have both these genres on display simultaneously, which provides
opportunities to study the art of batting in most of its possible forms.
Like everything, cricket has evolved (for good or bad is a
different subject of discussion!) and so have the skills involved in it. Limited
over’s cricket has brought over-the-field hitting, innovation, cheeky shots but
players like Cook, Gambhir, Shaun Marsh et al. provide the sober side of
batting in colored clothes. Virat Kohli led India in a chase of 320 in less
than 40 over’s earlier this year; the knock was more of sublime rather than hard-hitting,
yet it satiated what the situation demanded. Likes of Gayle, Pollard, Yuvraj,
Warner have an impeccable ability of turning the tide in no time and with
minimum fuss. Dhoni, Misbah, Clarke form a set of players who are physically
strong but mentally much tougher. They can clear the ropes with ease yet keep
those gallery shots only when they are needed.
If you were to chose role models for young cricketers to
emulate you would probably list Cook, Gambhir & Marsh from the above list,
for they are the most easy to replicate! Yet you would want to have somebody
like a Gayle and Dhoni in your line-up, for you wouldn’t want to care about ‘correct’
batting but ‘effective’ batting. A Pollard practices his skills as much as a
Kohli, and thus in a way both the players attempt to command their respective
attributes; isn’t the word ‘technique’ then over-hyped, more than it should be?
Comments
Post a Comment