Technique

[shravi]

I was having this debate with both Mob and WORLD CHAMPIONS on MSN and both of them disagreed with me.

On both occasions, the topic of debate was Mahendra Singh Dhoni's technique. It was really starting to annoy me as Dhoni has been constantly churning out good scores with the bat. The point I raised was, what good is technique if it doesn't contribute towards your stats in a profilic manner.

I used 2 mathematicians as an example. They are given the world's hardest maths problem to solve. The first one does it wrong but very neatly. The second one does it perfectly but messily. I would go for the second one.

The thing is, technique may be good on the eyes and may be a lot more satisfying to watch however, everything is a bonus when you are performing well. Nitpicking seems to be a characteristic of many a cricket fan who cannot come to terms with players such as Mahendra Singh Dhoni. To boot, maybe a player like Dhoni does not follow the tehcnical guidelines set out by his predecessors but maybe it's his technique and looking at his record, it seems to be working quite well for him (maybe not in the Test arena).

It's very easy to make technical 'flaws' a scapegoat after a wicket but this game is as mental as it is technical. In the recent test series I remember Dhoni got 60 odd in a losing cause and got out in his typical aggressive fashion. Some may play it down to technical 'flaws' however I believe it's in the head. If he had opted for a defensive stroke, he would most probably not have been out. In conclusion, I feel we are far too quick to say things like "He has no technique" etc.

What are your views on this topic?

 

[Jit]

thats why he sucks in test cuz of his technique to deal with the swinging bowl he always edge it. in one day it works cuz technique doesnt really matter if u r no.5 or 6 batsman most of the time you will come in slogging overs or the bowl wont be swinging so technique in test fails him all the time

 

[Arunava]

Well you chose wrong example and there is misunderstanding.
In Mathematics, the answer has to be the same. .doesn't matter it is done with any technique, writing is not never an issue.. same question can be solved by different methods.. .some gurus will prefer one technique some will prefer other. .but still all will agree on the simplest method. This is not hard to understand is it.

Now relating this with technique. .Method is Technique. .there are different players and all will have there different methods of Getting answer , that is RUNS in Cricket. But the Best Technique that has been mentioned in the books or by gurus is the Simplest way of Doing it. Like head position, stance, etc.

But some students will get the same answer by different technique that might be long..and bit too complicated. And for that reason that wouldn't look good too to many people. But the guy that has derived that technique will be happy unless he finds a flaw and fails in some exam due to longer duration. .and exam allowed just 10mins for that question.

So many guys may like that method, for various reasons, like they only care for Result, that is Marks or Runs and not about how they went about it, or they did the same question by similar method. .so they can relate to it, etc

I hope you are getting what I am trying to convey.

The Technique that is called "GOOD" by all the gurus is the simplest way of scoring runs. And obviously Simplicity is the most beautiful thing (some might disagree, you're exception my frnd).

Different players have different techniques that might seem good to people that can relate themselves to it in someway or the other.

I can write more about how players with good technique fail and etc , etc. But that is a different thing.

 

[Cricketman]

You need technique to become a consistent cricketer at the international level.

In the case of Dhoni, it's easy to find flaws in his game and exploit them.

He is not successful in Test cricket because of this very reason, bowlers can easily exploit the technical flaws (In Dhoni's case, pitching it short and outside off)and pry him out. But in ODI cricket, Dhoni comes in at 6 or 7 near the death of the innings. Bowlers are looking to pitch it up, Dhoni likes it full, so all he has to do is play his favorite stroke over and over again and he makes runs consistantly.


All successful Test batsman - the best of the best - have extremely good technique. Look at the top guys currently - Sachin, Dravid, Ponting, Sangakkara... they're not only mentally tough like you said but are just awesome technically.

 

[shravi]

You need technique to become a consistent cricketer at the international level.

In the case of Dhoni, it's easy to find flaws in his game and exploit them.

He is not successful in Test cricket because of this very reason, bowlers can easily exploit the technical flaws (In Dhoni's case, pitching it short and outside off)and pry him out. But in ODI cricket, Dhoni comes in at 6 or 7 near the death of the innings. Bowlers are looking to pitch it up, Dhoni likes it full, so all he has to do is play his favorite stroke over and over again and he makes runs consistantly.


All successful Test batsman - the best of the best - have extremely good technique. Look at the top guys currently - Sachin, Dravid, Ponting, Sangakkara... they're not only mentally tough like you said but are just awesome technically.

Sehwag doesn't exactly have a technique to savour (far from it, in my opinion) but I've heard you laud his performances more than once.

 

[age of the fall]

Sehwag doesn't exactly have a technique to savour (far from it, in my opinion) but I've heard you laud his performances more than once.

Also, to say Sachin, Dravid, Ponting ad Sangakkara are not mentally strong is quite silly. Sachin has to be mentally strong to have survived for what, 16 years? Dravid has to be mentally strong to be able to waver those countless storms (on and off the field) he is known for. Ponting had to step into Waugh's shoes and he isn't as great a captain but it's no mean feat, stepping into Waugh's shoes and being able to maintain that consistency over an elongated period of time. Sangakkara has had to be mentally strong to hold the Sri Lankan team together in this transitional phase they are going through while not getting bogged down or letting it affect his game.

Uhh, he said they they where mentally strong...:

 

[shravi]

Uhh, he said they they where mentally strong...:

Oh, I misread his post. Never mind. Sorry 'bout that, Rohit.

 

[Arunava]

Cricketman justified very well what i meant.

 

[Cricketman]

Sehwag doesn't exactly have a technique to savour (far from it, in my opinion) but I've heard you laud his performances more than once.

I am no Sehwag fan, but when someone hits 319 runs in an innings, its hard not to get excited.

 

[angryangy]

Sehwag is the quantum variable. He is a high averaging batsman capable of enormous scores, but his style is at best described as play-by-eye. However, it's easy to see where his strengths lie. He has only struck two match winning test centuries. He is the definition of a flat track bully. If there is no deception off the pitch, he can attack for days, but in tricky conditions, the best you'll see is about 80.

It's an affirmative argument for both parties. Yes, batsmen with better technique do tend to win more matches, but it's quite clear that supreme footwork is not the secret to being a successful and exciting Test batsman. Perhaps this is because within the madness, the method of scoring is uncomplicated. Plenty of West Indian and plenty of Australian batsmen have dominated off a platform of just getting balanced and playing the shot. It's clearly not something that is region dependent.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Dhoni does have a technique, it's just not one in the MCC textbook. Just like KP's isn't. But then if you asked who are the most exciting batsmen in the world those 2 would be in most peoples top 5 so screw technique

The best technique is the one that makes the most runs for you, even if its holding the bat upside down.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Technique doesn't really matter, it's about knowing your game.

Take a number of batsman out of the Australian side who've dominated the last decade who struggled in their early 20's but after years of playing domestic cricket have come in from the get go and played as if they never got dropped.

 

[karnog]

Chaunderpaul should've been the example. If anyone went against the textbook its this guy. More important than technique is mental strength. You can stick the most technically correct player but if he isn't mentally strong there won't be any form of consistency.

 

[manee]

In terms of batsman, I believe that a technique is only an issue in the event of technical issues. For example, Virender Sehwag's technique was fine for his early career but its discrepencies against the short ball and the in cutting delivery cause it to be an issue for him. If Sehwag was the perfect judge of length and had a superlative backfoot ondrive, then these two would not be an issue and so his technique would be fine.

For someone like Dhoni, he shuffles, however, he does it to ensure that he hits the ball and accounts for any movement. He gets his bat in a position near enough to the ball so early that it is almost the equivalent of using footwork to get near the ball. His shuffly style should be an issue for scoring quickly, but his explosive play means that it is certainly not an issue and so his technique works fine.

It is all about the correct technique for a specific batsman, when you differ from the norm. The advantage with the 'textbook technique' is that it is the one which can be used by all batsmen without needing a special gift of hand-eye or quick reactions but it must be remembered that the 'textbook technique' is so, merely because it works for the majority and not because it works the best for every batsman.

 

[Cricketman]

Chaunderpaul should've been the example. If anyone went against the textbook its this guy. More important than technique is mental strength. You can stick the most technically correct player but if he isn't mentally strong there won't be any form of consistency.

Apart from his stance, everything else is all quite bookish.