Cricket things that annoy you

[Gethelred]

Out for a walk over the weekend, saw a local junior club playing cricket. The kids would have been no older than 12, if that, so I watched for awhile. Did I see cuts, drives, etc? Nope, at least 4-5 times every over I saw reverse sweeps and ramp shots. The game is going to Hell in a handbasket.

I'm almost 100% certain you could find a clipping from a newspaper in the 20's or earlier bemoaning the state of the gentleman's game after the transition from under to overarm bowling.

 

[big_e]

I'm almost 100% certain you could find a clipping from a newspaper in the 20's or earlier bemoaning the state of the gentleman's game after the transition from under to overarm bowling.

Yep. It was once considered unorthodox, even ungentlemanly, to hit to the leg side.

Here's Wisden in 1897 talking about Ranjitsinhji, who was one of the first to do it consistently:

He can scarcely be pointed to as a safe model for young and aspiring batsmen, his peculiar and almost unique skill depending in large measure on extreme keenness of eye, combined with great power and flexibility of wrist. For any ordinary player to attempt to turn good length balls off the middle stump as he does, would be futile and disastrous.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I'm almost 100% certain you could find a clipping from a newspaper in the 20's or earlier bemoaning the state of the gentleman's game after the transition from under to overarm bowling.

Oh, well that makes it okay then

 

[Gethelred]

Oh, well that makes it okay then

What it makes it is inevitable.

I don't get what complaining about inevitable things does for you. You're welcome to feel how you wish about things, but you might as well get angry at the sun for rising.

 

[big_e]

What it makes it is inevitable.

I don't get what complaining about inevitable things does for you. You're welcome to feel how you wish about things, but you might as well get angry at the sun for rising.

What's bizarre about the complaints is that these things aren't even new.

Mushtaq Mohammed played a reverse sweep in 1964, Hanif Mohammed in a test match in 1967, and it's been common for 40 years. I honestly think that if Mike Gatting didn't heck it up in the 1987 World Cup, nobody would care either way.

And ramps have been common for 10+ years (although it's reported that Johnny Mullagh played the shot during the 1868 Aboriginal tour of England) - again, it's just another shot, no more or less offensive than a cover drive.

Why people think it's bad for kids to play these shots is beyond me. Learn them from a young age in the same way they learn a forward defence, cut, hook, etc.

 

[Gough]

What's bizarre about the complaints is that these things aren't even new.

Mushtaq Mohammed played a reverse sweep in 1964, Hanif Mohammed in a test match in 1967, and it's been common for 40 years. I honestly think that if Mike Gatting didn't * it up in the 1987 World Cup, nobody would care either way.

And ramps have been common for 10+ years (although it's reported that Johnny Mullagh played the shot during the 1868 Aboriginal tour of England) - again, it's just another shot, no more or less offensive than a cover drive.

Why people think it's bad for kids to play these shots is beyond me. Learn them from a young age in the same way they learn a forward defence, cut, hook, etc.

After Gatting in the 1987 WC Final the reverse sweep disappeared almost completely for a few years.

 

[dogs105]

After Gatting in the 1987 WC Final the reverse sweep disappeared almost completely for a few years.

Mark Waugh brought it back in 1993...

 

[Gethelred]

What's bizarre about the complaints is that these things aren't even new.

Mushtaq Mohammed played a reverse sweep in 1964, Hanif Mohammed in a test match in 1967, and it's been common for 40 years. I honestly think that if Mike Gatting didn't * it up in the 1987 World Cup, nobody would care either way.

And ramps have been common for 10+ years (although it's reported that Johnny Mullagh played the shot during the 1868 Aboriginal tour of England) - again, it's just another shot, no more or less offensive than a cover drive.

Why people think it's bad for kids to play these shots is beyond me. Learn them from a young age in the same way they learn a forward defence, cut, hook, etc.

I think it's a dislike of premeditation, honestly. There's perhaps a single batter in world cricket - Joe Root pre Bazball - who didn't premeditate the reverse sweep; everyone else, from Maxwell to Khawaja to the Indians to Root post Bazball premeditates the reverse these days.

Used to be, you teach reaction: they bowl here, you hit there. Big bats and small boundaries changed the game in that all of a sudden you targeted different parts of the ground, aiming for smaller boundaries or where the fielder wasn't as opposed to playing the ball on its merits. Back foot defense and drives drop off, walking across your stumps and flicking/hitting to square to target the vacant field becomes more the done thing as opposed to stuff only greats could do.

It's all tactics, all with upsides and downsides to each. Play each ball on its merits you're going to hit the fielders as long as the bowler bowls to their field, and you're going to lose runs to it and/or get tied up. Step across and hit to square/fine leg, you're going to get done LBW sometimes but if you're good at it you're off strike whenever you want to be.

Premeditate the reverse or standard sweep, you've got a method to play spin to both sides of the field at the risk of premeditating the length and potentially ******* it all up.

 

[big_e]

After Gatting in the 1987 WC Final the reverse sweep disappeared almost completely for a few years.

True, but there's a lotta people my age (late 40s) or older who see it as a risky shot, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the Gatting dismissal was in a high-profile match so we all saw it, and it's stuck with us.

 

[dogs105]

 

[Gough]

True, but there's a lotta people my age (late 40s) or older who see it as a risky shot, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the Gatting dismissal was in a high-profile match so we all saw it, and it's stuck with us.

The normal sweep was never much in my repertoire because a well played one went through my Granny's bedroom window in the backyard.

 

[Gethelred]

The normal sweep was never much in my repertoire because a well played one went through my Granny's bedroom window in the backyard.

Brother was a leggie, and played a lot of backyard with a cricket ball on pavers. If it hit the edges, could go anywhere; if it hit the middle, would kick or turn.

Only ever use the sweep if I need to hit the ball on the full and I can't quite reach it.

 

[PhatBoy]

The thing that I think with ramps and so forth and every second kid trying them is that unlike other shots no matter how much the game evolves - I’m happy to be proven wrong here - I can’t see it getting to a point where those shots at any level beyond the absolute best of the best become anything other than a 1-in-20 chance of coming off.

Kids see Gayle or Warner or whoever clobbering runs by slogging or Viv back in the day and they want to emulate it and they can. Anyone can play those shots, the difference between a kid in under 12s cricket and Viv or Gayle or Warner is what balls they can do it off.
Kids can legitimately pick up those skills, all kids, realistically.

Kids trying to pick up the skills of a Maxwell or a De Villiers or a Smith or Pietersen…. That’s different. The odd kid might be able to but it will be very very rare. I mean there’s nothing wrong with trying I guess but I’m not sure what their coaches are doing: save that s**t for the nets until you can do it (which for most of them will be never).

 

[Gethelred]

The thing that I think with ramps and so forth and every second kid trying them is that unlike other shots no matter how much the game evolves - I’m happy to be proven wrong here - I can’t see it getting to a point where those shots at any level beyond the absolute best of the best become anything other than a 1-in-20 chance of coming off.

Kids see Gayle or Warner or whoever clobbering runs by slogging or Viv back in the day and they want to emulate it and they can. Anyone can play those shots, the difference between a kid in under 12s cricket and Viv or Gayle or Warner is what balls they can do it off.
Kids can legitimately pick up those skills, all kids, realistically.

Kids trying to pick up the skills of a Maxwell or a De Villiers or a Smith or Pietersen…. That’s different. The odd kid might be able to but it will be very very rare. I mean there’s nothing wrong with trying I guess but I’m not sure what their coaches are doing: save that s**t for the nets until you can do it (which for most of them will be never).

It's a funny thing, deciding when you're actually ready to use a skill in a game as opposed to practicing it. You need the feedback match testing gives you, but you don't want to sacrifice your wicket or get carted prematurely because you weren't ready.

I spoke to a bloke earlier this year who used to see Maxwell training at an indoor place. Said he would spend hours in front of a bowling machine, ramping and switch hits and reverse and conventional sweeps. Would do it against all speeds, not just slow bowling. While he's undoubtedly got a hell of a lot of natural talent, I can remember getting a mite grumpy when people referred - for example - to Eddie Betts as just a freak; as though practice and grueling preparation doesn't go into making the seemingly impossible consistently doable. I can't help but feel the same way a bit about Maxwell sometimes.

 

[PhatBoy]

It's a funny thing, deciding when you're actually ready to use a skill in a game as opposed to practicing it. You need the feedback match testing gives you, but you don't want to sacrifice your wicket or get carted prematurely because you weren't ready.

I spoke to a bloke earlier this year who used to see Maxwell training at an indoor place. Said he would spend hours in front of a bowling machine, ramping and switch hits and reverse and conventional sweeps. Would do it against all speeds, not just slow bowling. While he's undoubtedly got a hell of a lot of natural talent, I can remember getting a mite grumpy when people referred - for example - to Eddie Betts as just a freak; as though practice and grueling preparation doesn't go into making the seemingly impossible consistently doable. I can't help but feel the same way a bit about Maxwell sometimes.

That’s the thing.

They ARE freaks.

Combine that with how much they have to practice to be able to do it. I’ve heard Maxwell talk through his actual process for some of his trick shots and it makes perfect logistical sense and he’s also spoken about his practice and training methods.

It just makes me think, same as an Eddie Betts, if someone who is THAT naturally gifted has to put that much effort into having to practice to do something with that much risk factor, surely 99 per cent of people should maybe consider limiting themselves to a quick ‘okay is this something in my skillset?’ at the end of the occasional net session rather than every second shot on game day

 

[Gethelred]

That’s the thing.

They ARE freaks.

Combine that with how much they have to practice to be able to do it. I’ve heard Maxwell talk through his actual process for some of his trick shots and it makes perfect logistical sense and he’s also spoken about his practice and training methods.

It just makes me think, same as an Eddie Betts, if someone who is THAT naturally gifted has to put that much effort into having to practice to do something with that much risk factor, surely 99 per cent of people should maybe consider limiting themselves to a quick ‘okay is this something in my skillset?’ at the end of the occasional net session rather than every second shot on game day

I don't agree. They are freaks because of their practice, not prior to it.

Steve Smith's real strength isn't his eyes and his wrists, it's his ability to obsessively focus through grueling training regimes, to never not be thinking of batting, to always be switched on and always give a heck and always try and get the best from himself. Betts found ways to make the most inane practice infinitely varied and interesting to him enough that his drop punt has as many variations as Shane Warne's stock ball. Maxwell is obsessive about his craft.

Jimi Hendrix wasn't without a guitar in his hands for more than 5 minutes a day. He used to take it with him into the toilet.

Mastery is achieved through repetition, until idiosyncrasy becomes strength and prodigy.

 

[Plugger35]

Last wicket partnerships.

 

[31550]

I don't agree. They are freaks because of their practice, not prior to it.

I think it's both. There are just some players born with freakish natural talent or abilities that cannot be taught to, or mastered by ordinary folks. Of course, they need to practice regularly and obsessively otherwise all that natural talent goes to waste.

But it's not just a matter of practice alone. You can't teach an 'ordinary' cricketer and then expect them to emulate guys like Maxwell just by practising 12 hours a day. In fact with some players it's going to be counter-productive and you are better off getting them to focus on conventional orthodox skills.

For example, there's no point taking a young leg-spinner and getting them to try to emulate Shane Warne. Warne did everything wrong "by the book", in terms of his action, runup, grip, preparation, just about everything! But he had exceptional natural ability and talent, and the smarts to maximise his potential. He trained and practised pretty hard, but wasn't obsessive about it like some.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don't agree. They are freaks because of their practice, not prior to it.

Steve Smith's real strength isn't his eyes and his wrists, it's his ability to obsessively focus through grueling training regimes, to never not be thinking of batting, to always be switched on and always give a * and always try and get the best from himself. Betts found ways to make the most inane practice infinitely varied and interesting to him enough that his drop punt has as many variations as Shane Warne's stock ball. Maxwell is obsessive about his craft.

Jimi Hendrix wasn't without a guitar in his hands for more than 5 minutes a day. He used to take it with him into the toilet.

Mastery is achieved through repetition, until idiosyncrasy becomes strength and prodigy.

I think it’s both mate.

Yes they have to practice and as a Hendrix devotee and someone who is, and I am not even going to be humble about bragging about it, very naturally gifted at music, I am across how much those guys have to practice. It really won’t make a difference if you don’t have a fair degree of flair in most cases.

Music isn’t cricket, not saying it is, and I’m sure there are many less gifted guys who could teach themselves different skills and become competent by repetition and practice but I don’t think even the most fastidious devotee could become brilliant at those things without also having some amazing inherent talent to go with it

 

[Gethelred]

I think it's both. There are just some players born with freakish natural talent or abilities that cannot be taught to, or mastered by ordinary folks. Of course, they need to practice regularly and obsessively otherwise all that natural talent goes to waste.

There's a myriad of methods to be an excellent bat or bowler. If someone is truly passionate, they'll find a way to make it work; the point is to find solutions to the problems created.

How do I score runs without going out?
How do I take wickets?
How do I succeed?

The answers to those questions can have lesser or higher levels of difficulty, but aiming for a higher one is a perfectly reasonable goal.

But it's not just a matter of practice alone.

Course not. The best players pick up length almost before the ball's left the bowler's hand.

But that, in and of itself, is a result of practice.

You can't teach an 'ordinary' cricketer and then expect them to emulate guys like Maxwell just by practising 12 hours a day.

... if you took someone with a good eye and decent-strong frame, and you trained them correctly - not mere rote drilling, but the shots as well as the psychological components - you'd have a fair chance at it.

That is if I accept your premise that any two players can be considered alike in the first place, which I don't. You can't clone people, and you can't clone skills.

In fact with some players it's going to be counter-productive and you are better off getting them to focus on conventional orthodox skills.

Sure. But if it's drive that'll see someone playing international cricket, why not see which parts of the game fascinate them and get them in the nets to train?

For example, there's no point taking a young leg-spinner and getting them to try to emulate Shane Warne. Warne did everything wrong "by the book", in terms of his action, runup, grip, preparation, just about everything! But he had exceptional natural ability and talent, and the smarts to maximise his potential. He trained and practised pretty hard, but wasn't obsessive about it like some.

I agree with this, but it also goes to show you what I mean; Warnie was prolific trainer who needed positive reinforcement constantly. Training was a means to an end there. And you couldn't do what he did with so much different about his bowling without constant practice; his injuries - from the comfort of my armchair diagnosis - bear the signs of overtraining and wear.

There are, at any given time, legitimately thousands to tens of thousands of sportspeople who have the talent to play international sport. What sets those that do from those that don't is money (in real terms, the greatest indicator of elite capability is family wealth) but so too is it drive and focus.

Again, if a player is fascinated by something enough to want to learn it, teaching it comes with no downside.

I think it’s both mate.

Yes they have to practice and as a Hendrix devotee and someone who is, and I am not even going to be humble about bragging about it, very naturally gifted at music, I am across how much those guys have to practice. It really won’t make a difference if you don’t have a fair degree of flair in most cases.

I thought you might like that!

Flair is personality expressed through skill. It's why you don't like Joe Root; he seems personality-less to you because he was so boilerplate perfect pre-Bazball.

Music isn’t cricket, not saying it is, and I’m sure there are many less gifted guys who could teach themselves different skills and become competent by repetition and practice but I don’t think even the most fastidious devotee could become brilliant at those things without also having some amazing inherent talent to go with it

I think talent is genuinely less rare than others seem to.

I look for drive in players I coach, and if they don't have it I try and let them discover it for themselves.

If a reverse ramp for 6 is what gets you into the nets, let's get down there and do it!

 

[Financialpanther]

Run outs in test matches.

 

[31550]

Run outs in test matches.

Well, particularly an opener early in the first innings.

 

[Financialpanther]

Well, particularly an opener early in the first innings.

Absolutely - but geez, its a test match, why the urgency of quick singles with an ounce of risk.

 

[Plugger35]

Absolutely - but geez, its a test match, why the urgency of quick singles with an ounce of risk.

You could maybe understand taking a risky quick single like that in a T20 or maybe an ODI but not in a test match.

Hard enough for us to try and beat Australia without us throwing away our wickets like that, especially the wicket of our best batsman.

 

[kickazz]

The thing that I think with ramps and so forth and every second kid trying them is that unlike other shots no matter how much the game evolves - I’m happy to be proven wrong here - I can’t see it getting to a point where those shots at any level beyond the absolute best of the best become anything other than a 1-in-20 chance of coming off.

Kids see Gayle or Warner or whoever clobbering runs by slogging or Viv back in the day and they want to emulate it and they can. Anyone can play those shots, the difference between a kid in under 12s cricket and Viv or Gayle or Warner is what balls they can do it off.
Kids can legitimately pick up those skills, all kids, realistically.

Kids trying to pick up the skills of a Maxwell or a De Villiers or a Smith or Pietersen…. That’s different. The odd kid might be able to but it will be very very rare. I mean there’s nothing wrong with trying I guess but I’m not sure what their coaches are doing: save that s**t for the nets until you can do it (which for most of them will be never).

Why people think it's bad for kids to play these shots is beyond me. Learn them from a young age in the same way they learn a forward defence, cut, hook, etc.

Essentially the ramp shot is a high risk one that is good in T20 to get more runs where there is no fielders. Played on non-road, test match pitches - they may get you some extra runs toward the end of an innings but more likely it will just get you out prematurely.

So the angst over it is the fear it will lead to underdeveloped proper batters, and yet another nail in the coffin of Test cricket.