Before the days of juggernauts like Hayden and Sehwag, any opening batsmen would tell you the best way to play the new ball is from the non-strikers end, with the importance of getting off strike crucial to the start of any successful innings.
A single releases pressure on the batsmen, keeps the scoreboard moving, and more importantly, interrupts the rhythm and plans of the opposition.
Throughout the Ashes and the World Cup, it was clear that Australians lacked the ability to get off strike. The lost art of the ‘nurdle’ needs to be rediscovered.
In order to win the upcoming series against Sri Lanka, the Australian batsmen must be able to use their feet and use the crease. This does not mean charging down the wicket every ball, but picking the flight early and playing the ball late.
On the 2004 tour, the two most successful batsmen were Lehmann and Martyn. Neither jumped towards the bowler every ball, but used the depth of their crease, played late and manipulated the ball, particularly square of the wicket.
Those that forced the ball and attempted to hit Murali out of the park did not achieve the same success.
Unfortunately, our most influential player is flawed. There are plenty who will argue Watson is a good player of spin, given the regularity with which he heaves bowlers over the fence.
Yet Watson is like a tailender, either slogging or defending. That tactic cannot work in Test cricket, neither in Sri Lanka nor the rest of the subcontinent. Watson must develop a tactic that allows him to get off strike.
Given he has such hard hands, and cannot manoeuvre the ball, Watson should learn to sweep consistently, much in the same way that Matthew Hayden found success on the subcontinent.
Before this turns into a Watson-bashing article, Watson’s has had some success against spin, last year hitting 126 against India. Watson again exhibited a distinct disability to get off strike or even score, but still achieved a century through bloody-minded determination.
This level of application, should he be able to summon it again, would properly be rewarded by a tactic that allowed him to score regularly, if not heavily, against spin.
Watson is not the only Australian batsman who does not understand the value of the nurdle. Phil Hughes, in his three Ashes tests, could not push a ball into a gap and take a single. The pressure built, and Hughes was subsequently dismissed cheaply.
Most Australian batsmen told a similar story. In Sri Lanka, it has been painfully obvious that batsmen such as Haddin, Watson, Smith and David Hussey have not learnt the lesson.
Anyone watching Clarke, or even the English batsmen against India (and Rahul Dravid), would note the wealth of runs scored by simply turning the ball through square leg.
Unfortunately, most Australian players have forgotten how to use their feet, and are more concerned with playing shots with their hands rather than using their feet and batting smartly.
In a few months Australia will face the South African arsenal of fast bowlers. If ever there was a need to learn how to rotate the strike and upset the bowler, it will be then. Let’s hope they learn fast.
Bayman
Guest
Marcus, Let me add my name to those above who could not agree more with your assessment. It has long been a bugbear of mine that players today rate their greatness and ability on the number of four balls they receive (and dispatch). Many modern watchers may disagree (what would they know but Hayden and Langer) but by far the best openers Australia has had in my time were Lawry and Simpson. By a factor. The reason. of course, was their running between wickets, their understanding as a pair and their ability to constantly rotate the strike with singles. They were great judges of a run and were rarely involved in the slightest mix-up. They also both had great footwork which meant they were not lunging and swinging wildly to hit balls to the boundary. As you say, Watson tends to thrash or defend with nothing in between. Hughes is the same. In this game Hughes got a great nut which lifted and left him but he still followed it. Lawry and Simmo would have left it because their batting mindset was different. Lehmann struggled for a decade to get near the Australian team. In this current squad he'd be the team's best player because he actually understood how to bat properly and do it for a long time. He made big hundreds and belied the current fascination with greyhounds in professional cricket. He was a good player then, he'd be a great player now simply because he really understood the game. It's no great surprise that Hussey has been the most successful batsmen recently because he uses his feet and uses the crease. Watson tends to go to fifty with ten fours, Hussey with four. Players like Hussey, and Lawry and Simpson before him, tend to get less frustrated and anxious simply because they can pick up a single here, a single there and keep the score moving. As a result they make fewer mistakes and have fewer errors of judgement (or brain explosions). In the recent outing several of the batsmen simply got themselves out. All the bowler did was give them the opportunity. Further, I am reminded of the story of an English opener in the sixties who scored fifty but took a fearful hammering from the Windies quicks. Brave, but bruised, he was visited by Sir Len Hutton who congratulated him on his innings. Feeling pretty pumped the young opener asked Sir Len what he really thought about his batting that day. Hutton replied he had done well and been extremely brave but had not played the quicks the way a great player would have played them. Surprised (and a little disappointed), the young man asked how Hutten would have played them. "From the other end" came the reply. With this in mind I wonder about the advice being given to the batsmen by Justin Langer (as opposed to, say, Bob Simpson). Langer was foolhardy brave like our young English opener but I always thought his weakness was that he wore his courage like a badge of honour. Sometimes the smart thing is to get up the other end and have a rest. Two guys working the strike keep bowlers thinking about their line, and length, and gives the field more to do. Standing at one end copping flak without response is courageous, for sure, but not very intelligent. I do wonder about Langer as a batting coach and I hope I'm wrong about him.
ChrisT
Roar Pro
Classic case in point with Shane’s latest innings. It’s almost as if his ego won’t allow him to score in any other way than a boundary. Barely a nurdle in sight when one was needed and at the risk of turning this into a Watson bashing post, when will the guy just walk when out. Once again, big edge and just stands there misbelieving of his outness.
Wingback
Guest
Also totally agree. Lehmann was an interesting player at state level in that he always had a reputation for big hitting (even in shield matches). It was only when the ball-by-ball innings tracking database technology came in that lehman was shown to be a massive accumulator of singles. Currently, I think Khawaja could possess the 'nurdle' skill, but most australian batsman don't. Evidence of this is how often opposition captains place fieldsman 3/4 of the way to the fence. It's as if they are expecting batsman to rely on the slog and are planning on a miss-timed attempt.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Very well argued, find myself agreeing with that a lot.
Sports Writer
Guest
Great article. Fully agree...I think the Twenty20 mindset of a lot of the cricketers has a lot to do with it
Fivehole
Guest
T20 is in no small way culpable for this Marcus. Good article, agree wholeheartedly.