On Sunday’s Chappell-Hadlee radio broadcast, former Kiwi cricketer Peter McGlashan declared the New Zealand public as being notoriously impatient towards any of their batsmen with unusual batting techniques.
As an Australian, I was affronted.
Not only were McGlashan’s comments a naïve attempt to frame his country as uncivil, it also proved he has never spent a summer in Australia.
While New Zealand may trounce us at rugby, progressive politics and the box office, there’s no way they’re better than us at unfairly demeaning the different.
Unorthodox and optically-offensive batting styles are no exception.
Australia has long held prejudice towards ugly batting techniques, and we’ve always exercised it in a proper manner – by the means of inequitable scrutiny and institutionalised discrimination.
A history weaved with Trumpers and Bradmans and Chappells has treated us to decades of textbook compliance and aesthetic titillation, thus leading us to lofty expectations of decadence with the stick.
Unfortunately, this has now combined with our bloated sense of intelligence and stupid selection policies to lead us to a state of chronic delusion.
As a result, Australia now fusses for a desired prototype like we’ve become Hitler’s Germany or a dissatisfied reality TV bride.
That means if you’re an avant-garde rising through the ranks with a twisty grip, a feral stance or a trigger movement that would make a rat spew, you’re pretty much stuffed.
Even runs are futile.
While some homespun atrocities have proven effective in piling on the currency, the breathtakingly short grace period and zero stays of execution eventually weed them out.
These discards are then sadly doomed to being harnessed by one of a generation of salivating batting coaches, where their kinks will be ironed out to sweet homogenisation and an unspectacular 31.45 average.
As history shows, ugly technique is also used as a popular excuse at an administrative level.
Selectors will wield it as a watertight reason for banishment alongside other crimes like snoozy bowling, impotent fielding and having an opinion.
Just look at the veritable numbers of the unattractive who have been unfairly dumped in modern times.
Australia tolerated the runs of Simon Katich and Chris Rogers. Phil Jaques was a last start centurion, but was also not pretty enough.
George Bailey is the first recorded instance in history where showing ass hasn’t opened doors.
Then there was the dearly missed Phil Hughes, a precocious youngster overhauled beyond recognition – and all because of a perceived short ball issue, because international cricket was the first time he faced bouncers.
The serviceable-yet-unconventional technician is condemned to a career in Australia perennially situated below good-looking academy batsmen and a question mark – if they’re lucky.
To be honest, the only way around the entrenched method-shaming is the Steve Smith model; score heavily in a weak batting line-up until you’re the only plausible option as captain.
Sure, you might not be like the majority. You could be a follower who claims to be progressive. You may crazily believe the ends justify the means.
You could claim to not judge on looks, and to see their massive scores through the puerile convulsions. You see a freak and not a freak show.
But you know you are fighting against instinct.
Don’t kid yourself. You crave a top six filled with batsmen who craft like Mark Waugh on an Adam Gilchrist blitz, and anything else is just an eyesore with a farcical backlift, forever handicapped by a spirit of innovation.
That’s why despite averaging 99 in Test cricket, we must pray for Peter Handscomb.
Batting for Australia with technical impurities is like playing on a two-paced deck – you never really feel ‘in’.
Simoc
Guest
The orthodox technique is pretty much the way Warner faces and bats as well as many of the Indian batsman. Some use strange stances, like Chanderpaul, but at the point of delivery they line up pretty much up and down the wicket. Shewag had good technique and swung down the line. The bat uplift goes nearly straight back and not out to gully. The greatest benefit is surviving early while you get you get your eye in and less risk there-after. It seems many commenters have never played the game and don't know technique. Reminds me of the tennis comments where Roger Federers technique gets pilloried.
qwetzen
Guest
That should read "...possess astonishes me." hth
Ben Brown
Guest
Orthodox technique doesn't mean a good technique for every player you dimwit. Christ the arrogance you posess astonished me.
Elliott
Guest
I've often said that the most important thing to batting isn't technique, it's picking the right balls to score from. You might have the prettiest cover drive in the world, but if you try to cover drive the wrong ball and get out, it's no use to the team. I have a feeling that Kurtis Patterson suffered from his unappealing technique this summer when it came to selections, with Nic Maddinson and Hilton Cartwright both easier on the eye. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, cricket is a numbers game and if you can't score runs it doesn't matter how good you look.
Peter M
Guest
Miandad was pretty unorthodox and inventive
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I don't think this is talking about "eye" batsmen. By that I assume you mean someone who has very little foot movement and just plays see ball hit ball. The batsmen being discussed here are generally players who've worked hard on their technique to get something that works, but over time as you make little tweaks to fix weaknesses the technique just seems more and more unusual. The reason their technique is unusual is because they are working on a technique to allow them to succeed more, not just trying to rely on having a great eye.
Art Vanderlay
Guest
Thanks Casper, didn't think to look there.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Kepler Wessels was another with an odd method. It's not restricted to internationals though. In the park the other day, the opposition opening bat stood upright squarely facing our bowler, with the face of the bat facing square leg. At first we thought he was getting the ump to give him middle. After a minute or two of awkward silence our bowler realized he had taken guard and said "oh sorry, you're ready". Apart from a straight ball he mashed over the mid wicket, he played and missed at half a doz outside off before being caught behind.
Casper
Guest
From my perspective after 60 years watching cricket at shield level upwards, the 'eye' batsman doesn't have a career that lasts as long as the 'technique' batsman. When the 'eye' player loses a fraction of reaction time, he slides quickly & then starts to experiment with changes to his stance etc. As an example, Doug Walters went downhill quicker than Greg Chappell, although both struggled for consistency late in their careers. Just an observation after years of tragic cricket watching. BTW Art, have a look at George Bailey's dismissal in the second innings against Qld in the last shield game (think you can go on the cricket Australia site to view it), he seems to almost be facing the keeper when he gets clean bowled? Have no problem with Hancomb's technique, he has fairly good foot movement, fast hands and a still head. Critics were bagging Renshaw's technique after his first test, they've been proven wrong.
BurgyGreen
Guest
No doubt after Steve Smith retires he'll be written off as an "almost-great" even if he continues to average 60+ as he currently is. The guy has the third highest average of anyone to play more than 50 innings yet he's constantly overlooked for the status of world's best batsman, with the likes of Kohli, Root and Williamson being consistently rated higher by pundits despite averaging 10 runs less.
qwetzen
Guest
Let's not get carried away here. There's a logical reason why a good technique is better than a bad technique, it's because it works. To put it another way, here's a list of some generally accepted, retired ATG batsmen of the the tv age; Hayden, Ponting, Tendulkar, Crowe,M, the Richards brothers, Chappell G, Miandad, Dravid, Kallis, Gavaskar & of course, the Mighty Pugsley. How many of those have unorthodox techniques? That'd be a big fat zero.
Republican
Guest
Interesting. I have often considered our style of batting to be incredibly rigid and lacking flair. I always enjoy watching the more wristy style that is synonymous with players from the sub continent. I particularly enjoy SriLanka in this respect.
Art Vanderlay
Guest
The last innings I saw George play in the BBL he seemed to have dropped the "baboon in heat" stance but I haven't read anything to support that. Anyone know? "To be honest, the only way around the entrenched method-shaming is the Steve Smith model; score heavily in a weak batting line-up until you’re the only plausible option as captain" . But you know that when the inevitable happens and age (unless he does a Mr Burns and has his head mounted on an automaton) dulls his talent, every man and his one legged dog will be up him and his unorthodoxy for the rent.
Tony Tea
Guest
I would have thought the success of batsmen like Chanderpaul, Smith, Sehwag, and to a lesser extent players like Simon Katich - perhaps even Warner and KP - may have indicated to people that good batting is all about a still head, balance and finding the sweet spot. You may want to bat like Greg Chappell, and you probably got coached to do so, but you may also score more if you bat like Smithy.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I have always found it interesting when you hear people talk up the wonderful technique of someone like Shaun Marsh while decrying the poor technique of someone like Steve Smith when the latter has a batting average about double the former. Too often people seem to equate unorthodox technique with poor technique and orthodox looking technique with good technique. But if someone looks like every shot they play is straight out of the textbook, but they keep edging the ball to slip, I'd say that it doesn't matter how orthodox their technique looks, they actually have a poor technique, while the person who's introduced some less orthodox things into their game to try and work around continually edging the ball to slips and does it successfully has therefore improved their technique despite becoming less orthodox. And let's face it, variety is the spice of life. Nobody wants a team where the batsmen all bat exactly the same, it's cool having a team full of players who've all worked out their own way to succeed at that level and each have different ways of doing it.