Since Steve Smith not so much threw the MCC coaching manual out the window as set fire to it, the appreciation of distinctive or unusual batting techniques has risen.
No longer are the manual’s directives a key to success, and some coaches have come around to ‘what works for the individual’ rather than formulaic directives. One of those heading this new-age philosophy is leading batting coach Trent Woodhill, one of Smith’s former tutors.
Woodhill has worked closely with the former Australian captain for many years, and last year relayed what a younger Smith said to him after a stint at Cricket Australia’s Centre of Excellence.
“I learned to nod my head and not listen to a word they were saying,” the headstrong youngster declared. Smith, as we know, is an against-the-grain batsman who consistently backed his own ‘anti-establishment’ formula.
Through it, he became the world’s best, and we (naturally) celebrate it. A ball whipped from outside off-stump through mid-wicket is now ‘how does he do it?’ Rather than ‘how does he get away with it?’
Steve Smith of Australia celebrates after reaching a century. (Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
In a similar, albeit lesser vein, we did the same with Peter Handscomb two years ago. While some were perplexed with the odd technique he showcased when arriving on the international scene in November 2016, results would soon speak for themselves.
Two fifties and two hundreds in his first six Test innings meant talk was deservedly of his success rather than an unusually deep stance or oddly angled backlift. Runs, we are told, are currency, and Handscomb was cashing cheques.
But the last 12 months have been onerous for the Victorian. Without passing 40 in his last ten Test innings, he has been found wanting at Test level. A decidedly poor Adelaide Test in last year’s Ashes, where James Anderson exposed a shuffling Handscomb in the most damning light, resulted in his axing.
He returned to the side largely through necessity in South Africa earlier this year when three teammates were sent home and now, after two further unsuccessful Tests against India, is again on the precipice of being dropped.
“He’s like a lamb to the slaughter,” Shane Warne said of his former Melbourne Stars teammate. “It’s not fair on Peter to keep picking him” he added, with faux concern. Warne, however, was just one of many experts who said Handscomb’s technique just isn’t holding up in Test cricket.
The problem for Handscomb is as much optics as results. His second innings dismissal to Ishant Sharma screamed of a batsman unsure of himself, tentative and caught on the crease to an inswinger which was hitting halfway up middle stump.
But in reality, with his deliberately-caught-on-the-crease style, it can be argued he simply missed an Ishant in-ducker, hardly the first batsman in the world to do so.
The fact is, however, it didn’t look good. And in cricket, looks matter. If you’re going to run with a homespun technique, you’d better pull it off (or so the collective thought goes).
Technical eccentricities are celebrated – but only when they work. When form slips, they are highlighted to the nth degree. Fairly or unfairly, Handscomb’s unnatural technique means that form fluctuations will be under a greater microscope than almost all other players for the rest of his career.
While his current form is largely indefensible, he argues the criticism is somewhat two-faced.
“Yeah, it hurt a little bit,” he has said of the widespread scorn of his technique during the Ashes. “Especially 12 months earlier when I debuted I was making runs with the exact same technique and there weren’t any issues with it there.”
He conceded that techniques always require slight tinkering, but it was important to “not go too far away from what I know”. The 27-year-old essentially asked: If supposed ‘flaws’ in technique can be brushed aside in the good times, why are they picked apart so ruthlessly in the bad?
Peter Handscomb of Australia looks dejected after being dismissed by Ishant Sharma of India during day three of the second match in the Test series between Australia and India at Perth Stadium on December 16, 2018 in Perth, Australia. (Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
His comments offer an insight into a headstrong personality, one with a steadfast belief in what works best for him. Recent comments from Australian batting coach Graeme Hick corroborate this: “He is very strong-minded about the way he wants to play the game,” Hick said.
“We have discussed various options in the past, which he tried. Whether he tried them for long enough and didn’t feel comfortable, I don’t know…there is a good chance he will back himself the way he plays.”
Admirably strong-willed, or foolishly deluded?
Handscomb is another pupil of Woodhill, who strongly encourages players to play the way they feel most comfortable, ironing out kinks along the way.
Whether the Victorian continues with his unique style for the rest of his career is to be seen, but one thing is sure: everyone’s watching with eagle eyes.
Gus O
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the great responses, i am so keen now to watch these aspects of his technique in the next match.
Rob
Guest
Smithy has been exposed regularly by bowlers moving the ball across him. Left arm bowlers (Herath, Jadaja, I.Taijul, Boult, Yadav, even Dean Elgar) pitch middle and leg angling to slip have a lot of success. Left arm orthodox and right arm leg spinners ( Y.Shah, Kaneria, Maharaj) it’s the slower bowlers that can worry him as he force the ball across the line. He is killing right arm pace and off spinners around the world with his technique of working the ball through the leg side. It baffles me why more right arm bowlers don’t come around the wicket? Moreen Ali has got him twice around the wicket with dead straight deliveries hit straight back to him of the leading edge.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
The problem with that line of thinking is, if those three awesome quicks with Lyon aren’t taking 20 wickets efficiently enough to win the test in Melbourne then it’s a long stretch that Mitch Marsh will add anything to that with his bowling. In which case Marsh would be purely there to give the bowlers a rest. Maxwell is just as likely to take a wicket as Marsh is, I would argue even more so as the Indians would be more likely to go after him and get an edge. Maxwell is a superior bat to Marsh and is far more likely to score runs against the Indians. If he can hit tons against them in India he can do it at home.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Gus that doesn’t seem to be a problem if your name is Marsh.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Yes. Smith and Katich (plus the likes of Graeme Smith and Shiv Chanderpaul) are/were well balanced at the point of delivery, able to keep their head over the ball and play shots all around the wicket. Handscomb's technique doesn't make it easy for him to do any of these things.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
That's one of the comments I made further up. Where the weakness is against a ball that it's possible to leave alone, it's not so much of an issue, or if it's a ball where you might get out to it a bit, but you'll also score a lot of runs off it (like Mark Waugh's "weakness" off his pads, where he'd get out caught flicking the ball in the air a bit too much, but it was a dangerous weakness to target, because it was a dismissal weakness that was also a scoring strength. So you might get him out that way, but he might also take you for a lot of runs in the process). But in Handscomb's case, it's a weakness to a ball aimed at the stumps, and his technique makes him pretty much incapable of scoring off it. Plenty of batsmen might get out LBW to a ball like that, but it is a half-volley, and in trying to bowl that ball the bowler risks getting driven for lots of runs. But there is no risk for the bowler in bowling that ball to Handscomb as he can't hurt them from it either.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
It's not just ways of getting out either, it's lack of scoring options. Most good batsmen have areas that bowlers can target, but those areas are regularly areas where the batsmen scores well. The ball that got Handscomb out in the second innings was a half-volley on the stumps. While a late-ducking inswinging half-volley could get a lot of batsmen out, if it doesn't get the wicket, often it will be driven for four runs. So it's a risk for the bowler to bowl that ball also, might get the wicket, but might go for runs. The fact that Handscomb is not only a higher risk than most to get out to such a ball but also is never a chance to score off it is half the problem, because bowlers can just keep safely targetting his weakness knowing he's not going to score there either. With Khawaja, they bowled in a way that made it hard for him to score, but the way they needed to bowl to do that, the balls really weren't threatening to get him out unless he lost patience and played a bad shot at one of those balls. If they bowled full balls at the stumps at Khawaja, there is a chance he'd miss one and get out, but in the meantime he'd be making plenty of runs. With Handscomb they can actually tie him down bowling full balls at the stumps. And that's a dangerous position to be in as a batsman.
Simoc
Guest
Most obviously Handscomb starts back on his stumps so only has half the defensive options open to him. Out of form Khawaja can graft out a 50. Out of form Handscomb would be lucky to get 10. Its hard to believe that Handscomb can't watch video and see the problem. Take your stance forward a foot Peter. Problem solved.
Rob
Guest
Handsomeb’s weakness isn’t a short ball or 4th stump outside off bowling.. That’s a delivery batsmen don’t have to play? Like Waugh and now Smith they become very selective and leave. Unfortunately Handscomb has a weakness at the ball coming back pitched at the stumps. He also brings the offside catching fieldsmen into play with his open face bat. It’s a garbage technique.
Alex Bishop
Guest
I'd like Maxwell in the side, but if the G plays like last year his part time offies won't offer much assistance to the pacemen. I think thats where Marsh fits in, the fears over a flat wicket and the workloads of the pacemen with the quick turnaround to Sydney is probably the primary concern. Maxwell's lack of shield runs, and lack of red-ball cricket in general is abysmal. He doesn't get picked for the A tour of India, on the belief that he's in the squad for the test series in the UAE. Gets dropped from that squad, stays home and plays JLT cup, gets picked to go to the UAE for the T20s after the test series, and then plays all the white ball cricket to start the home season, ODIs and T20 v South Africa and T20s v India. As a result he's managed 2 shield games in between chopping and changing across formats. Its absolutely crazy
Rellum
Roar Guru
Indeed. He looked to really struggle in that net against the Test quicks posted a little while ago, at least at first but then got a feel for it again. You tend to quickly drop to the level you are playing at so he might struggle mightily to reach the same levels again. Green decks in England will make it triply hard for him.
Adz Sportz
Roar Guru
For being different? Or for being technically unsound? His Test career started well, but it’s obvious opposition teams and bowling attacks have figured him out and are easily exploiting the flaws in his technique
Tony H
Roar Pro
Spot on Chris. This is exactly the comment I was going to make. There's a world of difference in catching the world's test bowlers off guard with an unusual approach when they don't know who you are, and dominating them even when they study you mercilessly. Handscomb and Smith are similar only in that their techniques are unconventional, but otherwise they are worlds apart. Smith dominates the crease, moves assuredly back or forward as required, and actually brings the bat through straight when he drives. Handscomb does none of these things, and is being butchered for it.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Pete is the only sane one out there. He looks at blokes who take guard up to a metre out of their ground (against someone steaming in at high 130s and in the 140s) and rightly concludes that they are the mad ones. Kepler Wessels square cut and drove everyone to pieces until everyone worked out they should target pepper him on a leg stump line. Kepler, awkward to the end, still managed to adapt his game and play successfully after that. If Pete trusts his eye and adapts a bit he's every chance of making a similar recovery.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Next year will be very interesting; will he be the same player or even close to it? And can he do it on the green decks of England...
Lukas
Roar Pro
Ha ha, double desperation maybe.
Lukas
Roar Pro
There have certainly been batsman in the past with deceptive awkwardness in one area of their game, who didn’t actually get out that way much. A good example of that would be Steve Waugh. Rarely ever played a pull or hook shot and generally looked terrible against the rising ball into the rib cage. But yet, it wasn’t actually a weakness, it just looked bad. Bowlers bowled short at hime in lieu of focusing on what was his actual weakness, which was the big waft outside the off stump. The approach of the then great West Indies fast bowlers is the prime example. Contrast this with Michael Bevan. Many would say that he was harshly dealt with at test level, and I would agree. But it must be said, he looked awkward against the short ball AND he got out to it a lot. The perception was he had been found out, and this was fatal flaw he would never overcome. It didn’t help that there was a LOT of quality Australian batsman in that era. And so to Handscomb. He looks awkward against the in swinging full ball AND he gets out to it. He makes it way too easy for top class bowlers to have a plan against him. As Warnie likes to say, having a plan is one of the most important things for a bowler, and you would extrapolate from this that one of the most important things for a batsman to is a way to either nullify a bowler’s plan, or make him scratch his head about what the plan should be. At the moment, Handscomb is seemingly powerless to do either. So for me, the writing is on the wall for him unless he is able to somehow turn what will forever be the plan of bowlers against him into a liability. If he can work out how to nullify this plan, bowlers will forever be wasting their time bowling there instead of staying in the corridor, which as many on here have pointed out, is essentially the ultimate “weakness” of all batsman.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
Handscomb is living proof that there aren't enough right arm inswinging bowlers playing Shield and Test cricket. If there were, he'd average about 7.
pakistanstar
Roar Rookie
Amazing to think that Handscomb's technique is getting picked apart & many saying it's not good enough for test cricket yet the likely replacement (ugh) has a massive issue with planting his front foot adjacent to off stump. Talk about double standards.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
The trouble with Handscomb's style is that it opens up literally every mode of dismissal apart from getting stumped. he even managed to get himself out by hitting the leg stump while trying to cut!