Technique v/s Temperament

Charlottle Edwards playing one of her famous flicks through the mid-wicket area.

If you have heard of Charlotte Edwards’ prowess with the bat but haven’t  actually seen her in action, you’ll probably think of a woman who can play a perfectly elegant cover drive, back-foot punch, pull shot, and on drive. With more than five and a half thousand runs (5597 runs in 180 matches, to be precise) under her belt in One Day International cricket, I wouldn’t blame you. For don’t we all think that for someone to be consistently successful, they must have a ‘close to perfect’ technique; one that can be easily imitated by stars of the future?!

Charlotte Edwards, though, is no Rahul Dravid. She does not get a giant stride in to smother the swing or spin; neither does she allow her top hand to ‘lead’ when she bats. She is an extremely bottom handed batter. The little I have seen of her, she quite obviously loves scoring through mid-wicket and behind square on the off side (strokes where the bottom hand tends to dominate). (That of course does not mean that she is incapable of crunching a cover drive). She is, though not far from elegant, not a very pretty player to watch.

Despite all her technical shortcomings, it is her grit and determination that carries Edwards through each time she walks out to bat. She doesn’t always get off to the most free-flowing starts, often having to dig deep and play the waiting game—forcing the bowlers to bowl to her. It is an art that she has mastered over her eighteen year international career. An art that, I believe, all batters should learn.

I watched her closely during England’s recent One Day series against India and it revived a couple of questions that often come to me when I watch a game of cricket—

·         How important is technique for a batter?

·         Which is more important, temperament or technique?

The more I watch the Indian women’s team play, the more my thoughts drift to the second question. India has no dearth of batting talent. The domestic circuit is full of many technically sound batters who are balanced in their stance, move right forward/ back and play with a straight bat. They are pleasing to watch, but the worry is that they don’t get too many runs on a regular basis. (A major concern within the domestic circuit.) I have seen many of these girls get flashy scores of 25 or 30 and throw their wicket away. The will to continue battling against the pressure just seems to be missing.

Smriti Mandhana (L) has shown signs that she is both technically and mentally adept to deal with international cricket and take after her Captain, Mithali Raj (R).

What I have realized over the years is that we as a generation like to dominate everything we do. It is not only on a sports ground where this attitude is displayed, but everywhere around us. In the classroom, students now keep their teachers on tenterhooks, retaliating whenever they can; at home, the current generation is seen as rebellious—one that is never willing to accede to authority. As cricketers, we are no different. The desire to continually dominate (especially as a batting unit) is something we will probably have to control.

All good batters understand that there will be times when the bowlers dominate. It is important to fight through those periods of submission before being able to cash in and hit your way out of trouble. In domestic cricket though, it seems that there are very few batters who trust their ability enough to be able to give the bowler a few overs (since we only play the shorter formats). Granted, in one day cricket it is a little more difficult to do, but with such technical skill I don’t think these batters should have much trouble dealing with other bowlers.

Again, I come to my question—how important is technique?

I suppose it is always important to have a strong set of basics. ‘Keep your head still’, ‘Stay balanced in your stance’, and ‘Watch the ball’ are all essentials that will not change ever. Most modern batters have found ways to challenge the other elements of batting like ‘taking your foot to the pitch of the ball’, ‘having a top hand grip’, ‘stance must only be shoulder width apart’, etc.

Technique, I have found, is a very personal thing. It is difficult to find that one player who plays ‘by the book’. Everyone has their flaws. Even the great Mithali Raj, who I believe is the closest to having a ‘perfect’ technique (in India), has her weaknesses.

Shiv Chanderpaul (L) and Eoin Morgan (R) have found ways to work through
their technical shortcomings and come out on top.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul and, more recently, Eoin Morgan, are two batters whose names rush to mind when I think of the word ‘unorthodox’. They are not the prettiest or the most technically efficient players, but they found ways to amass truck loads of runs. Like Edwards, they found ways to make their technique work for them. No matter how ‘ugly’, they made sure the runs came. Temperament trumps technique. That is not to say that technique doesn’t matter. Every successful player must be able to adapt his/her technique to allow him to score runs in all conditions.

Take Mark Ramprakash for instance. The man was technically sound, but he just couldn’t make a mark at Test level. He scored thousands of runs with the utmost ease at county level, but Ramprakash simply didn’t have the mental strength to succeed at Test level. Maybe he was too intense/ hard on himself.

So we’re back to square one—temperament or technique? There are a fair few examples to support each cause. Personally though, I would choose temperament. Someone who has a flawed technique (by this I do not mean entirely against the book, but only a few glitches here and there), but a strong will and desire to do well will succeed more than a technically proficient batter with a weak temperament.