He starts off with the grand old man of cricket Dr WG Grace and gives some insights into the good doctor's attitude to medicine - he practiced medicine only for two months in a year, thought pus was part of the healing process, thought infections were caused by bad air etc. Though he may not be the best doctor to visit, WG certainly introduced all the modern shots and also figured how to use the front and back foot when bowling went from underarm to overarm. He did set cricket off well with his innovations.
There is a bit about the evolution of the game - pitches, bats shaped like hockey sticks for underarm bowling, pads, muck spreaders, wickets, the leg glance of Ranji, increase in size of ball and stumps, Hawkeye and DRS. Interesting stuff.
So much of batting is about the eyes and he has a chapter on it. From the key element of watching the ball closely, there is a facility on how to train the eyes on where to look - Sheryl Calder has an institution that helps that. It's how when we lose focus we are not looking in the right places. Or how Indians got better at playing pace bowling because we got better throw down specialists and a crop of fast bowlers. The various changes from copy book styles of high front elbow - Chanderpaul, Steve Smith, Lara, Graeme Smith all had completely different styles. It finally boils down to handling that one delivery that needs to be conquered.
That fast bowling scares but spin embarasses. One has to watch closely
Dravids hovering foot advise to Pietersen (don't plant foot since you can't adjust) - play spin without pads, watch the ball and trust yourself. Gavaskar would watch the release of the ball. And then a chapter on running - the art of getting to the other end, getting singles. Greenidge was never run out in 108 tests. Kohli ran 500 kms in runs as on Aug 23.
The way to attack - like attacking the weaker bowlers, to Richards developing leg side play because a neighbour in the off side would not return the ball, Gilchrists philosophy of 'just hit the ball' and each having his own philosophy about it.
I liked the one on when batsmen peak - apparently the really good ones peak between 28-32. A typical batter peaks at 20 while really good batters peak in their late 20s and decline at a slow rate. While the 20s benefit from athleticism the late 20s have the benefit of technical knowledge by then. Interestingly spin offers the same degree of difficulty for both.
He analyses players like Simpson who made his debut in his 20s, scored his first hundred by 28 and played his final test at 41. While discussing the art of batting, style vs substance, he finally concludes that in the end the currency is runs.
An interesting look at motivation - those motivated by records, by sheer pleasure of playing, by the challenge, by purpose of team. Interestingly he analyses how the top individual score in Tests went from 165 in 1877, 211 in 1884, 287 in 1903, 325 in , 334 in 1930, 336 in 1933, 364 in 1938, 365 in 1958, 377 in 1994, 380 in 2003 and 400 under a year later. 377 and 400 belong to Lara. 380 to Hayden, so Lara just took it back.
I also liked what Sagakarra said - started putting more value on runs scored and being effective and understanding how to change that up in the innings. Don't try to protect the reputation or legacy or kind of career.
Interesting tactics by players include George Headley hitting the ball hard back at the bowler to injure his bowling hand, Miandad never standing in one place and unsettling the bowler, Kohli mentally second guessing the bowler by reading his body language, Sachin not playing a cover drive in 436 balls, digging up wickets to practice playing Warne, Lara perfecting his placement because of a game he and his bother played with a stick and a golf ball where they needed to find gaps for runs and so on and on.
I also liked how the author asked himself in his worst times - what does Gilly do in a similar situation? Gilly normally would go for it.
Interesting book. Thanks Satish. Too much stats which i breezed through, enjoyed reading all the examples he gave of spectacular innings and hope to see then. But the number of times he says something was weird or confusing is amusing - with so much analysis it will get both weird and confusing I'd think.
No comments:
Post a Comment