PDA

View Full Version : Are you a "natural game" supporter?


Ishtylish cricketer
March 5, 2008, 09:26 AM
It seems that the only way our batsman can explain their success or downfall is through lines such as "I was playing my natural game", "I just stuck with my natural game", etc. Sick and tired of natural stuff because it rarely brings results. I put a poll to see how many BC members think Bd players should stick to natural game and average close to 20 and below 30 or adopt unnatural "learned not innate" games to potentially achieve a greater batting average by sacrificing strike rate by few percentage. I mean our hitters can't stay in long enough and blokers that we have can't play 50 overs or in test bat for long hours. Funnily enough most of our batsman don't have high strike rate either. The poll here is to see how many support natural game which often translates into mediocrity vs. unnatural games "learned through practicing" which our players don't try so the results for this approach is not known. Though, there are many successful examples of player who have changed batting approaches to fit the need of the team for instance Micheal Hussey who was an opening batsman and an accumulator of runs and now transformed into a good strokemaker. Ashwell Prince believe it or not was a hitter when started out. Many such successful examples are available. Once you practice the unnatural game time and time again it becomes natural because you get habituated with it. I say screw natural game and adopt a unnatural game. Collingwood became a good hitter from just a nurdler of the ball. Though he still does that but learned to hit long way.

Tigers_eye
March 5, 2008, 09:30 AM
Controlled natural game supporter here. Sorry to make it harder on you. :)

Ishtylish cricketer
March 5, 2008, 09:31 AM
I would like to add another option but I don't know if it's possible. But your answer falls in "no change to unnatural learned game".

Tigers_eye
March 5, 2008, 09:32 AM
That's fine. Your answer falls in "no".
Only Mods can. Can any mod lend a helping hand please?

Ishtylish cricketer
March 5, 2008, 09:42 AM
Controlled natural game supporter here. Sorry to make it harder on you. :)
But you forgot about those that play too slowly because their natural game is slow. Should they stick to that in ODIs and 20/20 for instance? Or are we going to have just specialist players for every format of the competition?

Tigers_eye
March 5, 2008, 09:46 AM
A core of 20/25 players can be our future. As long as the naturally slow players don't give away wickets and graft hours I don't mind them in the test fold.

Our players are naturally too aggressive (bad effect of ODIs and T20). That needs to be cut short. That is what Siddons has pointed out on leaving some deliveries and not going for every ball. If we want to improve in Test arena against big boys.

Ehsan
March 5, 2008, 09:48 AM
IC, did you want another option - Controlled natural game? I think most people will actually vote for that. But then the question is how do they learn to control their natural game? Wait for bad balls? Only one 4 or 6 in an over?

How do you define unnatural game? Just keep blocking or have patience to just stick around? If that is your explanation of it, then I don't think our players can learn it. Even if they follow it, they may stay a bit longer but you would not see any runs on the board.

Ehsan
March 5, 2008, 09:52 AM
That is what Siddons has pointed out on leaving some deliveries and not going for every ball. If we want to improve in Test arena against big boys.

What bothers me is that being at this level for a while they still go hunting (very frequently) after outside offstump deliveries in the test matches. They just don't learn to leave out these deliveries, and unless they learn about which deliveries to leave and which to hit, I think we will remain where we are. We should be teaching and implementing these very basics from the age group, then only we will see success in tests.

Ishtylish cricketer
March 5, 2008, 09:57 AM
IC, did you want another option - Controlled natural game? I think most people will actually vote for that. But then the question is how do they learn to control their natural game? Wait for bad balls? Only one 4 or 6 in an over?

How do you define unnatural game? Just keep blocking or have patience to just stick around? If that is your explanation of it, then I don't think our players can learn it. Even if they follow it, they may stay a bit longer but you would not see any runs on the board.

Yes the 4th option I would like to add is "batting for team, game".
Nope unnatural game in my book is learning to shape your game to meet the team's demand and then what the game situation demands. Batting is about the team's requirement not self-fullfillment. We don't know for a fact that if the aggressive players stay in they won't make more runs by being there. Why not try to learn the game the proper way? At least we will be decent. There's a famous saying "you don't make runs from pavillion". Dravid once asked Shewag "why do you like the dressing room so much?" after he got out playing a rush shot. A similar observation can be made for our players. They don't like to be out in the heat in the middle. Why do that when there's ac in the pavillion. I say make the pavillion boiling hot so they would all want to be in the middle. Joking aside, I am sick and tired of batsmen failing and falling for the most obvious traps.

Ishtylish cricketer
March 5, 2008, 10:02 AM
What bothers me is that being at this level for a while they still go hunting (very frequently) after outside offstump deliveries in the test matches. They just don't learn to leave out these deliveries, and unless they learn about which deliveries to leave and which to hit, I think we will remain where we are. We should be teaching and implementing these very basics from the age group, then only we will see success in tests.

Driving on the up in test is not necessary yet they keep doing it but learning to play off the back foot for top order to lower middle is and except for SN no one seems to be in controll of the hook or pull shot. I think they have their priorities mixed up.

sadi
March 5, 2008, 10:14 AM
Good thread.

I just think our players are too immature to understand what the situation demands at time. For example, we see Ashraful getting out playing a rush shot just before lunch or tea break. You need to be a good student of the game to understand what situation demands. A coach can't keep telling you all the details and what to do in the middle. It has to come naturally.

Another problem with our cricketers are they are not mentally strong enough. Sometimes, they give up way too easily. Example, Mashrafee dreams of having a bad day and he does nothing to change it. Our batsmen are not mentally strong enough to carry out a plan that coach gives them. They can't go out there and bat out a whole day without thinking of runs. I was watching Jamie How bat yesterday against England and there was a lot to learn from his innings. It was quite boring if you ask me but it was how test cricket is supposed to be played. He has a very limited range of shots but still he made his runs because he used patience as his biggest strength. If you have a solid defensive technique, strong mind and patience, you can definitely make runs anywhere.

Finally, maybe we are seeing some signs of players showing some maturity. Aftab is trying to curb his shots and it is really a welcome sign. Shahriar Nafees has shown signs of coming back and he always had a smart cricketing brain. Test batting is 50 percent mental, I believe and once our players get more matured, good things will happen.

Ehsan
March 5, 2008, 10:16 AM
We don't know for a fact that if the aggressive players stay in they won't make more runs by being there. Why not try to learn the game the proper way? At least we will be decent.

I think we did try this but unfortunately in ODIs in the world cup, and some recent tests. It did not work out pretty well as we went too defensive, and were not able to get enough runs in the board. I think we have seen this that some of our players in the recently concluded test matches stayed in the crease for a while only to get out to a stupid shot.

I think controlled aggression is the way to go, may be Siddons can set some basic rules to be followed by the players for this purpose.
1) Do not "over hit" a bowler. Only one 4 or 6 in an over.
2) Do not try to hit balls outside offstump early in your innings. Avoid driving outside offstump deliveries specially when a plan is set out for you.
3) Take SINGLES, ROTATE strike
4) If you get to 30, limit your aggression till you get to 50. If you get to 50, then go for 70. If you get into 70s then make sure you get your 100.
5) Learn to defend the good balls. Learn to differentiate between good balls and bad balls.

Tigers_eye
March 5, 2008, 10:24 AM
What bothers me is that being at this level for a while they still go hunting (very frequently) after outside offstump deliveries in the test matches. They just don't learn to leave out these deliveries, and unless they learn about which deliveries to leave and which to hit, I think we will remain where we are. We should be teaching and implementing these very basics from the age group, then only we will see success in tests.

I just think our players are too immature to understand what the situation demands at time...
(It is not only us. The problem is, everyone of our players do it and no one to lead in the field from the front)
I am not sure if you guys had watch last nights game Eng vs NZ.
Scenario:
McCullam, (the brutal one) had his fifty come up with a six and four (from 41 to fifty 51). Only two overs left in the day. NZ sitting on 277/5. Then playing his natural game he chased a ball from sidebottom that may have been wide out side the off stump. Unnecessary!! finest edge to Ambrose, his first test catch. NZ down 277/6.

So players who are naturally aggressive would do things like that. I hope maturity settles down on our boys and act like a real test player. McCullam did it after his fifty, our players do it from the get go.

BANFAN
March 5, 2008, 11:22 AM
Wheather you depend on you natural game or copied, a player has to perfect it through rigorous practice to master it and use that skill repeatedly with pefection. It is a lot easier and reliable to master shots which your natural abilities permit. We are discussing something which is only theoretical, practcally it is impossible to do something beyond one's natural abilities.

Natural game does not mean, unpracticed freestyle (Tarua) batting.

Ahmed_B
March 5, 2008, 11:43 AM
The notion of 'Natural Game' is just another widely misunderstood concept in the world of BD cricket. The two different things called 'Technique' and 'Natural Game' are not really exchangeable. Every player has his own natural way of playing... which is definitely crucial for excellence. At the same time, it’s a must for him to learn proper techniques to make his own natural way of playing a successful one. Playing Style is something he is almost born with... wheras, technique is something he is taught. A successful player is the product of a fine-tuning between these two. Or atlest.. thats how it is in the international level of World Cricket.

But the problem is, in case of BD players, the term 'Natural Game' is interpreted as absence of any sort of proper technique. And when they are coached/instructed to follow the basics in cricket, they perhaps feel threatened because they have not at all been brought up (as cricketers) to make the crucial fine-tuning between style & technique.

What I fear is, many of us fans also get these two things mixed up very much. They often prefer the ura-dhura dhum-dharakka style (which is, again, misunderstood as so called ‘Natural Game’) batting from the players.

lamisa
March 5, 2008, 11:57 AM
Controlled natural game supporter here. Sorry to make it harder on you. :)

yea,i agree with you.they should also be able to hit a few when needed.

BANFAN
March 5, 2008, 02:35 PM
The notion of 'Natural Game' is just another widely misunderstood concept in the world of BD cricket. The two different things called 'Technique' and 'Natural Game' are not really exchangeable. Every player has his own natural way of playing... which is definitely crucial for excellence. At the same time, it’s a must for him to learn proper techniques to make his own natural way of playing a successful one. Playing Style is something he is almost born with... wheras, technique is something he is taught. A successful player is the product of a fine-tuning between these two. Or atlest.. thats how it is in the international level of World Cricket.

But the problem is, in case of BD players, the term 'Natural Game' is interpreted as absence of any sort of proper technique. And when they are coached/instructed to follow the basics in cricket, they perhaps feel threatened because they have not at all been brought up (as cricketers) to make the crucial fine-tuning between style & technique.

What I fear is, many of us fans also get these two things mixed up very much. They often prefer the ura-dhura dhum-dharakka style (which is, again, misunderstood as so called ‘Natural Game’) batting from the players.

Spot on.

auntu
March 5, 2008, 02:40 PM
Natural ok but if it has some 'sidor' sort of technique then u need to blend with siddons...:saint:

AsifTheManRahman
March 5, 2008, 02:46 PM
It's a difficult question. There's no straight answer. To put it simply, as of now, I think players like Tamim, Ashraful and Aftab would do us a world of good by controlling their aggression and diverting from what they like to call their natural game. Five years from now, if we end up with a bunch of 27/28 year olds (provided we stick to the current core), I wouldn't mind a couple of youngsters coming in and flexing their muscles once in a while.

al Furqaan
March 5, 2008, 05:29 PM
The notion of 'Natural Game' is just another widely misunderstood concept in the world of BD cricket. The two different things called 'Technique' and 'Natural Game' are not really exchangeable. Every player has his own natural way of playing... which is definitely crucial for excellence. At the same time, it’s a must for him to learn proper techniques to make his own natural way of playing a successful one. Playing Style is something he is almost born with... wheras, technique is something he is taught. A successful player is the product of a fine-tuning between these two. Or atlest.. thats how it is in the international level of World Cricket.

But the problem is, in case of BD players, the term 'Natural Game' is interpreted as absence of any sort of proper technique. And when they are coached/instructed to follow the basics in cricket, they perhaps feel threatened because they have not at all been brought up (as cricketers) to make the crucial fine-tuning between style & technique.

What I fear is, many of us fans also get these two things mixed up very much. They often prefer the ura-dhura dhum-dharakka style (which is, again, misunderstood as so called ‘Natural Game’) batting from the players.

that is spot on. can't remember such a precise post on BC in a long while. :notworthy:

i agree, 'natural game' term is rubbish. of course i don't want or expect ash to bat like JO. but this mindless driving away from the body, with a gap between bat and pad big enough to sail Noah's Arc through it, to a delivery 12 feet wide of off, with 17 slip catchers waiting has to be stopped. if that is 'natural game' then to hell with natural games.

bottom line: play each ball according to its merit. forget about the bowler, forget about your past and future record. play that ball, don't worry about the ball before or after. play that ball as it should be played according to game situation. not on your 'natural game'

Dhakablues
March 5, 2008, 05:49 PM
No problem in playing natural game if you are Sachin Tendulkar or Ricky Pointing. What if you are bad natured player? then,, please dont play natural game. For instance, Boom Boom- hit the ball same way leg side for consecuitive boundaries-Aftab. For players like him,, he should be playing "unnatural" game because then he is successful. He did that during his 80 run stint against ZImbabwe, the one we drew. He did that against SA tests,, and I have to admit I am impressed..For players like him, Tamim, Zunaed, Javed, .. they should play "Abnormal" game to be successful in Test cricket. On the other hand, Ashraful, Nafis, Bashar, Sakib should play their natural game because they are solid in their technique and knows what they are doing ( most of the time,, okay fine,,50% of the team!!)

The real question is,, if Raqibul hasan plays his natural game, he can score 300 runs alone. So, he should be allowed to play his game because thats the reason he is selected. But thats a question of which players have that nature where we can allow them to play natural game...million dollar question!!

Ajfar
March 5, 2008, 06:28 PM
they all say that they played their natural game..but what does that really mean to them..i'm sure they all hav their own definition of "natural game"...i'm sure mehrab jr.'s definition of natural game is not the same as aftab or tamim...

Murad
March 5, 2008, 06:30 PM
Their so called "natural game" means giving your wicket to the opposition bowler as a GIFT.

Ishtylish cricketer
March 5, 2008, 08:20 PM
What I fear is, many of us fans also get these two things mixed up very much. They often prefer the ura-dhura dhum-dharakka style (which is, again, misunderstood as so called ‘Natural Game’) batting from the players.

Much of batting is based on instict. If you train your instinct correctly you will be able to survive in the middle for a long time which for most international cricketer means a lot of runs. The following things Bd batsman never do: pick up singles from a 3/4 length balls aimed at 5th stump...usually they leave those where as good players pick up singles from those by placing them to gully or third man almost entirely with the face of the bat, since none of out players do that, it puts pressure on them to pick up the strike rate (in ODIs) and in tests they are stuck in one end and allow bowlers time to figure them out. Singles are always there in every form of the game. Our batsmen never work the short pitch stuff away to square leg or midwicket to pick up easy runs. If you're watching the ball closely and onto your bat shots like late cut, drop and run open up easily. You're going to be in control of your inning as long as you're not getting stuck in one end against good bowlers. In Bd pitches especially, the bounce isn't that steep. Out batsman don't have to habit of watching the ball right onto the bat and close their eyes when the ball is short and get hit in the process or end up missing a hitable ball. In the last test match, so many short balls were outside the left shoulder of a righty batsman with dying bounce, easiest to pull, they kept on ducking...weren't willing to see the line of the ball and played on length. If few of them were put away for 4s or 6s that rubbish would have ended. In good pitches drives are the easiest shot to play but in dead pitches you have to wait for short pitch and leg stump half volleys. Hard to generate power on the drives unless it's very full and you can give it a full swing. I remember reading in articles that the night before a test or big ODIs Tendulkar never sleeps and plans his inning in his mind. I wonder whether or not our players actually have any plans about batting. Watching them bat it doesn't seem so.

One World
March 6, 2008, 01:50 AM
Its baffling when such question is asked. In the context of Aftab remoulded in last two series he looks more natural while leaving the ball patiently and watchfully choosing his strokes. The way ASH and company gifted their wickets and the way MASH was bowling according to the definition of it except Shahadat, Rafique, Razzak, Nafis and Aftab all should become friends to Amy Winehouse .

If possible we can make a Bangla version of Rehab using DJ's preferred capital as the place and Mumtaz as the singer for them. This will remind them to remain natural all the way as it will become the theme song for our cricketers. It will be played before every session of a test match in the dressing room. Every night they will go to sleep listening to it, the alarm to wake up would be the same song. Any time a player forgets to play his natural game in a match the fans will start singing the song in chorus at pavillion.

:flag:

Sohel
March 6, 2008, 02:14 AM
This is what I support: -

1. ALWAYS trying to bat through the line of delivery.

2. Batting in the 'V'.

3. Compact defense.

4. Trying to play each ball according to its merit, which includes not playing certain deliveries as well as lofting it over Midwicket or Square Leg.

5. No overconfident brainfarts after a boundary or two.

Within the Bangladeshi context in general, I DO NOT SUPPORT the parhar kiriket-type nesaral guem of playing across the line or having a poke outside off-stump with no movement of the feet !

One World
March 6, 2008, 02:22 AM
5. No overconfident brainfarts after a boundary or two.


This is a very unnatural demand from a cricketer born and made in a country where the whole nation is famous for it. Exceptions like Tajuddin, Dr. Yunus, Jafar Ikbal proves it further.

Sohel
March 6, 2008, 02:24 AM
This is a very unnatural demand from a cricketer born and made in a country where the whole nation is famous for it. Exceptions like Tajuddin, Dr. Yunus, Jafar Ikbal proves it further.

Very true, but we can adapt as we must at some point in time ... :)

BANFAN
March 6, 2008, 03:31 AM
No problem in playing natural game if you are Sachin Tendulkar or Ricky Pointing. What if you are bad natured player? then,, please dont play natural game. For instance, Boom Boom- hit the ball same way leg side for consecuitive boundaries-Aftab. For players like him,, he should be playing "unnatural" game because then he is successful. He did that during his 80 run stint against ZImbabwe, the one we drew. He did that against SA tests,, and I have to admit I am impressed..For players like him, Tamim, Zunaed, Javed, .. they should play "Abnormal" game to be successful in Test cricket. On the other hand, Ashraful, Nafis, Bashar, Sakib should play their natural game because they are solid in their technique and knows what they are doing ( most of the time,, okay fine,,50% of the team!!)

The real question is,, if Raqibul hasan plays his natural game, he can score 300 runs alone. So, he should be allowed to play his game because thats the reason he is selected. But thats a question of which players have that nature where we can allow them to play natural game...million dollar question!!

Well said. Solution is simple then. We should try to avoid sellecting the bad natured players. sellect only those whose natural game is good for the team. There is use of boom booms and calm calms in different positions in different formats of the game. Why not sellect according to our need and put appropriate players in appropriate place to bat. Who will change their nature in the national team? Let the players set their instinct in the domestic level and allow the sellectors to chose for the vacant/weak position in the team.

Throwing a horny bull inside the herd of cows and tell him to calm down, that's unnatural, can he fulfil such expectation? let him play the natural game, he will auto calm down.

BANFAN
March 6, 2008, 03:44 AM
This is what I support: -

1. ALWAYS trying to bat through the line of delivery.

2. Batting in the 'V'.

3. Compact defense.

4. Trying to play each ball according to its merit, which includes not playing certain deliveries as well as lofting it over Midwicket or Square Leg.

5. No overconfident brainfarts after a boundary or two.

Within the Bangladeshi context in general, I DO NOT SUPPORT the parhar kiriket-type nesaral guem of playing across the line or having a poke outside off-stump with no movement of the feet !


Very good points and that should be taught and practiced like tables (NAMTA) from the very basic levels and will surely guide a player rest of his life.

Arnab
March 7, 2008, 07:17 AM
I have no idea what the term "natural game" really means. Can somebody explain to me?

Ishtylish cricketer
March 7, 2008, 08:30 AM
I have no idea what the term "natural game" really means. Can somebody explain to me?
join the club mate.

Fazal
March 7, 2008, 09:01 AM
natural, 'cage-free', organic, purely synthetic, who cares...

They need to play based on team's need i.e what type of game they are playing, who is their opponent, what is the current situation of the game, what is the game plan designed by the coach, etc etc.... they need to adjust based on the situation. If they cannot, they will all followr Ashraful's path..... superstar...game winner.... talented.... fun to watch.. but at the end of the day after 100 someting international games still unable to cross the 30 mark (average).

Ishtylish cricketer
March 7, 2008, 11:06 AM
natural, 'cage-free', organic, purely synthetic, who cares...

They need to play based on team's need i.e what type of game they are playing, who is their opponent, what is the current situation of the game, what is the game plan designed by the coach, etc etc.... they need to adjust based on the situation. If they cannot, they will all followr Ashraful's path..... superstar...game winner.... talented.... fun to watch.. but at the end of the day after 100 someting international games still unable to cross the 30 mark (average).

Afridi is worse. After 250 ODIs he has an average of 23. Yes he's a bowling all rounder but he's batted so many times up the order...I really wonder sometimes how he still makes the team. I guess they haven't got anyone better. New commer James hopes is even better all rounder than him.

Fazal
March 7, 2008, 11:13 AM
Afridi is worse. After 250 ODIs he has an average of 23. Yes he's a bowling all rounder but he's batted so many times up the order...I really wonder sometimes how he still makes the team. I guess they haven't got anyone better. New commer James hopes is even better all rounder than him.

Here is my take on Afridi:

Now a days he is a bowling all-rounder. Last few years he is surviving (in ODI) purely based on his bowling. Plus his batting style may have some role in ODI. He is discasrded from the TEST for a while now. But looks like his ODI days are about to be over also. Pakistani team is another example of disfunctional team, that may also helped him to survive that long.