Can cricket buck the trend?

[Rachael]

Interesting discussion on Talksport earlier. The main commentator couldn't quite bring himself to say that Key looked elegant when batting.. and Atherton chipped in immediately with "I know exactly what you mean": they agreed that Key, even when playing well, looked to "club", rather than (as the truly elegent players would do) "stroke" the ball.

The further point that was made was that this works at up to 1st class level.. but is far less effective at Test level as there are far fewer balls waiting to be clubbed.. and far more bowlers who demand greater respect than that.

Of course.. the marketing men, seemingly keen to dumb down in the belief that they know the "true" level of the popular audience... keep trying to sell the game around the brutal power play of those who really belt the ball... and apply pressure for ever shorter formats of the game that give such batsmen the chance to outshine their classier rivals.

Seems the same mentality that has Rolf Harris presenting programmes on art, Alan Titchmarsh presenting programmes on Natural History and so on: the kind of inverted snobbery that dismisses the capacity of an audience to be discerning and which presumes that widespread interest will come more from dramatic presentation of superficial dross than from providing subtle insight into substance that's inherently worthwhile.

Question is.. can cricket buck the trend? Can the fact that craft and touch are the twin ideals that underpin the game ensure that it does NOT end up like an overhyped variant on "Gladiators"?

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Of course.. the marketing men, seemingly keen to dumb down in the belief that they know the "true" level of the popular audience... keep trying to sell the game around the brutal power play of those who really belt the ball... and apply pressure for ever shorter formats of the game that give such batsmen the chance to outshine their classier rivals.

A four is a four whether you hit it over the top, caress it through the covers or surrey cut it to fine leg.

Cricket has always had players who caress the ball through the covers and those that murder it.

At the turn of the 18th century there was a player calle Gilbert Jessop, he was famed for his brutal innings.

Your problem here Rachael is you seem to think there was a golden age of Cricket were all players were timers of the ball, for every Peter May and Ted Dexter, there is always a Colin Milburn

Originally Posted by Cric Info on Colin Milburn

In defence his head was still and his bat straight; and his off-side strokes, from either foot, were sweetly timed. But from long leg to long-on, whether hooking or pull-driving, he gave the ball such a mighty wallop that many times it was never seen again.

Personally I would prefer that Cricket was "Dumbed down" as you put it, rather than left to die in the hands of Purist with their heads firmly stuck up there own self-important ar*es

[Shaka]

While I agree that a 4 is a 4 either caressed or clubbed, it does require a certain level of skill as well. Razzaq looks unstoppable when he's smashing the quicks into the stands, but he looks hopelessly lost against a decent legspinner, whereas a touch player like Youhanna comes into his element.

I suppose you do get players like Viv Richards who could club anything, but then there are players like Gower, and Tendulkar who can do both if necessary.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Shaka

While I agree that a 4 is a 4 either caressed or clubbed [...] Razzaq looks unstoppable when he's smashing the quicks into the stands, but he looks hopelessly lost against a decent legspinner, whereas a touch player like Youhanna comes into his element.

Atherton's initial point was first and foremost aesthetic... that there is, at the very core of what the game is, something that enables us to distinguish certain ways of playing the ball as more worthy of admiration than certain other ways of playing the ball.

Surely few would dispute that the spinner who gives the ball a lot of air and plies a line that invites the bastman to take him on (basically setting upa contest between his own ability to vary his delivery and the batsman's ability to read / play that delivery) embodies an aesthetic ideal that is NOT rivalled when a spinner drills the ball hard and flat in such a way that no-one can see how he's going to take a wicket.

Equally, I trust no one would dispute that a batsman who gets to the pitch of the overpitched ball and who gets back and plays late when the ball drops short is embodying an aesthetic ideal that is NOT rivalled by the tall batsman who just pads up a single big stride no matter WHAT ball is delivered.

Atherton was initially making a similar kind of judgement.... that there's an aesthetic ideal embodied by the batsman who "strokes" the ball away that is simply NOT embodied by practiced exponents of the "club". Nothing radical.

The LARGER point that was made (as much by Bannister as Atherton) was that at lower levels of cricket (and even at Test level when the bowling isn't top notch) the EFFECTIVENESS of the less aesthetic "club the ball" approach can be largely indistinguishable... and perhaps that on a Test by Test basis.. either can work... but that as you get closer to that cricketing ideal of 4 or 5 genuinely world class bowlers... you expect (over the longer run) to see the practitioners of the "stroke" emerge on top.

Nothing that radical here, either: just a just a simple re-statement of the cricketing truism that as the bowling gets better there are fewer of the sort of loose deliveries on which the practitioners of the "club" thrive.

of course.. none of the above is denying that cricket has ALWAYS boasted batsmen who club (rather than stroke) the ball.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

the practitioners of the "stroke"

I believe that neatly sums up the type of people who call themselves Purists

[Shaka]

WRT Robert Key who is the subject of the discussion originally, he's made a decent start to his test career and no one will really care whether he clubs or strokes if he keeps making the runs. Haven't seen that much of him myself...he doesn't stand out as an obvious talent in the way Andy Strauss does, but if he keeps doing the business fair play to him.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Shaka

no one will really care whether he clubs or strokes if he keeps making the runs.

Oh Rachael will. With you on this one Shaka, it is really a pointless debate to judge which style is better. Rachael's point that Marketing me want to "Dumb" down cricket is rubbish. Players get picked because they score runs and have the ability to score runs.

Bell and Key are two very different batsmen, one does have the odd-shot that could be described as Agricultural. But ultimatly their careers will not be judged on how they look at the crease, but how many runs they accumulate.

[Milo]

I once said on here that cricket was really all about scoring more runs than the opposition (given that both innings are closed) and Rachael did find my standpoint very difficult to accept. It would appear that she prefers the sports like ski jumping that not only give credit for distance jumped but also style marks for the jump.

Could you imagine the scenario. Somebody hits a four. Four runs. Beautiful text book cover drive with foot to the pitch and head/weight over the ball (factor 2) - Total 8 runs scored......Four runs. Oh no, thick edge through the vacant gully area, played away from the body (factor 0.5) - Total 2 runs scored.

Let's be honest FF...a 4 is a 4 is a 4 is a 4 as they say.

[Rachael]

Rather off topic that: doesn't address either: {a} whether there's merit in the argument made on Talksport (merely reported by me) that at the very highest level the odds should swing more to the batsmen who "stroke" the ball than to those who tend to "club" the ball; or {b} whether there's some hope for cricket in the above notion.. in that it implies pre-eminence to the "touch players" rather than the marketing men's favoured "big hitters".

I use the phrase "buck the trend" because when charged with attracting and retaining members to a tennis club even I resorted to re-branding a session as "big hitters" and to targeting the young with opportunities to play aggressively... and I'm only too aware of the temptation to market on the basis of the dramatic dross that has superficial impact to the casual glance rather than on the subtlety and craft that underpin the game (and which should, in the eyes of so many, be allowed to attract or otherwise an audience that should be credited with the wherewithall to appreciate such subtlety and craft).

In short.. I write as one who has stood accused of bastardising everything a sport is about in the name of increasing popular appeal.. and who, if honest, was guilty as charged.. and who just wonders if there's something inherent in the sport that gives it a fighting chance of continuing to openly proclaim such supposedly un-sexy and un-marketable ideals as subtlety and craftsmanship.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I write as one who ... just wonders if there's something inherent in the sport that gives it a fighting chance of continuing to openly proclaim such supposedly un-sexy and un-marketable ideals as subtlety and craftsmanship.

As long as there are followers like you around, Rachael, I'm sure that this game has something for you and Flanflinger - who sometimes seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum on this sort of discussion.

Originally Posted by Milo

Let's be honest FF...a 4 is a 4 is a 4 is a 4 as they say.

But it's not really so, is it? Sure, they all look the same in the scorebook, but there are some which cause Richie Benaud to break out in a hugely excited "Great shot, that", and there are others that ... well ... just don't. It's the same in most sports - in football, all the goals count for one apiece, but they still manage to run a Goal of the Month competition on Match Of The Day (presumably). So there must be some difference (although in the case of that sport I'm hard put to see it other than in extreme cases).