Tendulkar vs Dravid: what is technique, really?
After India's third ODI against Pakistan, upon reading this article from Cricinfo blogs, I decided that I really did not understand what all this fuss was about: Tendulkar has been, in my mind, clearly technically superior to any of his contemporaries, and, arguably, of all time (I have not seen Bradman play). Nevertheless, I liked the article because it said good things about Tendulkar. And I forwarded it to groups of friends who shared my interest for cricket.
That caused me to be involved in a rather healthy discussion with a friend who responded to my forward.
He said, "It is clear that Dravid is (and has been for the last 2-3 years) the better batsman of the two in terms of statistics, clutch performances, consistency; however one wants to cut it. I do not believe that his one innings (his 95 in the third one-dayer) changed that one bit. In my opinion, Tendulkar was better technically, and no longer is."
I wrote back, "As you put it, in the last 2 years, in terms of statistics, defining performances and consistency, Dravid has been the better man. Clearly. And, in a sense, that is a reflection of his phlegmatic temperament and his well-honed routines at the crease, which help him switch off between deliveries and switch on effectively. Rahul Dravid has a tight defensive 'technique': a technique that works really well for him and integrates well with the qualities mentioned above. When I hear people speak about his 'technique', the entire package is what, I find, most of them are referring to. Sure, Dravid has an excellent defensive technique. But to say that Dravid is technically sound is quite another thing. If that sounds blasphemous, this is what I mean:
"Let us consider the approach of viewing every ball at face value, and simply base our judgement of how that particular ball is played. Then, our assessment of how well the ball is played and the percentage of risk involved in (1) the selection and (2) the execution of the stroke, and the ability to do it on a regular basis will essentially define the quality of the player. In my opinion, on these benchmarks, Tendulkar is definitely a better player. Even after taking into consideration the fact that, after his elbow surgery, the top-hand is not in as much control of his shots as it should be. Technique, to me, is more than just the grip or how one lifts the bat. It is about balance, and always getting into a position which allows you maximum time to play the safest and most productive shot to a delivery. There is a certain compactness and precision -- an inexplicable assurance -- about Tendulkar's positioning which, to me, is a fruit of his method, perseverance and the learning environment that he must have grown up (as a batsman) in. It is an extremely rare quality to find in a batsman. Even rarer in an attacking batsman. Even Gavaskar, for all his compactness, used to fall over his flicks at times, or, get caught in the slip cordon often. Let me give you one example of what I mean. I have never seen Tendulkar move too early to play a shot: I have never seen him being opened up by a delivery. On the other hand, Dravid has been shown up by top bowlers like Wasim Akram (Chennai test, and the entire 1999 series in fact) and Shane Warne (looping it on the leg stump, drawing him forward and beating him with the turn). On the other hand, Sachin has not, so far, displayed any such weakness. (A common criticism of him has been that he has played across many a time and has been bowled or LBW. But that is more a suggestion of intent than one of technique.) He always makes precise movements at the latest possible split second.
"In short, Dravid's technique is about his defensive play, while Sachin's technique is about his shot making ability. But the figures over the last two or three years show that technique is not the only thing that matters. It is all about being in (and maintaining) a frame of mind that facilitates the best expression of your technique."
It looked like both of us seemed seemed to agree on the major points and the point of contention of this discussion was merely our slightly different interpretations of the word "technique". To him, it is "just a means to get to the goal and the goal is scoring runs consistently and in diverse circumstances", while I'd like to think of technique as one's methodology of reacting to a ball and playing it safely and productively, preferring to relate the mental aspect with "temperament".
Whatever you choose to think of technique (and temperament) as, what is most important is that your "technique" (and your temperament) should work for you. The best "technique" (and temperament) is one that helps you bat for long periods and score the most runs possible in a situation.
That caused me to be involved in a rather healthy discussion with a friend who responded to my forward.
He said, "It is clear that Dravid is (and has been for the last 2-3 years) the better batsman of the two in terms of statistics, clutch performances, consistency; however one wants to cut it. I do not believe that his one innings (his 95 in the third one-dayer) changed that one bit. In my opinion, Tendulkar was better technically, and no longer is."
I wrote back, "As you put it, in the last 2 years, in terms of statistics, defining performances and consistency, Dravid has been the better man. Clearly. And, in a sense, that is a reflection of his phlegmatic temperament and his well-honed routines at the crease, which help him switch off between deliveries and switch on effectively. Rahul Dravid has a tight defensive 'technique': a technique that works really well for him and integrates well with the qualities mentioned above. When I hear people speak about his 'technique', the entire package is what, I find, most of them are referring to. Sure, Dravid has an excellent defensive technique. But to say that Dravid is technically sound is quite another thing. If that sounds blasphemous, this is what I mean:
"Let us consider the approach of viewing every ball at face value, and simply base our judgement of how that particular ball is played. Then, our assessment of how well the ball is played and the percentage of risk involved in (1) the selection and (2) the execution of the stroke, and the ability to do it on a regular basis will essentially define the quality of the player. In my opinion, on these benchmarks, Tendulkar is definitely a better player. Even after taking into consideration the fact that, after his elbow surgery, the top-hand is not in as much control of his shots as it should be. Technique, to me, is more than just the grip or how one lifts the bat. It is about balance, and always getting into a position which allows you maximum time to play the safest and most productive shot to a delivery. There is a certain compactness and precision -- an inexplicable assurance -- about Tendulkar's positioning which, to me, is a fruit of his method, perseverance and the learning environment that he must have grown up (as a batsman) in. It is an extremely rare quality to find in a batsman. Even rarer in an attacking batsman. Even Gavaskar, for all his compactness, used to fall over his flicks at times, or, get caught in the slip cordon often. Let me give you one example of what I mean. I have never seen Tendulkar move too early to play a shot: I have never seen him being opened up by a delivery. On the other hand, Dravid has been shown up by top bowlers like Wasim Akram (Chennai test, and the entire 1999 series in fact) and Shane Warne (looping it on the leg stump, drawing him forward and beating him with the turn). On the other hand, Sachin has not, so far, displayed any such weakness. (A common criticism of him has been that he has played across many a time and has been bowled or LBW. But that is more a suggestion of intent than one of technique.) He always makes precise movements at the latest possible split second.
"In short, Dravid's technique is about his defensive play, while Sachin's technique is about his shot making ability. But the figures over the last two or three years show that technique is not the only thing that matters. It is all about being in (and maintaining) a frame of mind that facilitates the best expression of your technique."
It looked like both of us seemed seemed to agree on the major points and the point of contention of this discussion was merely our slightly different interpretations of the word "technique". To him, it is "just a means to get to the goal and the goal is scoring runs consistently and in diverse circumstances", while I'd like to think of technique as one's methodology of reacting to a ball and playing it safely and productively, preferring to relate the mental aspect with "temperament".
Whatever you choose to think of technique (and temperament) as, what is most important is that your "technique" (and your temperament) should work for you. The best "technique" (and temperament) is one that helps you bat for long periods and score the most runs possible in a situation.
posted by Dileepan at 3:13 PM
3 comments
