There’s a lot to be said for orthodoxy.
It sets a model of perfection (more on this, later) to aspire to. When things go wrong, reverting to orthodoxy provides a model that is known to work…for some players, at least.
But should we equate “orthodoxy” with “the only way” to play?
Adam Kelly, in a recent blog post, highlighted the success of “unorthodox” sportsmen, and the imperative to play to your own strengths. From Alistair Cook and Marcus Trescothick, by way of Usain Bolt and on to Lionel Messi, who only rarely seems to look up to make a pass when he dribbles the ball.
They all do it “wrong”…but look in the record books.
And any one of them might have been put off by a well-meaning coach who insisted that they get their front foot out to the drive, or get out of the blocks quicker (or don’t even run the sprints).
I don’t think anyone would argue that Messi should have been coached out of his unorthodoxy when still young boy, still less that he be left out of the Barca team until he learns to look up when he has the ball.
Why then insist that young cricketers follow the models in the coaching books IF they get results with a “faulty” technique? Yes, when a faulty technique causes poor performances, or exposes the player to physical risk (the mixed action comes to mind…although even this safety orthodoxy is being challenged). But “perfection” has to be measured by the outcome.
To contradict Bananarama – “it ain’t how you do it, it’s what you do that gets results”
The challenge for the coach, then, is to know when to insist on adherence to the models of perfection. We need to better understand what is currently thought of as unorthodox, so we can support and develop it, rather than stifle it.
The Teesra 