Cricket has evolved dramatically over the years. The arrival of T20 cricket has changed batting philosophies, coaching methods and the way players prepare for matches. Aggression is celebrated, innovative strokes are encouraged, and batters are increasingly expected to score at a rapid pace. Yet, amid all these changes, one fundamental question deserves serious consideration: should a batter’s established batting process be altered to suit different formats?
My answer is a firm no. The approach to a match may change with the format, but the basic batting process should remain intact. A player’s natural rhythm, technique and method of preparation are developed through years of practice. Tampering with them unnecessarily can create problems rather than solve them.
Practice Is the Foundation
Practice is the cornerstone of match performance. Every player develops an individual routine at the nets, a process that becomes ingrained through repetition. Some batters prefer to watch the ball closely, build a defensive foundation and gradually settle into their innings. Others are naturally aggressive, looking to dominate the bowling from the outset.
Neither approach is inherently superior. What matters is that the player understands his game and has confidence in the method that has brought him this far.
A batter’s net routine is personal. It is shaped by his temperament, technique, strengths and experience. Day after day, the routine becomes familiar, allowing him to prepare both mentally and technically for the challenge ahead.
Problems often begin when this established process is disturbed without a compelling reason. A player who has always prepared in a particular way may suddenly be asked to change his approach because a coach believes he must bat more aggressively in T20 cricket or demonstrate greater restraint in the longer format.
That is where coaching needs careful thought. The objective should be to develop a player’s capabilities, not to make him abandon the foundations of his game.
Carry Your Nets into the Middle
In my experience, one of the simplest ways to approach batting in a match is to carry the confidence and rhythm developed during net practice into the middle. A batter should not feel that he has to become an entirely different player merely because he is facing a match situation.
Of course, match conditions are different. The quality of the opposition, the state of the pitch, the scoreboard, the match situation and the pressure of the occasion all influence decision-making. As an innings progresses, a batter may need to adapt his tempo, choose his scoring opportunities more carefully or take calculated risks.
But adaptation should be an extension of a sound batting process, not a rejection of it.
A player who has spent years developing a reliable defensive base should not be compelled to discard it in the name of modern attacking cricket. Similarly, an instinctively aggressive batter should not be unnecessarily restrained when his natural game is serving the team well.
Throwdowns Are Not Net Practice
Throwdowns have become a familiar feature of modern cricket training. They can be useful, particularly when a player wants to work on a specific stroke, improve his response to a particular line or length, or correct a technical problem.
However, throwdowns and regular net practice serve different purposes. They should not automatically be treated as interchangeable activities.
In earlier eras, specialised individual practice was generally reserved for particular needs or for a select group of players. Today, throwdowns are widely used as an additional training method. Their usefulness is undeniable when applied with a clear objective.
The distinction, however, must remain clear. A player should not allow a session designed to rehearse a particular shot to disrupt the routine through which he normally prepares for batting against a bowler.
Throwdowns should supplement the established process, not replace it. If a specific weakness has been identified, targeted practice can help address it. But adding drills for the sake of adding drills does not necessarily make a batter better.
Different Formats, Different Demands
The argument that batters must attack in T20 cricket but survive and prosper in Test cricket sounds perfectly reasonable. The formats do impose different demands. The mistake is to assume that these demands require completely different batting foundations.
Consider the numbers. A T20 innings consists of a maximum of 120 legal deliveries for a team. At an average scoring rate of 1.5 runs per ball, the total would be 180. At two runs per ball, it would reach 240—a substantially more demanding scoring rate, even in an era of powerful bats and innovative stroke play.
In a 50-over match, a team has 300 legal deliveries. An average of one run per ball produces 300 runs, while a lower scoring rate can still yield a competitive total depending on the pitch, opposition and match circumstances.
Test cricket presents a different challenge altogether. A batter may need to negotiate difficult spells, preserve his wicket, build partnerships and score over several sessions. An innings of 100 runs from 130 balls represents a brisk scoring rate in many Test situations, but there are occasions when patience matters more than speed.
These examples illustrate the different scoring possibilities and demands of each format. They do not, however, justify forcing every batter into a predetermined style.
Why Hurry a Batter at the Nets?
This brings me to the question I would like coaches to consider: why hurry a player during net practice?
If the objective is to prepare a batter for a match, should the emphasis not be on sound technique, timing, balance, shot selection and confidence? Why should a batter be judged by the number of attacking strokes he plays during practice rather than by the quality and purpose of his preparation?
There is certainly room for experimentation. Players must learn new strokes, improve their range and develop the ability to accelerate when required. Young batters, in particular, should be encouraged to expand their options without losing sight of their strengths.
But there is a difference between developing a player and manufacturing a player to fit a fashionable template.
My coaching philosophy is straightforward: understand the batter first, identify the genuine weaknesses in his game, and then work on them without disturbing what already works. Let the format dictate the match strategy, but do not allow it to dictate an unnecessary change in the batter’s natural process.
Modern cricket may demand innovation, adaptability and greater scoring power. Yet the fundamentals remain timeless. A batter who trusts his preparation, understands his strengths and knows when to defend or attack is better equipped to meet the demands of any format.
The coach’s job is not to hurry the batter. It is to help him become the best version of himself.
