over thinking or under thinking

I read a Linkedin post recently promoting discussion on average cricket ground scores to help players approach their batting and bowling when playing matches on differing grounds.

I think it would be a fascinating and extremely insightful study. Incredibly complex, but potentially something that could help players enormously – as long as they listen and apply the approach that falls in line with the results offered.

Cricket attracts a vast array of characters, although I will now simplify into two groups, over-thinkers and under-thinkers. As a coach I have spent time helping over-thinkers learn to relax and complicate the game less and under-thinkers learn to seek clarity for their actions and learn more about the complexities demanded within the game. There is obviously a middle ground group who manage to combine both and apply their mindset without allowing their thoughts to become too cluttered.

I was an over-thinker too often and had to learn to step back and relax more. My over-thinking helped me understand the game pretty well but it came with many other problems.

There is a strong criticism attributed to many cricketers in the modern game in that when confronted with information / plans / criticism, the response will too often be “it’s how I play”. Maybe the response is too close to any dismissal for it to be valuable enough feedback though…

Harry Brooks brilliant innings in the final test v India in 2025 at The Oval was over-shadowed by his dismissal when the game was all but in Englands hands. His dismissal led to a collapse and an England loss, a series drawn instead of won.

Quite rightly Harry Brook defended his dismissal (it was a poor one, but in line with the positive approach of his innings as a whole) and pointed out that his approach until that point had placed England in a winning position. Had he not played in that manner, perhaps England would have been beaten more heavily. The other school of thought would be, once he had achieved such a strong position in the game for his team, could he have adapted and restrained his approach to ensure the win was achieved.

The difficulty for a batter is that when you are in a mode of style that is working, you aren’t thinking about failure and I am fairly certain failure would not have entered Harry Brooks head. Should it though, subconsciously? I learned that the sense of ‘getting out’ had to hurt before it happened, not after. It didn’t change how I played because the game in front of me provided the information for me to apply my approach. It did help me balance risk and reward more clearly though. It is something (among with a few others) I wish I had learned earlier in my playing days though…   

As always, criticism from the outside is easy. Having said that, I have a sneaky feeling that if Harry Brook finds himself in a similar situation in the future, he may well draw on the memory of the Oval 2025. It’s how we learn if we are willing to.

So, I return to the study. Whatever information is gathered, players have to be open to understanding that information. The over-thinkers will lap it up, the under-thinkers may tap away at their phones and the player that ‘sees with clarity’ will pick out key aspects that they can make work for their game. 

I like stats and I dislike stats. There are so many and applying all of them becomes enormously complicated. We all like to cherry pick our stats, more often to prove we are right when things go wrong than any long term achievements.

I dislike the dot ball stats, albeit the dot ball is very relevant. The focus on dot balls is always delivered in a negative manner, with fear attached to the dot ball, rather than releasing fear around the occurrence. As a batter, I Had zero fear of the dot ball because I backed myself to score runs off of enough deliveries to negate any concerns around not scoring off of one ball or a series of balls. This knowledge came with experience, trial and error in matches – the best place for true clarity of learning.

Players are being encouraged to score more quickly than ever, with absolutely no consideration taken to the average score of a ground they are playing at. From ball #1 they will approach the game in the manner of ‘it’s how I play’. It won’t matter who the bowler is or the field setting. I witnessed a batter in The Hundred this week caught deep square leg from the first ball of the match. There were another 99 balls he could have worked with. Justifying that dismissal is hard for me to fathom. But then again, I guess it’s how he plays and on other occasions it clearly works.

Young players especially are being encouraged to fit a ‘certain style’ the game is now demanding. This ‘certain style’ only fits a ‘certain’ type of player and yet everyone has to be moulded into this template – character / emotion / skills. Anyone that doesn’t fit is wrong. The wrong character, possess the wrong emotions to deal with the excessive failure they are experiencing following a plan that doesn’t suit them and not being able to apply the skills demanded of them for a multitude of reason – far too many to list here!

Players are not learning what their own game is because they are trying to be the player the coach wants them to be. The scrapheap has always been full, yet its being filled up sooner than ever because there appears to be just one type of player required.

And yet, if we look around the county red ball scores (when these games are played) we will see players that could fit any era scoring runs heavily. Players that will lap up ground scoring stats because they will bat time, bat phases, work through game passages and ‘sit on bowlers’ who are bowling well.

These players will naturally consider weather conditions that might help bowlers, they will assess the pitch conditions and adapt their stroke play options to certain types of bowlers. They will look at the ground dynamics for easier scoring areas and they will pay attention to field placements and gaps. These players are clever, reliable cricketers.

My worry is, are they being sought within the development world and are enough coaches training young players necessary skills for red ball cricket? It is still a relevant form of the game.

Returning to the ground average study and working with information.

As a coach I worked with two teams in particular where I banned the first ten over power play. It wasn’t stats loaded. What it was, was a visual feedback that many negatives were occurring:

-         Too many early wickets irrespective of runs scored

-         Teams scrabbling to finish their allotted overs

-         Best players out too early

-         Lack of depth in teams to justify the loss of early wickets

-         Poor results

I spoke to a team recently who are struggling to stay in their league. They have adopted a plan this season to bat their best players in the middle order. There is reasonable reason and a case for the decision. However, none of these players are in a position now to maximise and control any game from the start of either innings, limiting their true potential. A serious case of ‘over-thinking’ going on!

My power play decision was based on the simple theory that no game is won in the first ten overs and the majority will be decided within the last ten. I felt we a) needed some of our best players to learn the value of being engaged in the match when it truly counts and b) it’s remarkable how many games you win if you bat all of your overs. I did research an entire seasons stats to take how successful batting all of your overs is and it is overwhelmingly positive.

In both cases the teams performed well. One team reached a final that no team from their status had ever achieved before, sadly, falling foul of the second power play and being 20 runs short of setting a winning total. Oddly, whilst the team batted their allocated overs every match of that season, they never posted a score out of sight of the opposition, yet clearly achieved par or better enough to win those games. The second team went from relegation threatened to winning the league multiple times over the following seasons.

Not only do teams learn the power of batting your allocated deliveries will almost always achieve par or better, they also learn how to compile an innings which supports run chase management.  

Both teams adhered to two simple goals, 1. Ignore the first ten over power play and 2. Bat all of your overs to have a chance. Or more simply, 1. Bat and build ie. "get in", 2. Be in a position to push hard at the end.

What this approach organically addressed is the need to understand each game and the demands of the player within each game. It did not scientifically address what the average score for each ground was, irrespective of weight of content to achieve this study outcome. It stopped the players from just doing what they wanted to do and requested them to do what the game required them to do. There is a huge difference.

Play the game in front of you, rather than the one in your head.

I think the study idea is brilliant and would welcome it. Oddly, no matter how far the game has moved over the last thirty years, I think batters thirty years or more ago would relish the information and what support it could offer them to add another level of planning to their innings.

Maybe many players were doing this naturally anyway? It’s great that players are being positive. It’s even greater when players combine that positivity with clear thinking.

Any study that can provide players more information to help them ‘think smart’ has to be worth pursuing.