“At Least 90% of Cricket Batsman Never Reach Their Full Potential”

This is one highly provocative statement that I found in one of the Wisden related blogs; one, I presume, would stand true to most modern batsmen, barring the genius breeds - Bradman, Sobers, Lara, Tendulkar, Richards, Ponting and so on.

I don't quite agree with the percentage ratio in that argument, but there is a certain poignancy to it that evades the common law of averages, cold statistics and dumb analysis. It gives you a fact and invites you to mull over it deeply; instead of piling on the numbers, in cold.

What separates good batsmen from the greats? Is it just the sheer natural talent or is there a hidden magic trick too?

Some say, greats are greats because they are born that way and others, say, its the temperament that keeps them at bay from the merely good ones.

Temperament? Hell, yeah!

Temperament is a culmination of a person's behavioral patterns but when you attribute that term in Cricketing terminology; it whittles down to a more precise phrase called "ability to handle pressure."

I think the most common attribute that separates mere good players to that of excellent/near greats, is just that. The ability to think clearly. To avoid distraction, eliminate sub-vocalization and play the game in its purest, most holistic of forms - just see the ball, hit the ball.

For decades, they conducted research on why Don Bradman was a batting immortal while often winding up with all but threadbare results. Sure Bradman, like Jack Hobbs or Sydney barnes, comes across an alien like figure to most of us in today's times but what amazes me is that even his Australian cohorts couldn't decipher Bradman's core keys to success during his heyday!

In fact, their judgment was rather technical and subjective but not logical and objective.

His feet movement was immaculate, some said. Surely he had a better eye-sight. He could judge the length of the ball better than anybody else. He had all the shots in the book. He had the gift of timing. He was confident, arrogant, a wee bit egotistical. He could play fearless, attacking cricket. This, that. What is that? The presence of a clear mind, operating in meditative harmony.

Very often we hear cricketers say "I was seeing the ball clearly. I was in the zone."

When your feet movement, your hand-eye-coordination, your judgment of length, your improvisation, presence of mind all jell together in a cohesive manner - You are in Britney Spears territory my friend. Rock n' Roll, IN THE ZONE!

Suffice to say, its only 5-10% in a whole career that one would feel completely "In the Zone." Why? Let me explain.

What hinders many, while playing high pressure matches is the challenge of the bowler and the bowling conditions. Many bowls whistle past you in a jiffy like the mud-spurts in a battlefield, and the hardest moment in Cricket IMO, is to get over the waiting period between the bowler's run-up and actual delivery. Whenever I played the game for fun-sake, that slight period gave me some serious chills down the spine.

Whether or not you judge the length of the bowl well enough and time the stroke to a nicety, depends on how calm and idle you can remain in the crease during that bottleneck period. You can afford to master your technique as much as you want, but if your instincts cheat you, you would get out 9 times out of 10 .

You are in a constant process of sub-vocalizing in between overs but especially in between bowling strides or run-ups, this mind reading thing is at-least 40% higher. You are either worried about the bowler's talent or the last bowl being bowled or drooling over the next prospective "Doosra."

What would the next ball be? That thought encroaches your mind like an irritating bug. Sure it applies to bowlers too but not to the extent of batsmen. Because Batsmen's periphery is scattered all over but bowler only has to concentrate on the corridor of uncertainty. If one ball goes for a boundary, there is always a second chance. Unless a no-ball or a "DRS" comes to his rescue, batsmen won't get a second chance to bat.

Think about it? One person decides to walk the side-screen and all your concentration would break down in seconds not minutes! In that case, the rocket-sperm wouldn't actually go to the exact golf-course as you aimed it to be. It might just hit the bootstraps of the bowler and bounce back in the same arsenal.

One modern batsman who was a master at minimizing this subvocal process, is believe it or not, Virender Sehwag of India.

When Sehwag got out during a test match in 2002, playing a rash stroke; John Wright, the then India coach grabbed his collar and gave him one of those "WTF" or "WTH" impressions. The Indian right hander's reply is etched in Cricket's "funbible" ever since - "Watch me in the next innings Coach" - giving an inclination as to how he perceived the game of cricket.

That's how confident Sehwag was. Sure, age has caught up with him in time, but while and then Sehwag was playing the game clearly he certainly was no statistician's bunny.

He doesn't fear the reputation of the bowler, all he saw was the next bowl. As Ian Chappell described him in his wonderful cricinfo videolog "The Classic, See ball-hit ball batsman."

Sub-vocalizing is an impeding bug and the more quickly you can minimize it, the better chances you have to survive and succeed in the game for a longevity.

How to do it then? PRACTICE. There are no pills, but practice.

Bradman was brought up in New South Wales, where much of his cricketing infancy was spent playing out by the back of the house, on his own, hitting a golf ball against a water tank with a single stump.

Malinga tamed the reverse-swinging yorker by aiming at the base of middle stump, whenever he rolled an arm over during practice.

Tendulkar put a coin on his stumps and spent hours and hours of break-neck cricket back in the Saradashram schooling days, 1980's.

Cricket is 40% science, 50% art and 10% luck. If science and art is mastered well enough, then the luck part would naturally follow. The basic science is what lays the foundation for all batsman, and ironically enough, that's where most players stumble apart.

Coaching might help but spending hours on the critics and video analysis might not be a good idea always.

I'm amazed how many people talk like "Batting scientists" and explain technique and stuff while omitting the most enemy in any sport - the jinx of the mind!

If all the so-called experts could replicate what they talk, then we might as well play a celibrity cricket league, in zero gravity out there in space. If not? Then its all the better for it.

They talk day-night cricket at the moment. Well, at least it eliminates the person who crosses the side-screen and do dumb things. At least.