What IS Natural Talent?

It's always a curious thing when coaches and commentators talk about "natural talent". 

When someone does well they appear to have natural talent, according to experts and when they break records, do something exceptional or remain highly consistent, it is revered as natural ability.

But the truth is, if we do things over and over again this is what becomes natural. And that means you can change it.

Coaching (or teaching) can help you alter how you do things. If you are a batsman and continually get LBW for example, as with Shane Watson, the way you bat can be improved. In his case, a trigger, pre-delivery movement, would dramatically help. But this wouldn't be natural for him to attempt without grooving it over and over - until it felt natural. At this point, we would say that he had a natural style of batting, even though he had learned it.

Brett Lee suffered a stress fracture due to his 'natural' bowling action. So he changed it into what we see today. To us this looks natural and most commentators say this is a gift for him and 'how he bowls' even though he learned it.

There is a confusion over what is natural and the aptitude as humans we have to do something easily. Humans are pre-disposed with different assets that make running, throwing, jumping or hitting a ball, more likely. However, something is only natural if it has been nurtured, developed and learned. 

This is the most important thing to remember - apart from instinct we are all born with, all things in our life are learned experiences. It doesn't mean that all humans can do the same things equally well. It simply means that we are a product of what we have been taught, shared and absorbed.

Those who do exceptionally well as a cricketer clearly perform the most important tasks better than others. Whether this is physical, mental or tactical, those world class performers all share a similar group of 'assets'. There is a capacity to perform that others may not be able to show. 

Whether this is natural talent, for me, is highly unlikely. 

All tall people cannot be fast bowlers. All people with great reflexes and concentration cannot be great batsmen. So what is the 'gift' that people have that makes them exceptional?

Whatever you do more often than not, becomes natural, feels natural and looks natural. Being taught the right things is the main part of what appears to be natural, gifted talent. 

So is there a difference between what is natural and what is natural talent? It is just predisposition that differs, but the common denominator is always what has been learned.

And that comes down to coaching in the end, appropriate to the person receiving it. 

The Game Is In The Player's Hands

Stuart Broad's non-walk, when he hit the cover off the ball in the 1st Ashes Test at Trent Bridge has caused some controversy. 

Ex-players, current team mates and Anglophiles generally, have used the "he isn't the only one to cheat' defence... as if that is any type of defence against cheating.

It does seem unfair to focus exclusively on Broad here, which is maybe what those who seek to defend cheating allude to. Broad isn't the first (and will not be the last) to stand there when he knows he is out and cheats the umpire and the opposition by not walking off. The additional defence "That is the umpire's job" isn't really the point at play here.

Cricket is having a tough time of match and spot fixing right now. The game is suffering from those who choose the cheat and manipulate parts of the match. Players are suspected of cheating by scratching the cricket ball to affect it's condition so reverse swing can be achieved. There are those who deliberately go out to cheat, and there are those who simply cheat in the heat of the moment - such as claiming a catch when they knew it didn't carry.

It seems to be that players are now absolving themselves from any responsibility in cricket by leaving it all up the umpires, TV cameras or whether they 'get caught' doing something they shouldn't.

Cricket is under the severest of scrutiny. 

There is a simple way to assist with this. The answer is not to cheat. 

Playing in a recent match, one of out fielders took a perfectly good diving forward catch at cover point, inches from the turf. the local umpire said he couldn't see if it was taken cleanly, and the square leg umpire didn't see. So the batsman, who was half walking off, stood there and was given not out. The fielder could have been asked "did you catch that cleanly?" by the batsman, who would have accepted the catch as fair and walked off.

To those grandees of the game defending cheating I say this: it will only stop if there is a consequence of KNOWINGLY cheating. The shame of it is that punishments would have to be threatened in the first place - as you would think that any player wouldn't con another, or a whole team, or even a whole match, to start with.

Manipulating parts of the game to affect the outcome by cheating, would be a very good place to start a deterrent. Whatever has gone before is not a defence. It is how the game is played moving forward.

Just as with diving in football, cheating in cricket is an unacceptable face of the game that should be brought to book in some way.

Because if the players are not going to protect the integrity of their sport, if they are not going to speak up and say it is not right to cheat, and if those around the game think it is acceptable to cheat because others do, then like with match fixing and ball tampering, it will become 'part of the game' that is accepted.

Players and coaches hold the key. It isn't about the umpires on such morality.