What is the difference between a pull or a hook?
Ram Rectally
always intrigued me. What is the difference between a pull shot and a
hook shot? To me often shots described as one or other seem rather the
same. I do of course know what a hook shot is, and I've probably
played the pull at home in my backyard. In fact I was playing pretty
furiously today, I think I had a few good pulls.
TIA
Cheers,
Ram
Waqas Sheikh
shot, except the intended direction for a pull is in front of square and is
usually played to a ball of short length, yet not bouncer material. The hook
is aimed at shoulder height and above delieveries and is intended to be hit
towards the fine leg region. The difference in the stroke itself is minimal.
But a good example of what I'm saying is the fact that sometimes, when
batsmen play this unusual shot straight back past the bowler (like Saurav
Ganguly does often) it is a pull and never a hook played straight.
"Ram Rectally" <Ram_Re...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a43be74.04011...@posting.google.com...
Cricketislife!
<gtg...@mail.gatech.edu> wrote:
>I hope I'm right in this, but I believe that they are basically the same
>shot, except the intended direction for a pull is in front of square and is
>usually played to a ball of short length, yet not bouncer material. The hook
>is aimed at shoulder height and above delieveries and is intended to be hit
>towards the fine leg region. The difference in the stroke itself is minimal.
>But a good example of what I'm saying is the fact that sometimes, when
>batsmen play this unusual shot straight back past the bowler (like Saurav
>Ganguly does often) it is a pull and never a hook played straight.
Ok Creevey, are u going to reply to this as Ram Rectally or in some
other fancy nick?
R. Bharat Rao
Give it up -- those who got it, didn't respond. Those who didn't, did..
Bharat
Ananda Wijepala
"There is a good deal of argument as to the difference between a hook shot
and a pull shot. I don't propose to try to settle the argument, which is not
really important anyway.
However, my description of a hook applies to a ball delivered with some
speed, pitched short either on the stumps or on the leg side thereof, where
the batsman steps inside the line of flight and hook the ball behind
squire-leg.
The pull shot to me is where the ball is literally pulled off direction from
the stumps or even from the off side of the stumps with a horizontal bat,
mainly front of square-leg.
It is usually executed against slow or medium-pace bowlers. whereas the hook
is mostly played against the fast bowlers."
page(66), The Art of Cricket by: Sir Donald Bradman
--------------------------
Ananda - Who is fascinated by the serenity of the poster: Ram Rectally
Shariq A. Tariq
Ram,
A lot of people say it's essentially the same shot but that the hook
is played against a higher bouncing ball. I tend to agree with this
thought as well.
However, another very important aspect in the difference between these
two strokes/shots is that for the pull the bat stays in contact with
the ball longer - in other words the contact is more solid. Hence, the
batsman has a lot more control over the direction in which the ball is
being played.
For the hook the bat stays in contact with the ball less and the
end-result is more of a scooping action rather than a follow though
that tends to go in the direction where the stroke is played.
I know the physicsists on this forum will wince at this explanation of
mine but I think they will be able to take it from here with a more
scientific explanation
Batting/Physics your thoughts please
Shariq
bigbadja
pull-shot is played beneath the line of the shoulders, preferably rolling
the wrists; the hook is played above this line, and is more difficult to
play safely and downwards.
With the pull-shot the player moves squarely in line with the rising ball.
The Hook is played also square-on, with the head moving inside the line of
flight just prior to contact.
In both shots the arc of the bat should be a slight downwards diagnol, with
the ball skimming down at a shallow angle.
Sir Donald was a wonderful hooker, hitting mostly 4's.
Ian Chappel was a shocking hooker, frequently skying the ball directly into
fine leg, and losing his wicket. He ducked his head as he met the ball.
A good hooker rolls the wrist at contact and skims the ball for 4. A risky
hooker skies hoping for over the boundary.
With shorter boundaries and the pressure to score quickly, many fine batsmen
"play the percentages" and hit from under the ball, going for 6. Gilchrist
and Hayden are 2 that have faired poorly this season and losing their
wickets relatively cheaply quite often to planned bowling tactics.
"Ram Rectally" <Ram_Re...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a43be74.04011...@posting.google.com...
Fran
> The essential difference between the 2 horizontal shots is that the
> pull-shot is played beneath the line of the shoulders, preferably rolling
> the wrists; the hook is played above this line, and is more difficult to
> play safely and downwards.
This is the essential difference --- the batsman attempting to pull
rolls the wrists so that the ball is forced down.
In the hook (just like a physical "hook") no attempt is made to keep
the ball from travelling in the air. The striker typically uses the
bounce and pace of the ball to propel it wide of fielders, and
possible over the fence.
FRAN
Michael Creevey
"Fran" <franb...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95f168b0.04011...@posting.google.com...
> "bigbadja" <bigb...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:<OzEMb.366$A06....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
> > The essential difference between the 2 horizontal shots is that the
> > pull-shot is played beneath the line of the shoulders, preferably
rolling
> > the wrists; the hook is played above this line, and is more difficult to
> > play safely and downwards.
Not true in either case.
>
> This is the essential difference --- the batsman attempting to pull
> rolls the wrists so that the ball is forced down.
No, I don't agree with this either. Not all pull shots involve the rolling
of the wrists, and hook shots are just as often played with a wrist rolling
action. The real difference between a hook and a pull is that the direction
of the bat face in a pull shot is always towards in front of square, whereas
the bat face at contact in a hook shot is facing finer than square leg. It
may seem complicated, but the difference is where the bat is facing, and
nothing else.
>
> In the hook (just like a physical "hook") no attempt is made to keep
> the ball from travelling in the air. The striker typically uses the
> bounce and pace of the ball to propel it wide of fielders, and
> possible over the fence.
>
> FRAN
It is generally harder to hit a hook shot 'straight to ground', but it is
definitely possible to roll one's wrists whilst playing the shot. Greg
Chappell did this beautifully. Not that it is a very safe shot, this is why
Waugh and co. have eliminated it from their repertoire.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Mad Hamish
news:<9a43be74.04011...@posting.google.com>...
>> In my years of keen interest and study in cricket, one question has
>> always intrigued me. What is the difference between a pull shot and a
>> hook shot? To me often shots described as one or other seem rather the
>> same. I do of course know what a hook shot is, and I've probably
>> played the pull at home in my backyard. In fact I was playing pretty
>> furiously today, I think I had a few good pulls.
>>
There's a fair amount of different definitions.
As I recall it Bradman defined the pull as a shot played to a ball at
chest height or below in front of square.
The hook shot is played to a ball around shoulder height and goes
square or behind square.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
Shariq A. Tariq
> Not true in either case.
While I agree that the height of the ball goes a long way in
determining whether a hook or a pull is played, it is possible to pull
a ball that is a foot above your head and it is possible to hook a
ball that is as low as your midsection. The amount/solidness of
contact between bat and ball is IMO the determining criteria between a
pull and a hook. While the pull is more of a dragging motion the hook
is more of a scooping action.
> No, I don't agree with this either. Not all pull shots involve the rolling
> of the wrists, and hook shots are just as often played with a wrist rolling
> action. The real difference between a hook and a pull is that the direction
> of the bat face in a pull shot is always towards in front of square, whereas
> the bat face at contact in a hook shot is facing finer than square leg. It
> may seem complicated, but the difference is where the bat is facing, and
> nothing else.
While I agree that wrists can be rolled for a hook it is not something
that happens as easily because it is easier to create a dragging
motion by rolling your wrists than it is to create a scooping action.
While a hook can be kept relatively low I don't believe a hook can be
played into the ground unless the ball strikes the bottom edge of the
bat; essentially these shots are pulls played to high bouncing balls
IMO an orthodox pull can be played anywhere between midwicket to fine
leg. Hence, I disagree with the notion that the pull is a shot that is
played infornt of square unless ofcourse the ball is taken from
outside off-stump. A shorter ball pitched on or outside the leg stump
is likely to be pulled behind the wickets don't you think?
>
>
> It is generally harder to hit a hook shot 'straight to ground', but it is
> definitely possible to roll one's wrists whilst playing the shot. Greg
> Chappell did this beautifully. Not that it is a very safe shot, this is why
> Waugh and co. have eliminated it from their repertoire.
I agree - the hook is indeed a risky shot as compared to the pull
because the batsman does not have as much control over it in terms of
direction
Shariq
Mark Mattox
re Ian-allinfo --
as a fan, I try follow all info Ian Chappell
just can't figure out what's all that about batsman turning to look at
the sun when walk across the outfield towards the crease...sometimes
called the Ian Chappell habit...hmmm strange.
Fran
> news:95f168b0.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > "bigbadja" <bigb...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<OzEMb.366$A06....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
> > > The essential difference between the 2 horizontal shots is that the
> > > pull-shot is played beneath the line of the shoulders, preferably
> rolling
> > > the wrists; the hook is played above this line, and is more difficult to
> > > play safely and downwards.
>
> Not true in either case.
>
> >
> > This is the essential difference --- the batsman attempting to pull
> > rolls the wrists so that the ball is forced down.
>
> No, I don't agree with this either. Not all pull shots involve the rolling
> of the wrists, and hook shots are just as often played with a wrist rolling
> action. The real difference between a hook and a pull is that the direction
> of the bat face in a pull shot is always towards in front of square, whereas
> the bat face at contact in a hook shot is facing finer than square leg. It
> may seem complicated, but the difference is where the bat is facing, and
> nothing else.
>
> >
Well this was certainly not the message that I got at any of those
endless coaching clinics run by far better credentialled people than
I, that I helped out at with the kids through the 80s and 90s. It was
emphasised that it was the rolling of the wrists to bring the ball to
ground that was key. This made it different from the hook, which was
an attempt to exploit the pace and bounce of the ball, reducing the
need for the striker to apply force to the ball to propel it away from
fielders.
I suppose that while it might be possible, as you suggest below, to
roll the wrists on some deliveries played with a horizontal bat behind
square that bounced quicker and higher than that where a sweep was
being executed, it would be extremely difficult to do with accuracy
all of the time. I quite minor deviation in movement off the pitch, or
in bounce could result in a radically different ball trajectory
post-bat, and since the object of the rolling action would be to get
the ball to ground (robbing it of its pace and thus its ability to
elude fielders) it just doesn't stack up as a sensible option. Why go
to the trouble of getting outside the line of the ball (which takes
time), if not to use its pace when its almost past you?)
Plainly, if you had the skill to execute this stroke for one or two
with safety, you would have the skill to either
a) lift the ball over the boundary behind square somewhere.
b) deflect the ball wide of the keeper with a glance to the fine leg
boundary or play the "Mark Waugh" clip behind square (depending on the
bounce)
c) play an orthodox pull between backward square and midwicket
So it may be that in practice, one always chooses to scoop a hook or
deflect it (depending where the fielders are or the height of the
bouncing delivery) or pull it below shoulder height for most of the
travel.
Bradman certainly had the view that the ball should not be lifted on
the pull. I read somewhere that he went through the entire 1930 tour
of England without hitting a six on the leg side, and was associated
with the idea that if you wanted to avoid being caught, you shouldn't
hit the ball in the air. It may well be that later Australian batting
coaches have been strongly influenced by the view of the most
devastating batsman of his era on what was, after all one of his
signature strokes.
FRAN
Michael Creevey
Yes, rolling the wrists in the act of playing the pull is advisable, but it
is far from being an inherent component of the stroke. One can easily play a
pull shot and take an aerial route; there is no inherent necessity to roll
the wrists. Similarly with the hook; it is difficult to roll the wrists on a
hook shot, but it isn't impossible. It may be generally inadvisable, as you
say, but great players have rolled their wrists while playing the shot. When
it comes to definitions, rolling the wrists doesn't in and of itself
distinguish the 2 shots.
>
> I suppose that while it might be possible, as you suggest below, to
> roll the wrists on some deliveries played with a horizontal bat behind
> square that bounced quicker and higher than that where a sweep was
> being executed, it would be extremely difficult to do with accuracy
> all of the time. I quite minor deviation in movement off the pitch, or
> in bounce could result in a radically different ball trajectory
> post-bat, and since the object of the rolling action would be to get
> the ball to ground (robbing it of its pace and thus its ability to
> elude fielders) it just doesn't stack up as a sensible option. Why go
> to the trouble of getting outside the line of the ball (which takes
> time), if not to use its pace when its almost past you?)
>
> Plainly, if you had the skill to execute this stroke for one or two
> with safety, you would have the skill to either
>
> a) lift the ball over the boundary behind square somewhere.
> b) deflect the ball wide of the keeper with a glance to the fine leg
> boundary or play the "Mark Waugh" clip behind square (depending on the
> bounce)
> c) play an orthodox pull between backward square and midwicket
Not necessarily. Players prefer different shots for different reasons,
technically and mentally. The hook shot is considered a supreme 'macho'
stroke, for 1 thing- often used to cow a fast bowler intent on intimidation.
I feel sure that Bradman rolled his wrists while playing the hook, and I'm
certain that he played it.
>
> So it may be that in practice, one always chooses to scoop a hook or
> deflect it (depending where the fielders are or the height of the
> bouncing delivery) or pull it below shoulder height for most of the
> travel.
>
> Bradman certainly had the view that the ball should not be lifted on
> the pull. I read somewhere that he went through the entire 1930 tour
> of England without hitting a six on the leg side,
Including from hook shots.
and was associated
> with the idea that if you wanted to avoid being caught, you shouldn't
> hit the ball in the air. It may well be that later Australian batting
> coaches have been strongly influenced by the view of the most
> devastating batsman of his era on what was, after all one of his
> signature strokes.
>
> FRAN
Have you watched Ponting play the shot? Have you noticed how often he hits
the ball in the air while playing it? Yes I don't dispute that hitting a
pull shot along the ground is generally better, but it isn't an integral
component of the shot, that's all I'm saying.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Cricketislife!
<eusebius...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>Have you watched Ponting play the shot? Have you noticed how often he hits
>the ball in the air while playing it?
or that classy Aravinda De Silva.
Shariq A. Tariq
<----Snip---->
Fantastic explanation Fran! A lot of modern batsmen tend to execute
the pull from virtually their batting stance - the setup for the shot
advocated by the coaching manual, that IMO was a thing of beauty, has
become much more rare. The increasing poularity of the pull-drive has
further discouraged the need for a proper setup
Shariq
Moby
> just can't figure out what's all that about batsman turning to look at
> the sun when walk across the outfield towards the crease...sometimes
> called the Ian Chappell habit...hmmm strange.
Don't know why it would be called that necesarily, but I do know that
the reason for it is that a dressing room is almost always darker than
the field and by looking at the sky (not the sun), it forces your eyes
to adjust to the brighter surroundings faster.
Moby
Michael Creevey
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:03:04 +1100, "Michael Creevey"
> <eusebius...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >Have you watched Ponting play the shot? Have you noticed how often he hits
> >the ball in the air while playing it?
>
[Typos corrected]