Steve Smith: The Unorthodox Technique That Delivers a World-Class Average
Steve Smith's unorthodox yet highly effective Test batting technique — how his unusual backlift, trigger movement, and self-taught method produces one of Test cricket's best averages, his comeback from the ball-tampering ban, and how he maintains world-class standards.
Steve Smith is among the finest Test batters of his generation — a right-hander whose technique, when analysed through conventional coaching frameworks, appears almost improvised, yet which has produced a Test average above 59 (second only to Don Bradman among players with 50+ Tests) and a series of extraordinary performances against the best bowling attacks in the world. His technical unorthodoxy, his response to the 2018 ball-tampering ban, and his sustained excellence into his mid-30s make him one of cricket's most interesting contemporary case studies.
The Technique: Why It Looks Wrong and Works
Steve Smith's batting technique departs from textbook coaching orthodoxy in several visible ways. His backlift is not straight; it frequently points toward gully rather than toward fine leg as most coaching manuals prescribe. He uses a significant trigger movement — moving slightly toward leg before the ball arrives — which positions him to hit through the off side but potentially creates vulnerability to deliveries that are full and straight. His hands move late in the shot, creating an apparent last-moment adjustment that looks improvised but is actually highly trained muscle memory. His footwork patterns are constantly moving, creating a never-still appearance at the crease. Coaches who have worked with him describe his method as entirely his own — built through repetition and refinement of what worked for him specifically, rather than through adherence to a standard model.
The 2018 Ball-Tampering Ban and Return
The Cape Town ball-tampering scandal in March 2018 resulted in Smith serving a 12-month international ban and a 2-year ban from leadership positions. The year away from international cricket was both professionally damaging — lost earnings, missed matches, a broken run of form development — and personally difficult. His press conference apology, in which he was visibly distressed, was widely seen as genuine. He spent the ban year playing domestic cricket in the US (IPL), working on his game, and regaining fitness. His return to Test cricket at Edgbaston in the 2019 Ashes was one of the most anticipated comebacks in modern cricket: he scored 144 in the first innings and 142 in the second, arguably the most dominant single-Test performance in the Ashes in modern history, demonstrating that neither the ban nor the year away had diminished his remarkable technical quality.
Maintaining World-Class Standards
Into his mid-30s, Smith has maintained a Test average above 55 despite bowling attacks having analysed his technique extensively and developed specific plans targeting his trigger movement and backlift angle — most prominently Jofra Archer's short-pitched plan in the 2019 Ashes and England's broader approach in subsequent series. His adaptations — modifying his initial movement, developing better responses to high short-pitched deliveries — demonstrate the mental flexibility that underlies technical unorthodoxy. Smith's longevity at elite level is partly physical (he takes exceptional care of his fitness and preparation) and partly cognitive: he processes bowling plans more quickly than most batters and adjusts within and between innings in ways that coaches describe as unusually sophisticated.
Frequently asked questions
Is Steve Smith's batting technique something that should be taught to aspiring cricketers, or is it a unique individual solution that would be harmful to replicate?
Steve Smith's specific batting technique should not be directly taught to aspiring cricketers — but the principles that underlie his success contain genuinely instructive lessons that coaches working with talented young players should understand. Why not to directly copy: Smith's technique works because it is calibrated to his specific physical attributes, his exceptional hand-eye coordination, and years of muscle memory built around that particular movement pattern. A 14-year-old attempting to copy his backlift toward gully, his trigger movement, and his late hand adjustments would be building movement patterns that might work for Smith but are unlikely to work for a batter with different reflexes, different physical proportions, and different muscle memory. Teaching unorthodox technique based on one elite example creates more confusion than clarity for developing players. What should be taught: the lesson from Smith is that effective batting technique is defined by outcomes (hitting the ball where you intend, when you intend, at the level of the incoming delivery) rather than by visual conformity to a textbook model. A batter who hits the ball consistently, balances effectively at the point of contact, and has a repeatable method of reaching that contact point is using 'correct' technique regardless of what their backlift looks like. Coaches who over-prioritise visual orthodoxy over functional effectiveness risk preventing players from developing their own versions of effective method. The broader principle: coaching organisations have moved increasingly toward 'constraint-based' approaches that encourage players to discover their own effective movement patterns through problem-solving, rather than imposing a single model. Smith is the most dramatic example of why: the orthodox model would have 'corrected' his backlift and potentially destroyed what makes him exceptional. His success is an argument for individualised technique development. Conclusion: don't copy Smith; understand why his technique works for him (control at contact point, consistent footwork patterns, exceptional hand-eye calibration) and let young players develop their own ways of achieving those outcomes.