Really interesting post. I've played a lot of both sports, albeit at a very moderate level for the most part, and have often thought about this topic. One thing that might be worth considering is that the nature of hockey as a sport, and therefore the nature of the skills required, has changed quite a bit over the years due to changes in the playing surfaces and the rules. I don't think the fundamental nature of cricket has changed with time in the same way.
When I started playing hockey as an under-10 in the late 90's effectively all my hockey was on very flat, dead-bouncing sand-based astroturfs. This meant the sport was played largely, although not entirely, in two dimensions. If you wanted to stop the ball it almost always made sense to do so with a flat stick as even bouncing balls would roll after only one or two bounces and playing flat increased margin for error most of the time. I tend to think the relevance of this to cricket was quite low. Older players, who grew up on grass pitches, played much more upright as on grass, in the UK winter at least, the situation was effectively reversed and a ball played flat could bobble at any moment, necessitating constant consideration of movement in three dimensions. Those players also tended not to sweep in the way I do (stick flat on the pitch, almost all power from the wrists) as that sort of method didn't work well when the ball could behave unpredictably on the surface. Instead they would push and strike with much more vertical stick behind the ball. I do think there might have been good cricket-to-hockey transferability here.
When I got a bit older water-based pitches became more common, and had always been in use at higher level I believe. These bounce, meaning you very often have to control the ball with a vertical stick, although they're usually predictable so the sweep hit is still perfectly useable. I adapted relatively easily which I attributed, without evidence, to my cricket- clearly a mostly vertical sport as far as implement orientation goes.
More generally I would say that hockey, particularly on bouncy surfaces, might bear more relation to defensive cricket shots as you have to control balls coming to you at high speed. However as far as attacking shots go in hockey you very rarely try to add impetus to a ball that is moving at any speed relative to yourself, except when deflecting the ball, and this is generally done with a flat stick, somewhat analogous to a cut shot but without much consideration for height. While I suppose muscle memory might make the cricket and hockey sweep look similar in some ways (although they actually go in different directions relative to the body, hockey sweeps mostly go in the direction the shoulders are pointing rather than perpendicular to them) I do tend to think that difference between hitting a near-stationary ball and a moving ball is quite significant.
One specific area with a lot of commonality is the left-post defender for penalty corners. The ball can be drag-flicked at you at 70 mph+ anywhere from on the ground to above head height and you have to stop it going in the goal. You see everything from forward blocks to uppercuts to full blooded hook shots employed.
Thank you very much for this comment, Tom. It adds insight in areas that I had never considered, and gives me more content to work on.
Without your feedback, it is highly likely that I would have made a sweeping generalization of things in the next article that I have in mind on the benefits of early diversification.
Really interesting post. I've played a lot of both sports, albeit at a very moderate level for the most part, and have often thought about this topic. One thing that might be worth considering is that the nature of hockey as a sport, and therefore the nature of the skills required, has changed quite a bit over the years due to changes in the playing surfaces and the rules. I don't think the fundamental nature of cricket has changed with time in the same way.
When I started playing hockey as an under-10 in the late 90's effectively all my hockey was on very flat, dead-bouncing sand-based astroturfs. This meant the sport was played largely, although not entirely, in two dimensions. If you wanted to stop the ball it almost always made sense to do so with a flat stick as even bouncing balls would roll after only one or two bounces and playing flat increased margin for error most of the time. I tend to think the relevance of this to cricket was quite low. Older players, who grew up on grass pitches, played much more upright as on grass, in the UK winter at least, the situation was effectively reversed and a ball played flat could bobble at any moment, necessitating constant consideration of movement in three dimensions. Those players also tended not to sweep in the way I do (stick flat on the pitch, almost all power from the wrists) as that sort of method didn't work well when the ball could behave unpredictably on the surface. Instead they would push and strike with much more vertical stick behind the ball. I do think there might have been good cricket-to-hockey transferability here.
When I got a bit older water-based pitches became more common, and had always been in use at higher level I believe. These bounce, meaning you very often have to control the ball with a vertical stick, although they're usually predictable so the sweep hit is still perfectly useable. I adapted relatively easily which I attributed, without evidence, to my cricket- clearly a mostly vertical sport as far as implement orientation goes.
More generally I would say that hockey, particularly on bouncy surfaces, might bear more relation to defensive cricket shots as you have to control balls coming to you at high speed. However as far as attacking shots go in hockey you very rarely try to add impetus to a ball that is moving at any speed relative to yourself, except when deflecting the ball, and this is generally done with a flat stick, somewhat analogous to a cut shot but without much consideration for height. While I suppose muscle memory might make the cricket and hockey sweep look similar in some ways (although they actually go in different directions relative to the body, hockey sweeps mostly go in the direction the shoulders are pointing rather than perpendicular to them) I do tend to think that difference between hitting a near-stationary ball and a moving ball is quite significant.
One specific area with a lot of commonality is the left-post defender for penalty corners. The ball can be drag-flicked at you at 70 mph+ anywhere from on the ground to above head height and you have to stop it going in the goal. You see everything from forward blocks to uppercuts to full blooded hook shots employed.
Thank you very much for this comment, Tom. It adds insight in areas that I had never considered, and gives me more content to work on.
Without your feedback, it is highly likely that I would have made a sweeping generalization of things in the next article that I have in mind on the benefits of early diversification.