Cricket is a game of conventions. That's one of it's strengths. It's also one of it's weaknesses.

Things we have always considered to be correct and true are turning out to be less than universal. The world is changing fast. For a sport that is hundreds of years old and steeped in tradition, that's not always comfortable.

One of the biggest culprits is proper technique. Methods outlined in the 1950's are still held up as the right way to play without question: Ian Bell and Rahul Dravid are so stylish because they are so correct. Any deviation from the one true path is abnormal and needs to be corrected.

That's what we used to think. Me included.

Nowadays I have a fresh position. While I agree that it's vital to know what "normal" looks like, it's crucial we realise that "abnormal" isn't always wrong or in need of correction.

People are different in many ways, from build to personality and upbringing. Each factor contributes to a slight deviation from the best practice. That's why unorthodox players are able to thrive; they have found a method that works for their circumstance. They have their own orthodoxy.

Of course, this doesn't mean we should all go about learning how to play in a vacuum with no coaching advice.

The job of the coach is to provide options for the player to try. The job of the player is to assess different methods until they find what works for them. It might be that you end up just like Dravid with a technique straight from the MCC manual. It might be that you are closer to Chanderpaul, or Smith, or Bradman (yes, the great man was unorthodox). It might be you cut a path that is totally new.

So seek out orthodox coaching and try it out, but also try out other ways to bat or bowl or field that might be better. There is plenty of cutting-edge stuff available and there has never been a better time to find this information thanks to the power of the internet.

That's more complex and messy than just copying from the book, but it's also a heck of a lot more effective.