Modern cricket has almost torn up the coaching book.

The ECB, the governing body of English cricket, have drastically reduced the amount potential coaches need to learn about technique replacing time on the 'learning to coach' courses with fitness, psychology and conceptual elements. Twenty20 cricket has some improved and some unorthodox methods in all disciplines. Many coaches, like Greg Chappell, argue strongly that players learn by working things out for themselves, not by being told by a coach.

So how does a coach or player trying to improve know what to work on any more?

Should you just go out and play with freedom, not worrying about the minor point of technique? Perhaps you should work to become as technically 'perfect' as you can be to give yourself the confidence in the middle?

A lot of it boils down to opinion. We can't measure mental strength or confidence. Good coaches can tell you what elements of your technique are poor, but bad coaches are like builders with only a hammer in their toolbox: everything becomes a nail. There is no objective measurement here either.

The truth is that both technique and the mental game are very closely interlinked. If you want to succeed you can't have one or the other: You need both. The question is, how much of each is enough?

A lot of people are worried about falling into the trap of overcomplicating things. Cricket skills are performed at pace on a subconscious level. Thinking about where your wrist is, or elbow goes is counter-productive.

It may ring true with you about the coach at the top of the net barking at you to keep your elbow up or pitch the ball up when you drop one short. That is the kind of coaching that causes players to freeze and think too much about what they are doing wrong. It doesn't work.

But a good coach (or player) who has identified a real technical issue then works hard to get it out is not overanalysing, it's teaching the right muscle memory to play the shot or bowl the ball correctly.

When you can do that time and time again in practice, you can head out to the middle trusting your technique and feeling more confident.

The problem with just playing and working it out for yourself is that technical errors can creep in to your game making you less effective. Club cricketers all over the world are making glaring technical mistakes that are simple to solve and can improve their game no end.

But free play is also fun. It teaches you to bat and bowl without worrying about the consequences and you teach yourself how things feel when you get them right rather than relying on a coach who may or may not be doing a good job.

For younger players especially, playing outside of formal coaching may be the only time they experience situations similar to a real match. When I was younger we used to play cricket in our small garden. The pitch was bad (it was a lawn) but halfway down was an old paving slab we used to bowl bouncers. The ball would fly off the slab at our heads at a much greater pace. It taught me to pick up the ball early and move late as we played with a real cricket ball.

For me, it's important to find a balance between technical work and playing for enjoyment. As long as both are done right they have a role for any player. Younger players will enjoy the free play more as they have less concentration for drill work. Older players can drill for longer but still need to learn to go out and play without fear: Free play teaches that.

Both can also go wrong if done badly, especially the technical coaching side. Many coaching sessions for club teams consist of a net and nothing more. This is neither free play (a net is not realistic enough) or technical work (how can you work on your cover drive if all you get is leg stump long hops?).

So as long as you don't fall into some weak compromise you can easily do both. Even if you don't have a coach you can still do technical work. You just need to know what to look for in someone's technique then apply the right drill progressions (something you can learn in the PitchVision Academy courses section).

Where do you stand? How important is technique compared to playing with freedom?