Is talent more important than technique ??

[Matt79]

One definition of talent can = getting away with risks that others can't

 

[Richard]

Well, yeah - another: being able to pick-up a really, really heavy cricket bat.

There are 1,000,001 things you could define talent as.

 

[Matt79]

I'd say the suggestion I just made was the most apt in the context of Irfan's question however...

 

[Richard]

Oh, that was the most relative thing to what he was saying, very probably indeed, but as I say - I do think Mr. pathan could do a bit better with his initial question.

 

[Prince EWS]

So talent = taking risks?

Whether it's correct terminology or not, it's what I interpreted the OP to mean - and I was correct, evidently.

And it's not about taking risks per say - it's more to do with the risk element involved in each shot played. The "talented" ones don't consciously take more risks - their shots are just more inheriantly risky due to less-than-perfect techniques for them.

As far as the point of the thread goes...
Talent = range of strokeplay that a batsman posesses
Technique = risk involved in playing the shots at a batsman's disposal

Which really isn't correct, but is quite obviously what irfan meant.

 

[Barney Rubble]

On a personal level, I know if the game was more about technique than talent then I'd never have scored any runs. I have a good eye for the ball and can play a decent array of shots, which is why I've had the very limited success I have done. Technique-wise, I'm useless.

 

[Richard]

Whether it's correct terminology or not, it's what I interpreted the OP to mean - and I was correct, evidently.

And it's not about taking risks per say - it's more to do with the risk element involved in each shot played. The "talented" ones don't consciously take more risks - their shots are just more inheriantly risky due to less-than-perfect techniques for them.

As far as the point of the thread goes...
Talent = range of strokeplay that a batsman posesses
Technique = risk involved in playing the shots at a batsman's disposal

Which really isn't correct, but is quite obviously what irfan meant.

Well - it was obvious to some, not to me.

Range of strokeplay, I maintain, would have been a better phrase for irfan.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well - it was obvious to some, not to me.

Range of strokeplay, I maintain, would have been a better phrase for irfan.

Agreed.

I'll admit it wasn't obsess at first, but once I guessed and then he confirmed my post to be correct, I thought it pretty obvious afterwards..

 

[Sandman]

In ODIs, whoever consistently scores more runs whether it be talent, technique or luck. A talented player can be taught technique, but you can't teach talent to a player with good tecnique. Talent comes naturally.

 

[Richard]

Strange that we see sooooooooo many technical imperfections, then, TBH.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The mental aspect of cricket is more important than technique and talent, IMO. You can have a very talented cricket with average technique (Dwayne Smith, the batsman) and a rubbish mental approach, and he likely will not be successful. Then there's the talented cricketer with excellent technique and a rubbish mental approach - Daren Ganga. Worth noting that Ganga has only started to have consistent success when he got his mental approach sorted, largely due to the maturing process he underwent as captain of Trinidad and Tobago.

Mindset is extremely important in cricket, as it entails (to a large extent) courage, application and self-belief. Nasser Hussain and Paul Collingwood are two players who come to mind who succeeded more so because of their mental strength than technique or talent. Certainly, neither were possessed earth-shattering talent.

You're asking to pick the more necessary of 2 aspects of the sport - talent and technique. I don't believe that either states rank higher than the other, as both can and do contribute to successful cricketers. But the mentality ranks higher than both, because you almost certainly will not see a successful cricketer with a rubbish mentality.

 

[Richard]

The mental talents, you might say?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ja. Essentially so.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd say mental technique, as it can be developed and not really something you can be born with.

 

[jammay123]

to have agreat technique you will have worked very hard, this will also make you mentally strong and this is what is most important. usually the talented ones bekieve it is their god given right to win and ubtil they relise they need to become techniquly sound they will not succed

 

[Richard]

Inzy?

 

[irfan]

Oh, that was the most relative thing to what he was saying, very probably indeed, but as I say - I do think Mr. pathan could do a bit better with his initial question.

My name just happens to be Irfan

 

[irfan]

The mental aspect of cricket is more important than technique and talent, IMO. You can have a very talented cricket with average technique (Dwayne Smith, the batsman) and a rubbish mental approach, and he likely will not be successful. Then there's the talented cricketer with excellent technique and a rubbish mental approach - Daren Ganga. Worth noting that Ganga has only started to have consistent success when he got his mental approach sorted, largely due to the maturing process he underwent as captain of Trinidad and Tobago.

Mindset is extremely important in cricket, as it entails (to a large extent) courage, application and self-belief. Nasser Hussain and Paul Collingwood are two players who come to mind who succeeded more so because of their mental strength than technique or talent. Certainly, neither were possessed earth-shattering talent.

You're asking to pick the more necessary of 2 aspects of the sport - talent and technique. I don't believe that either states rank higher than the other, as both can and do contribute to successful cricketers. But the mentality ranks higher than both, because you almost certainly will not see a successful cricketer with a rubbish mentality.

Good post. Hadn't really considered the mental aspect when I initially framed the question but I suppose that could come under technique as it can be developed.
So would you now consider technique to be more important than talent for batsman in ODI cricket or is it still too hard to say ??

 

[corza_nz]

i think when your talking odi cricket you have to say talent is going to go further than technique.
for example in new zealand cricket over the last few years they first tried the marshall brothers based on technique and they never really worked out. now they have ross taylor who you would say is more based on his talent and so far hes going very well.

 

[Richard]

My name just happens to be Irfan

Mate, I was joking.

Surely there are worse things to be called?