Is talent more important than technique ??

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by irfan

Yep, you are right Prince, this is what I was getting at.

- when you call him "Prince" rather than EWS etc, I get the following mental image:



alternating with this one:

[PY]

Pietersen and Collingwood are pretty good examples of this. Pietersen is a bit different when it comes to shot-selection and technique but Collingwood does have the better temperament.

I'm not sure who could be more of a match-winner. If the sticks are down, then more likely to choose Collingwood to come in but KP is quite likely to thump the ball around too. However, if England are on top then I'd hope for KP as he'd most likely do some serious damage. Maybe KP is too consistent for this question?

I would choose KP in most situations just because he's a born match-winner and he can change the game in the blink of an eye which's key in OD cricket. Like Bristol in 2005 for example where he took Aus to the cleaners in 8 overs.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Matt79

- when you call him "Prince" rather than EWS etc, I get the following mental image:

Oh dear - name change required.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I don't think he means that, actually.

I think he's comparing someone's stroke range to the risk level of the strokes they do play.

For example, someone who could only play three shots, but played them perfectly, in comparison to someone who could play every shot in the book, but did so with significantly increased risk.

So talent = taking risks?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by PY

Pietersen and Collingwood are pretty good examples of this. Pietersen is a bit different when it comes to shot-selection and technique but Collingwood does have the better temperament.

I'm not sure who could be more of a match-winner. If the sticks are down, then more likely to choose Collingwood to come in but KP is quite likely to thump the ball around too. However, if England are on top then I'd hope for KP as he'd most likely do some serious damage. Maybe KP is too consistent for this question?

I would choose KP in most situations just because he's a born match-winner and he can change the game in the blink of an eye which's key in OD cricket. Like Bristol in 2005 for example where he took Aus to the cleaners in 8 overs.

I honestly don't think Collingwood's temperament is any better than Pietersen's.

Pietersen couldn't have a better temperament for mine.

[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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.