A batsman who is more technique-based than talented
A batsman who is more talented than technique-based
Last edited by Matt79; 23-03-2007 at 07:30 AM. Reason: Second one wasn't what I was thinking, but when I saw it, I knew it was meant to be...
GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010Originally Posted by Irfan
Is Cam White, Is Good.
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.
A True Champion - Bob. Rest in peace. 15/04/06
"People today have too big a devil and too small a God"
- Stephen Currie
"The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" Psalm 27:1
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
One definition of talent can = getting away with risks that others can't
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.
I'd say the suggestion I just made was the most apt in the context of Irfan's question however...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Strange that we see sooooooooo many technical imperfections, then, TBH.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)