Is talent more important than technique ??

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

My name just happens to be Irfan

[irfan]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by irfan

My name just happens to be Irfan

Mate, I was joking.

Surely there are worse things to be called?

[irfan]

Originally Posted by Richard

Mate, I was joking.

Surely there are worse things to be called?

Haha it's fine. I just wanted you to not confuse me with some fanatical Pathan supporter.

[thierry henry]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think Taylor has an excellent technique, one of the most impressive NZ batsman to watch I've ever seen.

Nathan Astle would be an example of a player with an ugly technique imo.

I think the issue with Taylor is more about shot-selection.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

I think Taylor has an excellent technique, one of the most impressive NZ batsman to watch I've ever seen.

Nathan Astle would be an example of a player with an ugly technique imo.

I think the issue with Taylor is more about shot-selection.

Taylor does have a tendency to plant his front foot and play around the pad slightly, just like a right handed Stephen Fleming. If he keeps scoring runs, then who am I to complain?

[corza_nz]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

I think Taylor has an excellent technique, one of the most impressive NZ batsman to watch I've ever seen.

Nathan Astle would be an example of a player with an ugly technique imo.

I think the issue with Taylor is more about shot-selection.

i think the reason taylor was picked for the nz team was based on his talent tbh.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

I think Taylor has an excellent technique, one of the most impressive NZ batsman to watch I've ever seen.

Nathan Astle would be an example of a player with an ugly technique imo.

I think the issue with Taylor is more about shot-selection.

Agreed, 100%. A mild case of Geraint Jones syndome.