View Poll Results: What would be your ideal batsman in ODI cricket ??

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • A batsman who is more technique-based than talented

    11 36.67%
  • A batsman who is more talented than technique-based

    19 63.33%
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 78

Thread: Is talent more important than technique ??

  1. #1
    International 12th Man irfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,732

    Is talent more important than technique ??

    In modern times, ODI cricket has evolved rapidly in the favour of batsman with flat pitches, decline in bowling stocks and conditions tailor made for run scoring.

    With the Powerplays and fielding restrictions in the early overs. Batsman are going helter-skelter in the early overs knowing that mi****s will more than likely land safely in the outfield. Which brings me to my point, are talented batsman with supreme hand-eye co-ordination and timing more important than batsman with solid footwork and good classical techniques ??

    I'm purely referring to ODI cricket and I'm kinda confused as regularly (over the last couple of years) we're seeing flat track bullies average higher and score at far higher S/R when conventional wisdom suggests that the more technique-oriented batsman would have the wherewithal to handle most conditions and average higher scores even it they score at a lower S/R. It's kind of worrying that batsman get away with almost anything these days and it just feeds into the argument that you need to be a dasher to play ODI cricket.

    To put it succinctly, if you are a manager of a cricket team and the No. 4 slot was open to two batsman - one of whom can play all the shots in the book put has poor shot selection and judgement and another batsman who relies on a couple of shots but has great temperament - who would you pick ??

  2. #2
    State Vice-Captain mavric41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,081
    Unfortunately you would have to go with the guy with the shots. The other guy could be shut down to easy and be a detriment to the team.

    But as a coach, I'd spend most my time with the guy with the good temperament to broaden his shot range. He is more likely to take it on board.
    Only two states to be in - Queensland and drunk.

  3. #3
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    Quote Originally Posted by irfan
    To put it succinctly, if you are a manager of a cricket team and the No. 4 slot was open to two batsman - one of whom can play all the shots in the book put has poor shot selection and judgement and another batsman who relies on a couple of shots but has great temperament - who would you pick ??
    The one who scores more runs.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,730
    Technique >>>>>>>>>> Talent, any day of the week.

    That being in my purely idealistic world of robot cricket of course. Given today's bowling standards and pitches, and the requirements of ODIs, the quicker scorer would be prefered in most situations, depending on the balance of the rest of the batting lineup of course.

    Totally different situation in tests though.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009


  5. #5
    International 12th Man irfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by adharcric View Post
    The one who scores more runs.
    The more talented batsman scores his runs in spurts, but when he scores he scores big. Big scores are few and far between

    The technique oriented batsman contributes solidly most of the time with occasional dips in form.

  6. #6
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    Quote Originally Posted by irfan View Post
    The more talented batsman scores his runs in spurts, but when he scores he scores big. Big scores are few and far between

    The technique oriented batsman contributes solidly most of the time with occasional dips in form.
    Consistency for me.

  7. #7
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    depends on HOW MUCH the talent is.


    If it is say, Laraesque, take him anyday. But if it is more at the level of a Jayawardene or a Gibbs, then I will take the technique guy.
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  8. #8
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    There's not really enough information in the question to give a definitive answer, but in general, in ODIs, an really talented player with an average technique will probably do better than a player with a really good technique, but not much talent.

    More broadly, a certain level of talent is an absolute prerequisite to play cricket at a serious level - without that level of talent you could a god-like technique and not make it. However, once that basic level of talent is achieved, then technique is what will separate the average player from the good...
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  9. #9
    International Debutant shankar's Avatar
    3 Card Poker Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    2,353
    You need a combination of both types. Which type you need more of, varies based on the pitches and the bowling attacks to be faced.

  10. #10
    International Coach adharcric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Posts
    10,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    There's not really enough information in the question to give a definitive answer, but in general, in ODIs, an really talented player with an average technique will probably do better than a player with a really good technique, but not much talent.

    More broadly, a certain level of talent is an absolute prerequisite to play cricket at a serious level - without that level of talent you could a god-like technique and not make it. However, once that basic level of talent is achieved, then technique is what will separate the average player from the good...
    Ditto.

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    I hate the way technique and talent are portrayed as separate things by some people.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  12. #12
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    true, it takes talent to develop a good technique. But you can see where the question is coming from...

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    What he means is concentration (shot-selection). That and technique are the only talents that really matter in batting. Plus, obviously, a good eye, but if you're a batsman of any repute that means your eye's damn good.

    And TBH, the truth is you can have a woeful technique and if your shot-selection's good you can still be a hell of a player. Look at Graham Gooch.

  14. #14
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    What he means is concentration (shot-selection). That and technique are the only talents that really matter in batting. Plus, obviously, a good eye, but if you're a batsman of any repute that means your eye's damn good.

    And TBH, the truth is you can have a woeful technique and if your shot-selection's good you can still be a hell of a player. Look at Graham Gooch.
    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.

  15. #15
    International 12th Man irfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.
    Yep, you are right Prince, this is what I was getting at.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. good article on lara v. tendulkar
    By Bapu Rao Swami in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 03-12-2012, 09:29 PM
  2. Did Brian lara waste is oneday cricket talent?
    By dass in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 02-03-2007, 04:41 AM
  3. Most important player for Australia.
    By andmark in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 27-02-2007, 08:27 PM
  4. "Fielding is the most important part of cricket"
    By open365 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 25-02-2007, 03:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •