Sloggin' Batsman = Good Batsman ?

[masterblaster10]

Given the popularity and the amount of One Day cricket played has led to the rise of batsmen who are known to have 'a one day mind set'. We know these batsmen know generally and actually do better when they play best what most commentators also refer to - is their 'natural game'.

For instance batsmen like Cairns, Gayle, Sehwag, Gilchrist (to cite a few), play generally in the same fashion whether batting in One Day or Test.

No matter, how thrilling it might be to watch these players hit (and sad to watch when they often hit and miss), I don't particularly rate them as great batsman (and again this could be just my opinion).

Obviously, then there are other batsmen in contrast like Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Kallis (to cite a few) who I simply adore watching everytime they bat.

Which league of these batsmen in your opinion is better than the other?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't see why a batsman who plays aggressively in Test cricket can't be considered a good batsman or even a great one. Is Viv Richards not a great batsman in your estimation?

[cricket player]

master blaster where do you live in california and what team do you play for mate.

[cricket player]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

I don't see why a batsman who plays aggressively in Test cricket can't be considered a good batsman or even a great one. Is Viv Richards not a great batsman in your estimation?

what he is trying to say is playing cricket classicly take's alot of effort while playing cricket slogging.
I got his point.I believe that he is right because you can easily clear the boundry by hitting the bowl high in the air while it is hard to play like dravid and hit boundrie's.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But that doesn't make a technically correct player better than an ultra-attacking player.

One other thing is that Gilchrist is not a slogger in Tests. He plays some genuine cricket strokes, albeit lofted at times.

[cricket player]

We are not just talking about gilly.

[nookie_lk]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

But that doesn't make a technically correct player better than an ultra-attacking player.

One other thing is that Gilchrist is not a slogger in Tests. He plays some genuine cricket strokes, albeit lofted at times.

I think gilli is a SLogger and a very lucky one.... he plays more slogs than correct cricketing shots with pure timing.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by nookie_lk

I think gilli is a SLogger and a very lucky one.... he plays more slogs than correct cricketing shots with pure timing.

What is a slogger in your terms ?

It appears from your post that one who plays 'non-cricketing' shots is a slogger. If so one needs to again be clear as to what is a non-cricketing shot. Would it be a shot which is a relatively risky shot or a shot which was not originally (classically, by orthodox standards etc) played to the same deliveries, a cross bat shot where a straigh bat one would suffice, a drive in the air a la Sehwag where a ground shot would be considered a cricketing shot ??

[Scallywag]

Slogging batsman=good batsman no

Batsman scoring runs = good batsman.

[SJS]

Gilchrist plays all cricketing shots. Cover drive which he plays along the ground more often than many modern batsmen,say Sehwag or Jayasuriya, on drives which he plays very competently, square cuts which he plays more on the ground than Tendulkar, pulls which he plays so early that he is able to pull to mid wicket so very often.

Its his tremendous eye sight and extremely quick judgement of length(better than almost anyone playing today than Lara) that makes him be in a position quick enough to execute an agressive stroke. A fraction of a second slower in response and an agressive shot would be difficult to execute to a lot of those deliveries and a defensive shot or a push would be the option. This is what separates him from other batsmen and this is the secret of his agression unlike the 'slogger' who just decides to hit the ball with a degree of pre-commitment like say Shahid Afridi.

It is to deny Gilchrist his great gift of eyesight and quicksilver judgement allied with superb strokes, timing and power if we say he is a lucky slogger. Worse, it is to deny ourselves the pleasure of watching with admiration and deriving pleasure from one of cricket's most gifted stroke players.

[age_master]

hehe Gilchrist isn't a slogger he just hits the ball hard and in the air sometimes, almost always regular cricket shots though

[cricket player]

Originally Posted by SJS

What is a slogger in your terms ?

It appears from your post that one who plays 'non-cricketing' shots is a slogger. If so one needs to again be clear as to what is a non-cricketing shot. Would it be a shot which is a relatively risky shot or a shot which was not originally (classically, by orthodox standards etc) played to the same deliveries, a cross bat shot where a straigh bat one would suffice, a drive in the air a la Sehwag where a ground shot would be considered a cricketing shot ??

While i have seen commentator's saying great cricketing shot while a batsman Plays a cover drive.but remember in the early days there were only Test matche's with every player playing orthodox cricket shot's.
but then odi's were interdouced into cricketing world and now day's slogging is to make score faster unlike test matche's.

so slogging vs orthodox or classic shot's

orthodox wins due to the fact that cricket was interdouced with out sloggin int he olds days.

[honestbharani]

Good players will always be the ones who can play the normal cricketing shots well. Of course, everyone needs to be able to slog at some point or the other with ODIs being so big, but I still think over the years, it is only the good players who have done well than the sloggers. And I include Gilly, Cairns and Freddie as good players. To me, sloggers are epitomised by guys like Afridi.

[nookie_lk]

Originally Posted by SJS

What is a slogger in your terms ?

It appears from your post that one who plays 'non-cricketing' shots is a slogger. If so one needs to again be clear as to what is a non-cricketing shot. Would it be a shot which is a relatively risky shot or a shot which was not originally (classically, by orthodox standards etc) played to the same deliveries, a cross bat shot where a straigh bat one would suffice, a drive in the air a la Sehwag where a ground shot would be considered a cricketing shot ??

yes you do have a point. But when gilli is concerned he uses more power than timing. You wont be a slogger if u play a non orthodox Shot with pure timing. Gilli is a great batsman, and he does play some beautifully timed shots, but most of his shots are unorthodox POWER shots. Thats why he would fall into the "slogger" catagory. I dont think thats a insult to him either, since Afridi, Jayasuriya, Sehvag fall into the same catagory.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by nookie_lk

yes you do have a point. But when gilli is concerned he uses more power than timing. You wont be a slogger if u play a non orthodox Shot with pure timing. Gilli is a great batsman, and he does play some beautifully timed shots, but most of his shots are unorthodox POWER shots. Thats why he would fall into the "slogger" catagory. I dont think thats a insult to him either, since Afridi, Jayasuriya, Sehvag fall into the same catagory.

Power verus timing doesnt determine a slogger, though power , without timing, wouldnt rocket the ball to the fence anyway.

By the way, just watch Gilchrist's shots only in slow motion next time you see him and you might be surprised.