The Great Australian side compared to the Talented and Incosistent Pakistan Side

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

Yes, they all have some talents - but they do not have sufficient talent in one form, they do in the other.
It is not "the game of cricket", either - there are two games of cricket (well, two that we're talking here) - limited-over-cricket and First-Class-cricket. And they have many, many differences.

They are different tactically, but the actual playing of the game itself is the same (apart from the odd rule difference like short balls etc)..you need to the same things right..thats why both forms are still both called 'cricket'

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Swervy

maybe what you define cricketing talent as is different to what I define it as.

talent for me is the hand eye coordination, the eye, the ability to pick length early etc...all of that... pretty much all the rest is coached. Of course talent could be defined as the ability to pick up was is coached quickly I guess, I just dont see talent being like that.

Talent is ability, skill.
Simple as.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Swervy

They are different tactically, but the actual playing of the game itself is the same (apart from the odd rule difference like short balls etc)..you need to the same things right..thats why both forms are still both called 'cricket'

And you also need lots of different things right.
The odd rule difference (there are actually a few) makes a hell of a difference.

[Mecnun]

Talent is talent and remains talent however the application of that talent is different in the two forms of the game . Some can make the change in applying themselevs effectively between the shorter version and the longer whereas others fail.

[Richard]

No, there are certain talents that are required for the limited-overs game, and certain ones for the First-Class game.
Some have both, some have one and not the other.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

No, there are certain talents that are required for the limited-overs game, and certain ones for the First-Class game.
Some have both, some have one and not the other.

again..its down to one definition of talent I guess

[Richard]

Talent = the ability to do something.
For instance - to play a form of cricket.

[username1234]

Yeah I thought pakistan could have been a much better side they are now,If they would have been consistent With the team that you have mentioned.what a talented team The pakistani was back in the 2000,With young rich talented youngsters like razzaq and afrid and with so much stroke play saeed anwar amir soahil and inzimam ul ha,then great bowling attack,wasim akram,waqar younis,shoaib akhtar,That was the reason why india couldnt beat them back then,There was so much talent That they would have had a chance winning againts australia,

they played australia during that period and lost 3 tests and only won one out of 6 odi's.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

Talent = the ability to do something.
For instance - to play a form of cricket.

there you go..for me it is the ability to play cricket.

[Richard]

Yes, exactly - but there isn't just one type of cricket.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

Yes, exactly - but there isn't just one type of cricket.

no..but as I have said, the fundamentals are the same

[Richard]

No, one or two things are the same.
But there are all sorts of things that are different.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

No, one or two things are the same.
But there are all sorts of things that are different.

but those one or 2 things make up probably the most important aspects of the game

[Richard]

No, they just make-up the things that if you don't have them you're no use at all.

[Beleg]

This is probably the new record for going on a tangent - you folks didn't even wait for the fifth post.