Nick Knight ?

[albo97056]

Well it appears you haven't read the post you quoted then.



Well, no. People bat differently. Hitting the gap is a skill - it's a technical aspect of the game that not all batsmen posess. Someone like Michael Vaughan simply isn't very good at it in comparison to others. Obviously he's not so ridiculously bad at it that he's the worst one day player of all time, but he's not as good at it as others aroud. It's of no concequence in test cricket because he has a sound defense and he can hit bad balls for four with attacking fields in place. The test game suits his batting technique and his strengths. The one day game does not.



Because, as has been said, his weakness outside off stump, occompanied by fields set for this weakness and bowlers trying to exploit it rather than restrict him, prevented him from succeeding. He tried to play aggressively at times and he failed then too. He simply wasn't a very good test batsman.



Well duh! Thank you captain obvious.Name me any recognised batsman of the modern ero who has a similar test strike to his ODI strike rate, and who played significant matches to judge so.



Read the third paragraph of my post.

How about pietersen? gilchrist, haydens prob about same. Theres plenty out there, i cant be bothered to go spendin hours trawlin thru records
Its not obvious at all because you are twisting what i sed
The point i was making is that it was VERY different, not just the ussual from odis to tests.

And as for these commentators bein old, plenty of them are from the very recent period, ive heard atherton and hussain talk regularly about it, you cant say they were products of 70s odis

As i said the number of balls edged thru 3rd slip and gully is not going to acount for that difference, its all down to attitude. Its not about reactions, if you go out there with positive intent you dont just pick one ball individualy, its the whole innings you are being aggressive. At least it should be. You dont think as the balls coming down "im in odi mode today im gonna slap it", ur just in a certain mood which you set yourself as you build your innings and before the sart of it, once its in your mind its all very subconscous.

I for one can understand your point, can you not get that i may be right here? Theres not the least bit of truth in what i say? To me there are a lot of close minded people here who just wont consider other points of view.
There will be those who genuinely have some sort of technical deficiency, but i think that would be a lot easier to sort out than one of mindset, just look at england on their current tour. Prime example of mindset defeating them

 

[Prince EWS]

How about pietersen? gilchrist, haydens prob about same.

No, hilariously no, and less-hilariously-but-still-quite-humourously no. Do some research before making sweeping ignorant claims.

There's a clear difference between test and ODI batting and there's a lot more to it than just mindset. I've already gone through it quite thoroughly so I don't care to do so again.

 

[albo97056]

I think the difference between a player batting at 40 and 75 is quite obvious. Are you telling me he was batting freeley and with the same mindset in tests if he has a sr of 40?

 

[Richard]

How about pietersen? gilchrist, haydens prob about same. Theres plenty out there, i cant be bothered to go spendin hours trawlin thru records
Its not obvious at all because you are twisting what i sed
The point i was making is that it was VERY different, not just the ussual from odis to tests.

None of those 3 are remotely comparable. Go look it up.

And as for these commentators bein old, plenty of them are from the very recent period, ive heard atherton and hussain talk regularly about it, you cant say they were products of 70s odis

Err, what? Atherton and Hussain were both born (within 6 days of each other) in 1970. Both are children of the 1970s and 1980s. Those attitudes were always going to be the ones engrained on them. Completely different to those of my age.

As i said the number of balls edged thru 3rd slip and gully is not going to acount for that difference, its all down to attitude. Its not about reactions, if you go out there with positive intent you dont just pick one ball individualy, its the whole innings you are being aggressive. At least it should be. You dont think as the balls coming down "im in odi mode today im gonna slap it", ur just in a certain mood which you set yourself as you build your innings and before the sart of it, once its in your mind its all very subconscous.

One thing: going out there with a certain "attitude" is the single worst thing to possibly do. How many times do people say "play each ball on it's own merits, do not get suckered by anything else". Obviously, you play according to the situation, but that's nothing other than basic common-sense, anyone who knows anything about cricket can do such a thing.

There will be those who genuinely have some sort of technical deficiency, but i think that would be a lot easier to sort out than one of mindset, just look at england on their current tour. Prime example of mindset defeating them

Prime example, rather, of NOT. England, any fool can see have (mostly) just been completely outclassed on this tour. Australia's (and New Zealand's) players have been, for the most part, massively better than theirs. And I say it again - you can blame anything on mindset if you really want to.

 

[Richard]

I think the difference between a player batting at 40 and 75 is quite obvious. Are you telling me he was batting freeley and with the same mindset in tests if he has a sr of 40?

Probably not. And if so, I'd want to know why the hell so. The requirements for Test and ODI batting are so completely different that if you approach the two the same way you've not a hope in hell of success in both. Knight played plenty of shots in Tests (as I said before) and plenty often enough it got him out. However, his strike-rate was low because of the number of times he scored, say, a 30-ball 10. And if you really think, as a Test opening batsman in the 1990s, you should be just walking out trying to smash it from-ball-one (which was never, ever Knight's game, in either format) you're woefully mistaken.

Take, for instance, the Pietersen example. Pietersen is clearly a strokeplayer by the standards of both games. His Test SR is 64.77 - which, by ODI standards, is pittance. And in ODIs, his SR is 94.90 - 30 r-p-b higher. This is pretty similar to Knight's case, a difference of 35 there. The strike-rate of a batsman with a low average rarely tells you much about his style.

 

[albo97056]

None of those 3 are remotely comparable. Go look it up.

Err, what? Atherton and Hussain were both born (within 6 days of each other) in 1970. Both are children of the 1970s and 1980s. Those attitudes were always going to be the ones engrained on them. Completely different to those of my age.

One thing: going out there with a certain "attitude" is the single worst thing to possibly do. How many times do people say "play each ball on it's own merits, do not get suckered by anything else". Obviously, you play according to the situation, but that's nothing other than basic common-sense, anyone who knows anything about cricket can do such a thing.

Prime example, rather, of NOT. England, any fool can see have (mostly) just been completely outclassed on this tour. Australia's (and New Zealand's) players have been, for the most part, massively better than theirs. And I say it again - you can blame anything on mindset if you really want to.

England have outplayed aus in the last two games, mostly due to a better mindset. If theyd played like that during the tests then maybe we wouldnt have lost so bad.

Obviously you play each ball on its merits, Im saying that you still have a mindset when you go out there. Knight was nervous, timid and indecisive at the crease in tests. That was why he failed.

Atherton and hussain only finished playing a few years ago! they dont stop learning about cricket as toddlers! You want me to pick someone born in the 90s do you? not many odi players that age yet! The game isnt that much different now to 5 years ago when those two stopped playing...

 

[albo97056]

Probably not. And if so, I'd want to know why the hell so. The requirements for Test and ODI batting are so completely different that if you approach the two the same way you've not a hope in hell of success in both. Knight played plenty of shots in Tests (as I said before) and plenty often enough it got him out. However, his strike-rate was low because of the number of times he scored, say, a 30-ball 10. And if you really think, as a Test opening batsman in the 1990s, you should be just walking out trying to smash it from-ball-one (which was never, ever Knight's game, in either format) you're woefully mistaken.

There are plenty who were more aggressive than knight though... slater springs to mind, tres, hayden etc.. They may not have the same srs but they certainly have the right attitude to test which is more than can be said for knight

Take, for instance, the Pietersen example. Pietersen is clearly a strokeplayer by the standards of both games. His Test SR is 64.77 - which, by ODI standards, is pittance. And in ODIs, his SR is 94.90 - 30 r-p-b higher. This is pretty similar to Knight's case, a difference of 35 there. The strike-rate of a batsman with a low average rarely tells you much about his style.

Its like comparing a sr of 5 and 40 to knights. Completely different standard of rates

 

[Richard]

England have outplayed aus in the last two games, mostly due to a better mindset. If theyd played like that during the tests then maybe we wouldnt have lost so bad.

Err, no, we've outplayed them because they've been far worse in the last 2 games than they were in the first 3. England's mindset hasn't been any different - but if you seriously believe that mindset is all that has any effect on the game you're obviously not going to believe otherwise.

Obviously you play each ball on its merits, Im saying that you still have a mindset when you go out there. Knight was nervous, timid and indecisive at the crease in tests. That was why he failed.

No, he failed because he didn't know where his off-stump was. Why would he have been nervous and timid? There's absolutely no good reason.

Atherton and hussain only finished playing a few years ago! they dont stop learning about cricket as toddlers! You want me to pick someone born in the 90s do you? not many odi players that age yet! The game isnt that much different now to 5 years ago when those two stopped playing...

Atherton played 1 game in the last decade. And I really don't care when they played, their ideas were already set-in-stone by then. The game changed round about 1990, and hasn't done much since then. You don't have to have played at all, it's when you started watching that counts. That's when your ideas tend to be formed.

 

[Richard]

There are plenty who were more aggressive than knight though... slater springs to mind, tres, hayden etc.. They may not have the same srs but they certainly have the right attitude to test which is more than can be said for knight

Hayden and Trescothick have totally the wrong style and both are decidedly average Test players, who have failed almost every time the bowling and catching were up-to-standard. Hardly comparable to the 1990s when both were generally far better.

Michael Slater was one of a very, very rare breed who managed to be successful as a strokeplayin opener against good bowling. Saeed Anwar was about the only other one in the 1990s. Usually, playing shots as an opener against good bowling will only get you in trouble.

Its like comparing a sr of 5 and 40 to knights. Completely different standard of rates

That's completely irrelevant. Simple fact is, SRs are pretty much invariably higher in ODIs than in Tests. Expecting SRs to be similar for the same batsman in different game-forms is like expecting someone to jump to the same height on Earth and The Moon.