Page 36 of 61 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 540 of 905

Thread: ESPNcricinfo World XI

  1. #526
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    It's just my personal opinion that Ambrose is overrated in the context of comparing him with the likes of McGrath and Donald. IMHO, Ambrose appeared to be a bowler who very rarely showed pro-activeness(while comparing him to those mentioned ofc) and seemed content to wait for the batsman to make a mistake on pitches that did not offer help to him. This belief is somewhat supported by his SR of 54.5 which while good is not exceptional for an ATG bowler. He is still one of the greatest pacers of all-time, just wouldn't make my top 10.
    Catch the man who never watchd Ambrose bowl much...
    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

  2. #527
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,628
    Quote Originally Posted by 8ankitj View Post
    No, my friend. He was the kind of bowler who hated the very sight of the batsmen and will make a batsman bleed on the pitch if he had to. He was proactive enough to once announce before a match against AUS (in 96-97 series) that he is going to take 10 wickets and then actually nearly did that (took 9). He is the kind of character that cricket sorely misses today. With exception of Sehwag, there is no one today who wears pride on his sleeves like that (well, there is Sreesanth too, but you should have some ability too to go with pride )

    And not putting him in top 10? That's shocking to me
    Last edited by smalishah84; 25-10-2010 at 07:03 AM.

  3. #528
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    To me, technique is whatever helps you make runs consistently and helps you save your wicket for a fair enough average time to make those runs. .
    Exactly, don't know what dictionary Marcuss is using...

  4. #529
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,530
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    To me, technique is whatever helps you make runs consistently and helps you save your wicket for a fair enough average time to make those runs
    Yeah, I agree, but it's definitely possible to have a better technique than someone and still be an inferior batsman. There are factors besides technique that contribute to one's output - one's eye, one's reflexes, one's ability to structure an innings, one's shot selection, one's mental strength, one's ability to analyse a bowler on the go.. etc etc.
    ~ Cribbage ~

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


  5. #530
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    I've got a good example of why Marcuss' definition of technique is wrong.

    If Bradman played as others advised him to, using the conventional, text-book technique, he wouldn't have scored as well.

    According to Marcuss the conventional technique would have been classifed as 'good technique', yet Bradman would have been less successful. 'Good technique' leading to bad performance, clearly shows that the definition is wrong.

    Rather Bradman adopted a technique, which personally, allowed him to maximise his potential. I.e. he adopted good technique which lead to good performance. The textbook technique for him, would have simply been bad technique resulting in bad perfomance.

  6. #531
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,564
    Quote Originally Posted by DeusEx View Post
    Yeh well if we are defining technique as a concept more than just relating to aesthetics, then I obviously still disagree. Anyone who seriously thinks Sehwag plays swing bowling better than Ponting seriously needs there brain checked. I'm not saying Ponting is great himself at playing it, but the comparison is ridiculous. Add to the fact that Ponting plays swing better, with a much more level average across all innings (i.e. Ponting averages 52 in 4th innings, while Sehwag averages 27) and he is simply the more versatile player.

    That might not be everyones criteria for judging a player, but it forms a large part of mine. Just for the record though, I still think Sehwag is an exceptional player.
    Quote Originally Posted by DeusEx View Post
    We clearly have different definitions of technique. Yours seems purely based on the aesthetics of batting, with no emphasis on function. Mine is based only on function: i.e. good overall technique is any technique which allows a batsman to peform well in all conditions. They can look like an idiot when batting, it makes no difference. However, that is often not the case. Often great players tend to converge on similiar technique (e.g. the ref Bradman made to Tendulkar), which often happens to be visually pleasing.
    Technique is technique. Playing straight, foot to the pitch etc. That is the traditional batting technique, and what I thought we all think of when talking about technique. Evidently not.

    Function isn't technique, function is largely directly proportional to ability. The better batsman you are, the more runs you'll make. Shocker.

    Technique is entirely different, batsmen like Collingwood and Sehwag have been successful with less than stellar techniques. Collingwood is a particularly good example IMO, in the way that he plays he does limit his scoring shots and makes runs despite his technique. Look at him play, his technique hardly lends itself to glorious flowing shots all around the wicket does it? Yet he nudges and nurdles and accumulates runs for a number of reasons despite his technique.

    What I took exception to was you saying that even if Sehwag averages 70 in his next 20 tests and demolishes South Africa in South Africa you'll still rate Ponting higher because of his technique.

    Then when I questioned you, you said technique was about functionality and versatility... which contradicts your earlier statement because if Sehwag averages 70 in his next 20 Tests, he'll have a comparable run scoring record to Ponting, and will have scored runs in, pretty much, as many countries.

  7. #532
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Yeah, I agree, but it's definitely possible to have a better technique than someone and still be an inferior batsman. There are factors besides technique that contribute to one's output - one's eye, one's reflexes, one's ability to structure an innings, one's shot selection, one's mental strength, one's ability to analyse a bowler on the go.. etc etc.
    A point I've made

  8. #533
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    It's just my personal opinion that Ambrose is overrated in the context of comparing him with the likes of McGrath and Donald. IMHO, Ambrose appeared to be a bowler who very rarely showed pro-activeness(while comparing him to those mentioned ofc) and seemed content to wait for the batsman to make a mistake on pitches that did not offer help to him. This belief is somewhat supported by his SR of 54.5 which while good is not exceptional for an ATG bowler. He is still one of the greatest pacers of all-time, just wouldn't make my top 10.
    No.


    Just no. Just watching him bowl made you piss your pants, let alone facing him.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  9. #534
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,564
    Quote Originally Posted by DeusEx View Post
    I've got a good example of why Marcuss' definition of technique is wrong.

    If Bradman played as others advised him to, using the conventional, text-book technique, he wouldn't have scored as well.

    According to Marcuss the conventional technique would have been classifed as 'good technique', yet Bradman would have been less successful. 'Good technique' leading to bad performance, clearly shows that the definition is wrong.

    Rather Bradman adopted a technique, which personally, allowed him to maximise his potential. I.e. he adopted good technique which lead to good performance. The textbook technique for him, would have simply been bad technique resulting in bad perfomance.
    Well I disagree, of course it's entirely possible to succeed with a bad technique and fail with a great technique.
    But having both a good technique and great ability is inherently better than having one or the other.
    Being liable to pushing at a spinning ball with hard hands, or playing away from your body when the ball's seaming or closing the face of the bat on every shot you play is not a good thing. In such instances having a good technique would obviously decrease your chances of getting out and improve your chances of scoring more runs.

    A bad technique can be a limiting factor to a batsman's success.

  10. #535
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,530
    Quote Originally Posted by DeusEx View Post
    I've got a good example of why Marcuss' definition of technique is wrong.

    If Bradman played as others advised him to, using the conventional, text-book technique, he wouldn't have scored as well.

    According to Marcuss the conventional technique would have been classifed as 'good technique', yet Bradman would have been less successful. 'Good technique' leading to bad performance, clearly shows that the definition is wrong.

    Rather Bradman adopted a technique, which personally, allowed him to maximise his potential. I.e. he adopted good technique which lead to good performance. The textbook technique for him, would have simply been bad technique resulting in bad perfomance.
    I actually think I disgaree with both of you if it's possible.

    The best technique for a batsman is the one that allows him to score the most runs. However, "the most runs" for one batsman isn't equal to "the most runs for another". For example, I think Peter Forrest has a better technique than Paul Collingwood. Forrest isn't as good as Collingwood, but I think Forrest's technique better utilises his natural ability and other non-technical attributes than Collingwood's does his.

    There's a big difference between this and textbook technique though, because Sehwag would probably be less effective and score less runs if he tried to played as per the MCC manual. This doesn't mean his technique is poor at all because he's making the best use of his natural ability he can. I think Paul Collingwood would perform a lot better if he could fundamentally change his technique, however.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 25-10-2010 at 07:12 AM.

  11. #536
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I actually think I disgaree with both of you if it's possible.

    The best technique for a batsman is the one that allows his to score the most runs. However the most runs for one batsman isn't equal to the most runs for another. For example, I think Peter Forrest has a better technique than Paul Collingwood. Forrest isn't as good as Collingwood, but I think Forrest's technique better utilises his natural ability and 'mental cricket' than Collingwood's does his.

    There's a big difference between this and textbook technique though, because Sehwag would probably be less effective and score less runs if he tried to played as per the MCC manual. This doesn't mean his technique is poor at all because he's making the best use of his natural ability he can. I think Paul Collingwood would perform a lot better if he could fundamentally change his technique, however.
    Ok, so whilst you disagree with my MCC coaching manual idea you agree with the rest.
    I guess I just feel like you're more likely to succeed try to hit the ball with the full face of the bat than half of it

  12. #537
    International Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,374
    There is no best technique. It's how it all comes into a package that counts.

    The biggest measurement of how good your technique is how well you adjust. For example if you are going to play a straight drive and the ball swings away, if you are good enough you will successfully play a cover drive, if not you will play it like KP and get out

    That is the holy grail of batting IMO, don't worry about your technique for individual shots, as long as you can adjust to any delivery which you do not initially expect.

  13. #538
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I actually think I disgaree with both of you if it's possible.

    The best technique for a batsman is the one that allows his to score the most runs. However the most runs for one batsman isn't equal to the most runs for another. For example, I think Peter Forrest has a better technique than Paul Collingwood. Forrest isn't as good as Collingwood, but I think Forrest's technique better utilises his natural ability and 'mental cricket' than Collingwood's does his.

    There's a big difference between this and textbook technique though, because Sehwag would probably be less effective and score less runs if he tried to played as per the MCC manual. This doesn't mean his technique is poor at all because he's making the best use of his natural ability he can. I think Paul Collingwood would perform a lot better if he could fundamentally change his technique, however.
    You are not disagreeing with me all here. I agree with everything you said there. All other things kept constant, which are unrelated to technique (e.g. determination etc.), I think this would be an appropriate definition of perfect technique:

    "A technique which allows a batsman to maximise his run scoring ability in all conditions"

    That doesn't go against what you said above does it?

  14. #539
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,564
    Quote Originally Posted by DeusEx View Post
    You are not disagreeing with me all here. I agree with everything you said there. All other things kept constant, which are unrelated to technique (e.g. determination etc.), I think this would be an appropriate definition of perfect technique:

    "A technique which allows a batsman to maximise his run scoring ability in all conditions"

    That doesn't go against what you said above does it?
    But if that's what you meant initially, how could you place Sehwag below Ponting providing he does indeed average 70 in his next 20 Tests, including runs in South Africa, based on technique?

    And ftr, I also agree with the above definiton, just IMO that technique is pretty damn similar to the "traditional" technique. As I've said, you're more likely to score runs playing with a full face than trying to hit the ball with half a bat.
    Last edited by Marcuss; 25-10-2010 at 07:19 AM.

  15. #540
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcuss View Post
    Technique is technique. Playing straight, foot to the pitch etc. That is the traditional batting technique, and what I thought we all think of when talking about technique. Evidently not.

    Function isn't technique, function is largely directly proportional to ability. The better batsman you are, the more runs you'll make. Shocker.


    Technique is entirely different, batsmen like Collingwood and Sehwag have been successful with less than stellar techniques. Collingwood is a particularly good example IMO, in the way that he plays he does limit his scoring shots and makes runs despite his technique. Look at him play, his technique hardly lends itself to glorious flowing shots all around the wicket does it? Yet he nudges and nurdles and accumulates runs for a number of reasons despite his technique.

    What I took exception to was you saying that even if Sehwag averages 70 in his next 20 tests and demolishes South Africa in South Africa you'll still rate Ponting higher because of his technique.

    Then when I questioned you, you said technique was about functionality and versatility... which contradicts your earlier statement because if Sehwag averages 70 in his next 20 Tests, he'll have a comparable run scoring record to Ponting, and will have scored runs in, pretty much, as many countries.
    I didn't say it was. I said technique is based on function. Stop misrepresenting what I'm saying. Your description of Collingwood just confirms my definition of technique. You mention he doesn't have great technique. You also mention "his technique hardly lends itself to glorious flowing shots all around the wicket". If he had better technique he would be able to do that and be more successful. There is nothing incongruous there.

Page 36 of 61 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Best World Cup 2010 Promos
    By silentstriker in forum 2010 Football World Cup - South Africa
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-07-2010, 01:50 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
  •