This notion of "natural" talent is one I find extremely strange - talent is natural, simple as. There is no such thing as "innatural talent".
What is most commonly inferred by "natural talent" is eye - and Don Bradman's eyes were no more or less good than those of anyone else in his platoon.
IMO the importance of a good eye is overestimated. Most good club players have about the same eyesight as top international batsmen from what I understand about the eye (however, as I've previously stated, I'm no great biologist, so if anyone knows otherwise...) - the difference is almost solely in concentration and attitude.
Bradman's concentration is unparralled. His attitude is unparralled. Some people (Trumper and Hobbs to the fore) were satisfied with a century. They then "gave someone else a go". In many quarters this is looked-on with romanticised admiration.
And I've never heard such garbage. If you can't be bothered making the most of your ability, you don't deserve an exceptional average to be rembered by. Bradman wanted and got one (95.something). Richards and Gower didn't - and in my book that made them lesser players.
Anyway, back to "talent". Concentration is every bit as natural as the eye and speed of wrists, arms and shoulders. I once heard someone say "Mark Butcher needs concentration lessons". The mind, like anything, can be trained but only to a degree. If you could improve your concentration infinately most players would average about 200 in Test-cricket because they'd never get themselves out and so few bowlers can get batsmen out in all conditions ATM.
Technique, meanwhile, is an entirely different matter. You can work and work on your technique until you've got no strength left. You can get it perfect - and if your concentration isn't up to much you'll still not be that good. Very few players have technical perfection. The closest, for me, is Stephen Waugh.
And technique is entirely different to attacking repetoire. It's hard to argue against Lara or Gilchrist here, but they're both very vulnerable in attack if you can move the ball and know where to bowl. For me, a better attacking perfectionist is Mark Waugh. How often do you see him get out because he
played a shot wrong? (As I say, everyone picks the wrong shot to play sometimes, if they didn't they'd all average about 200) I have never seen him do such, and I've watched him a fair few times.
This is not to say he
never has, just that I've seen him a few times and he never has then.
So basically, there is one way to judge a batsman - how many runs he scores. However, not how many runs he has against his name.
First, for me, is the elimination of luck. Once someone has been dropped, missed stumped or given not-out incorrectly the innings should be over, so I count it as such. Otherwise you get too much inconsistency from player to player. However, you must be realistic about what you call a chance or an error. If someone smashes it straight through short-extra-cover at about 200 kph it is NOT a chance. Nor is it if a fielder gets a fingertip to a ball that there was never a chance of them getting enough hand on to catch.
Then you must look at the conditions relative to the ability of the bowling. If you have three fingerspinners in dustbowl conditions it's a bit different to three fingerspinners on a moist wicket. Likewise, three seamers who can't bowl cut or swing on a wicket with no grass or vaguaries of bounce isn't much of a threat.
Outstanding seamers prevail on all surfaces, however. So do outstanding wristspinners.
The upshot of it all is: in his first-chance average, how many times has he got himself out? If someone has a first-chance average of 22 but he has got 4 RUDs in 6 innings before once reaching 30, he's not done too badly. However, if he has one of 22 in swinging, seaming conditions where every one of his dismissals has come lofting a fingerspinner to mid-wicket before reaching 30 it's a bit different.
This sort of analysis requires lots of information but if you know where to go (and we all do - don't we!) you can quite easily do it.
:wow:
:P 