• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Intelligent Sloggers.

twctopcat

International Regular
marc71178 said:
I'm surprised no-one else has mentioned Flintoff.
I agree, the fact that both of his big centuries in the 140's have been a run a ball shows that when he has is eye in he is one of the purest sloggers there is, and thats in test cricket. He also did that in sri lanka last year for his 70 odd. Sometimes it seems he's safer doing that rather than playing safety!
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
OK, OK, OK.
There are times in cricket (esp. the end of a one-day innings) where slogging is NECCESSARY. Therefore anyone in is expected to do some.
A slogger, however, is notoriously hard to define. Generally, "jammy b**tard" is a better description.
I don't think there are that many players in World Cricket who slog most of the time. Because, simply, slogging doesn't work against half-decent bowling for long.
Slogging can NEVER, in my estimation, be anything other than very, very ugly so the notion of a "stylish slogger" is a strange one certainly.
As for all the players, just being a strokeplayer doesn't make a slogger, but without doubt all of the aforementioned pay for their rashness very often. Sometimes they score runs, too, and sometimes they've scored plenty before paying for it, but still.
Plenty are capable of playing only one way (Flintoff for example) and whenever they try to change that style it doesn't last long and they often play a poor attempt at an attacking shot before too long.
So therefore slogging is a very hard thing to do well.
 

PY

International Coach
I agree with you, Richard (:O).

Slogging can never be stylish by definition. Slogging IMO is people throwing everything at a ball with complete disregard to what type of ball it is and they are just trying to change the shape of the ball with one lusty blow.

Someone mentioned Flintoff's innings of 140 against South Africa. I can't remember a great deal of slog shots in that yet it was around a run a ball. He was just using his feet well and hitting sweetly. One of his backfoot on drives was majestic.

Therefore, I would agree with people who say that Gilchrist et al aren't sloggers by nature. They play aggressive orthodox cricket sometimes playing the odd 'slog-sweep', not even sure if that is a correct phrase because they move their feet, they get in line with ball and all that's different is that it is lofted instead of along the ground.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Plenty are capable of playing only one way (Flintoff for example) and whenever they try to change that style it doesn't last long and they often play a poor attempt at an attacking shot before too long.
I wouldn't necessarily agree on Flintoff.

Certainly in One Day Cricket he has modified his approach to look towards batting longer.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
Freddy certainly isn't a one day player in the mould of bevan though, he has simply learnt to select his shots better, which results in the vast majority of his runs coming off boundaries, whereas someone like bevan nips 1's and 2's
 

LankanPrince

School Boy/Girl Captain
The honours for best, intelligent sloggers would have to go Abdur Razzaq and Marlon Samuels. Definitely the worst two guys are Shahid Afridi and Romesh Kaluwitharana who is one of my favourite guys to watch. When these two are batting you are assured some goodd laughs. Sloggers are an essential part of ODIs and add to the fun and excitement. Its great when these guys are blasting the ball around but get over confident and are dismissed properly spooning the ball in the air. Maaaad ODI action!:lol:
 

imranrabb

U19 Debutant
Abdul Razzaq definatly.Shahid afridi just slogs anywhere but most of the time it sails over the rope when he connects
 

FRAZ

International Captain
Richard said:
OK, OK, OK.
.
Slogging can NEVER, in my estimation, be anything other than very, very ugly so the notion of a "stylish slogger" is a strange one certainly.
.
I agree umm "NO"..
 

SquidAU

First Class Debutant
Adam Gilchrist is a "stylish" slogger, a hard hitter of the ball whom can move his feet quickly to turn a good ball into a half volley......
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
I wouldn't necessarily agree on Flintoff.

Certainly in One Day Cricket he has modified his approach to look towards batting longer.
If he wasn't looking to bat for as long as he could in the first place he needed his head examined...
Just because he's managed to bat longer doesn't mean he wasn't trying to ITFP. He just wasn't good enough to until 2002. From then till now, he has been.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
SquidAU said:
Adam Gilchrist is a "stylish" slogger, a hard hitter of the ball whom can move his feet quickly to turn a good ball into a half volley......
Using your feet isn't slogging by any streatch of the imagination.
But I don't think Gilchrist is stylish whether using his feet or not.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
If he wasn't looking to bat for as long as he could in the first place he needed his head examined...
Just because he's managed to bat longer doesn't mean he wasn't trying to ITFP. He just wasn't good enough to until 2002. From then till now, he has been.
So you're saying it's just coincidence that since he's adopted a slightly less aggressive method, he's getting more runs and staying in longer?

There is a clear change in approach to the innings, and I'm pleased to say I was there at the first time he was put up the order and seemed to realise the change was necessary.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, there's absolutely no difference in his shot-selection as far as I'm concerned.
Nothing changed in 2002 or 2003.
All that can possibly have changed is that the shots he is playing, he is now hitting gaps rather than fielders.
He must have realised this change was neccessary since about 2000, when his substandardness became palpable. It still sure took a long time for him to put it into place.
 

Top