3rd ODI at Canberra, 2 Dec 2020

[honestbharani]

Being indecisive is tantamount to being unable to play the short ball.

Well, but the difference here is that indecisiveness can be overcome but inability cannot be. Raina was unable to play the short ball, it was not any indecisiveness that cost him. Yuvi was indecisive. Even Sachin has been dismissed by shots that make you guys think Shreyas sucks against the short ball. Anyways, my view is that he has enough ability to overcome this and will be fine.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This doesn't make any sense. Indecisiveness and inability aren't mutually exclusive concepts. They can be effectively the exact same thing.

And don't buy into Burgey's trolling every time ffs. I'm sure this Iyer guy will get better and learn from experience.

 

[Burgey]

Being indecisive is tantamount to being unable to play the short ball

That's precisely what it is.

 

[Burgey]

They are exactly the same thing. Just as being indecisive about going forward or back to a spinner is lack of ability in playing that type of bowling. You don't need to have a physical affliction to lack ability at something. It's the whole package

 

[honestbharani]

They can be effectively the exact same thing.

Exactly. They CAN be the same thing but they ARE NOT the same thing. Indecisiveness can come from many causes. Kallis getting done by a Sreesanth bouncer was due to indecisiveness too, I would love to see how many here wanna say Kallis could not play the short ball.

My point is his basic technique and setup does not render handling the short ball that difficult for him, like it did for a Raina or Ganguly among the Indian batsmen I have seen. Yuvi is the best comparison in that he has been done by the short ball a few times but he has also made a lot of runs against the short ball and at least in LO cricket, it never held him back from being the best he could be. I see the same with Shreyas.

 

[Daemon]

I mean it’s clear what hb’s trying to say.

There’s a difference between being indecisive, being afraid, having poor technique when playing the pull/hook, not having soft hands when defending, not weaving ducking properly etc.

Of course they’re all connected to a degree, but from what I understand hb’s view is that if he can work on getting over the mental barrier of freezing then he’s good enough for the rest to fall in place.

 

[honestbharani]

They are exactly the same thing. Just as being indecisive about going forward or back to a spinner is lack of ability in playing that type of bowling. You don't need to have a physical affliction to lack ability at something. It's the whole package

Not really. If you see a player like Laxman, he will never get forward to a seam bowler, that is inability coz of how his technique is set up. But a player like Dravid being done in the channel because of indecisiveness does not mean he cannot get forward and cover drive you to oblivion the next game. There is a world of difference between being indecisive temporarily against a particular line or length of the ball than a complete inability to play a certain way due to how your technique and setup is.

There are instances where the indecisiveness may stem from that inability too but it does not mean it is always one and the same.

 

[Burgey]

I mean it’s clear what hb’s trying to say.

Well it's not clear at all, frankly, as evidenced by hb having to set out his point again in a multi paragraph post. Also, for whatever reason, the number of blokes who start out inept against the short ball and become competent/ proficient against it is pretty much zero

 

[Daemon]

Well it's not clear at all, frankly, as evidenced by hb having to set out his point again in a multi paragraph post. Also, for whatever reason, the number of blokes who start out inept against the short ball and become competent/ proficient against it is pretty much zero

By that logic every judgement you’ve ever written is unclear

 

[Spark]

Well it's not clear at all, frankly, as evidenced by hb having to set out his point again in a multi paragraph post. Also, for whatever reason, the number of blokes who start out inept against the short ball and become competent/ proficient against it is pretty much zero

Eh I'm sure someone could rustle up a few examples.

 

[honestbharani]

Also, for whatever reason, the number of blokes who start out inept against the short ball and become competent/ proficient against it is pretty much zero

 

[Burgey]

By that logic every judgement you’ve ever written is unclear

This demonstrates your own lack of logic tbh, because I don't write a decision then have to do another few pages later on explaining it. Appeal courts do that to them instead.

Regularly appealed, occasionally overturned.

But never wrong.

 

[honestbharani]

This demonstrates your own lack of logic tbh, because I don't write a decision then have to do another few pages later on explaining it. Appeal courts do that to them instead.

Regularly appealed, occasionally overturned.

But never wrong.

#Trumper

 

[Spark]

Well, but the difference here is that indecisiveness can be overcome but inability cannot be. Raina was unable to play the short ball, it was not any indecisiveness that cost him. Yuvi was indecisive. Even Sachin has been dismissed by shots that make you guys think Shreyas sucks against the short ball. Anyways, my view is that he has enough ability to overcome this and will be fine.

The thing is, short ball weaknesses are generally psychological more than technical. You can make technical adjustments if you like (Clarke had a notable technical issue with a blind spot with balls aimed at his right shoulder, for example) but the technical issue only really becomes a problem if it gets into your head that you have a problem. If you freeze when the ball is pitched short, then no amount of technical ability will save you and Iyer is freezing.

 

[Burgey]

You realize "not playing the hook shot" isn't the same as "can't play the short ball", right? Ian Chappell's opinion nws.

 

[honestbharani]

The thing is, short ball weaknesses are generally psychological more than technical. You can make technical adjustments if you like (Clarke had a notable technical issue with a blind spot with balls aimed at his right shoulder, for example) but the technical issue only really becomes a problem if it gets into your head that you have a problem. If you freeze when the ball is pitched short, then no amount of technical ability will save you and Iyer is freezing.

Not really. He hooked the only good bouncer he faced in the 3rd game for 4 and it was at reasonable pace and he was in full control. Anyways, we can argue this to death but only time will tell who was right. I dont see it as a major weakness or drawback like it was with few other players I have seen. I think he will be fine as a LO #4 or #5, which is where he will bat.

 

[honestbharani]

You realize "not playing the hook shot" isn't the same as "can't play the short ball",right?

You realize that his career before the 90s happened, right?

 

[Burgey]

His problems in the 80s had nothing to do with inability to play the short ball though. He made back to back 90s against a Windies attack of Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh and Patterson at Brisbane & Perth

 

[TheJediBrah]

You realize that his career before the 90s happened, right?

You realize Burgey was already a very old man in the 90s, right?

 

[Spark]

SWaugh is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. Technically he was objectively pretty rubbish against the short ball in terms of playing it "how you should" and scoring off it, but mentally it didn't bother him at all and it meant that he pretty much never was actually troubled by it.