• 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.

Bradman to Sehwag - Redefining Great Batsmanship Through Defying Tradition

Status
Not open for further replies.

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Bradman to Sehwag - Redefining Great Batsmanship Through Defying Tradition

Okay. Here it is.

Its a two part feature on Virender Sehwag. The first part is up. The second will be up in two days.

Lets have some feedback I can assure you this is a controversial feature :)
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Very good article, and thought provoking. There is an editing error where the second half of the article is all italicized, which makes reading a bit difficult. I'm sure it's just a missing </i> tag.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Great article so far. Enjoyable reading as you're laying out your case. If I'm picking up where you're going correctly, the emergence of Hayden and Gilchrist at near the same juncture as Sehwag is not to be viewed as coincidence.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
He plays the ball on merit (the Sehwag definition of merit mind you) and plays it accordingly, hits it between fielders and so on.
This part could maybe have been expanded on, it's perhaps the thing I love most about Sehwag's approach to batting.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Traditionalist in the house!!!

Well written SJS. Some things i agree with but i disagree with alot of stuff TBH. I shall bring my complaints to you in a few days...
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Traditionalist in the house!!!

Well written SJS. Some things i agree with but i disagree with alot of stuff TBH. I shall bring my complaints to you in a few days...
I had warned that there is going to be some controversial stuff here so I am not surprised. Look forward to the "complaints". Will try to answer.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
No offence, SJS.. I agree about Lara's footwork and that Sachin is not as good in that. But I was talking about the backlift and that arc that is created and Lara's jumping around during the initial part.. Far more prone to danger than Sachin's technique, IMHO. But yeah, I agree that was not the point. I was juz referring it mostly in jest.. Hence the smiley..


The article is wonderful though.. I seriously didn't have any idea that Bradman was ridiculed for his technique so much back then. Even in the books you had sent me, they refer to him in a pretty reverential tone.. So hard to imagine him, of all people, copping it so much. I mean, I have heard that people commented his technique was not perfect, but never thought it was to such an extent.


And I agree completely about Sehwag.. The main thing is his aggressive intent. He thinks of defending a ball ONLY when he cannot hit an attacking shot to it. There are so many around the world, including some all timers like Sachin and Ponting, who resort to defence first and then attack... I mean, you can say he is premeditated in his attacking intent but that is just as true for an Atherton or Boycott or Gavaskar who were premeditated in their defensive intent. And we don't criticize them for that, do we? Even Ponting and Tendulkar tend to be pre meditated in defence so many times.. And so was Lara when he was around. We never hold that against them.. Why hold this against Sehwag?
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
No offence, SJS..
No offence taken HB :)

Just to clarify that Lara Sachin point. Its not about being technically stronger or deficient. Both have wonderful techniques. I was talking about deviation from the classical orthodoxy. That's all. So starting with grip, stance, backlift the classically orthodox has its confines of footwork, body positioning etc. The top hand is the dominant hand, the body for most part is side on, head is over the ball, toes and shoulders are pointing roughly in the direction of the shot and so on.

Sachin deviates more in this than Lara. Tha's all. Its no big deal really because the basic technique remains solid but it is noticeable and will also affect some of your play. To take just one example, Sachin's swing is restricted by his right hand dominated grip so in his atempt to keep the bat from closing, he will control the end of the swing and hold the bat blade about horizontal at the end of his drive.

Lara on the other hand is able to swing his bat the in a much bigger arc and the bat's end will end up facing the sky. Being the great players that they are/were, they both get great results its just that Lara's is a bit more natural and unrestrained whereas Sachin's is cultivated and controlled

Finally there is Sobers whose grip is completely devoid of any influence (in the power he generates) from the bottom hand. So he ends up with the bat going on to almost hit him on the back !

One could go to the other extreme to someone like Bradman whose right hand is so dominant that his swing terminates before his hands reach his chest level Bradman, however, does not bother to control the swing, allows his wrists to naturally fold at his wrists and uses his great hands and fractionally late driving to keep the ball on the ground.

Now these four are on everyone's shortlist of the greatest batsmen of all time yet they cover a spectrum of grips from most orthodox Sobers , through, Lara onto Sachin and then Bradman.

It would be silly to say that any of them were technically deficient but its easy to see how they vary from the classical.

Thats all there is to it.

Unfortunately, the traditionalists can tend to be a bit fanatical and miss the overall package for the specific details which is sad because if every player on the planet played in exactly the same manner, even if it was perfectly correct, the game would lose most of its charm. :)
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
In the end, people have to understand: technique is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. Once people accept this they'll enjoy all kinds of batsmen rather than get into tedious arguments about how x would do in y era.
 

Dissector

International Debutant
That second part is truly excellent and the best cricket article I have read in a while. My understanding of the technical aspects of the game is limited and I too have been rather mystified by Sehwag's success even while enjoying his innings. The article went a long way in educating me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top