ESPNcricinfo World XI

[vcs]

To clarify, I'm probably going too much by the last few years of Ambrose's career where I had the impression that Walsh was more of a strike bowler for W. Indies. Could be mistaken, of course.

 

[ankitj]

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, 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

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah, this issue I had wasn't with any of the above though. It was that you said you'd rate Ponting a rung higher because of technique, which is bull****.

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.

 

[weldone]

No, Sehwag has been one of he leading run scorers in Test cricket because he's a ****ing incredible batsman. Not because of "technique".
There are far worse batsmen than Sehwag with far better techniques. A perfect technique only optimises whatever ability you already have.

Define technique. If you are speaking about 'copybook technique' then we are on different planes. 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. Sehwag has done that. He definitely has a better technique (not 'copybook technique') than a Wasim Jaffer, for that matter. However, Wasim Jaffer's shots reflect more of the drawings in cricket grammar books than Sehwag's shots, if that's what you mean by technique. In that way, Geoff Boycott had better 'copybook technique' than Brian Lara. But in my book Lara is the batsman with more effective technique than Boycott.

 

[Ruckus]

No, Sehwag has been one of he leading run scorers in Test cricket because he's a ****ing incredible batsman. Not because of "technique".
There are far worse batsmen than Sehwag with far better techniques. A perfect technique only optimises whatever ability you already have.

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.

 

[honestbharani]

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...

 

[smash84]

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

 

[Ruckus]

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...

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

 

[Ruckus]

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.

 

[Jarquis]

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.

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.

 

[Jarquis]

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

 

[silentstriker]

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.

 

[Jarquis]

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

 

[Jarquis]

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

 

[TumTum]

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.

 

[Ruckus]

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?

 

[Jarquis]

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.

 

[Ruckus]

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.