• 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.

ESPNcricinfo World XI

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.
Ergo, you agree that Collingwood scores runs despite his technique, not because of it and that technique is a limiting factor. Two of the key points I've been making since the beginning of this discussion.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
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.
Thats a very crucial point. Good technqiue oftens looks the same (e.g. the ref Bradman made to Tendulkar). Thats suggests that for most players there are certain styles of batting which seem to improve run scoring/defence (which are often the same as "traditional technique"). However, it is possible that a player can for some bizarre reason succeed far better using completely unorthodox techique which happens to work better for them personally. "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." That should be changed to "most people are more likely to score runs playing with a full face than trying to hit the ball with half a bat."

Now to Sehwag. What he does in the next 20 tests entirely depends on the conditions. I think Sehwag has deficits in swing bolwing etc. Therefore for my opinion on him to change, requires a solid performance in those areas. I already know he has good tecnhqiue with regards to typical subcontinental conditions, so any further improvement there is rather redundant when comparing to Ponting.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Interesting to see Ian Chappell's reasoning for Sehwag being in an all time XI. I wouldn't have him, but it's interesting how his stock has risen.
 

GotSpin

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.
I'm sorry but this is just completely wrong. He's called the raging bull for a reason. He was an extremely attacking bowler. I may have been young when I watched him, but your description is incredibly inaccurate
 
Last edited:

Teja.

Global Moderator
There is a distinction between being pro-active and aggressive, and Ambrose while being the latter and banging the ball in, in an almost scary manner, was not a bowler-particularly at the second part of his career-who changed plans very quickly when a plan was not working with a batsman. He could bowl 10 overs without bowling a bad ball and severely restricting the batsman's scoring opportunities and this resulted in batsman falling to the pressure which was created also as as a result of his aggressiveness and presence. I always felt he was willing to wait it out and maintain his line and length and continue with building pressure rather than to try something a little risky which might give him a chance at a wicket.(a la Donald, Waqar)

The above might actually be held as a massive strength by most, but I've always rated bowlers who went out of the way and bowled aggressive and varied lengths to get wickets even if they did not build as much pressure as Ambrose did.

I know most will disagree with this, but yeah, this is my opinion anyway. :p
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Ergo, you agree that Collingwood scores runs despite his technique, not because of it and that technique is a limiting factor. Two of the key points I've been making since the beginning of this discussion.
Yeh I do agree with that... has nothing to do with what you previously said about Sehwag though. Collingwood probably doesn't peform as well as he could, because the technique he uses doesn't maximise his potential. He still scores runs, just not as many as he probably could. If Collingwood started scoring more runs, then my conclusion would be his technique oviosuly works well for him.

Similiarly, with Sehwag you were arguing that if he did manage to improve his deficits it would be in spite of his technique. I then said, it would only be a step further in suggesting he has good technique; i.e. it works for him.

Once again, nothing incongruous here.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
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.
Yes, and you can't be a consistently successful batsman in test cricket with all those abilities and zero technique.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Yes, and you can't be a consistently successful batsman in test cricket with all those abilities and zero technique.
Yeah, technique is obviously a big factor as well. It's not as simple as saying that better technique = better batsman though. If had had zero reflexes or zero shot selection or zero anything else you'd be rubbish. Technique is important but it's not the only thing.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Yeah, technique is obviously a big factor as well. It's not as simple as saying that better technique = better batsman though. If had had zero reflexes or zero shot selection or zero anything else you'd be rubbish. Technique is important but it's not the only thing.
Thats true. I spose I better clarify though (for Marcuss mainly). In the case of Ponting/Sehwag, I think Pontings overall better technique is the main reason imo he is better than Sehwag. Things like 'determination' etc. I am assuming to be similiar between the two, because it is pointless to think otherwise (i.e. there is no way of knowing).
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Collingwood scores runs despite his technique, not because of it and that technique is a limiting factor.
No, I would like to put it this way, if Collingwood had better technique he would score more runs. Collingwood scores this many runs because he has technique (and other factors) for this many.

What you are saying is like saying that guy is excellent in mathematics despite being extremely dull. It doesn't happen.

The Bradman example is quite apt here. When he started playing, everyone opined that his technique is nowhere near Trumper's (Grimmett thought that even after Bradman retired, but that's a different story :p ). But soon they knew that Bradman's technique is something new, and quite effective. It's as good as the technique of any batsman who have played before, if not better than all.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, technique is obviously a big factor as well. It's not as simple as saying that better technique = better batsman though. If had had zero reflexes or zero shot selection or zero anything else you'd be rubbish. Technique is important but it's not the only thing.
AWTA.

Technique is necessary but not sufficient.

You can be a bad batsman with good technique, but you can't be a good batsman with bad technique (unlike the point Marcuss is making).
 

Ruckus

International Captain
AWTA.

Technique is necessary but not sufficient.

You can be a bad batsman with good technique, but you can't be a good batsman with bad technique (unlike the point Marcuss is making).
We are on the same page here:) ahhh I love accordance...
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeh I do agree with that... has nothing to do with what you previously said about Sehwag though. Collingwood probably doesn't peform as well as he could, because the technique he uses doesn't maximise his potential. He still scores runs, just not as many as he probably could. If Collingwood started scoring more runs, then my conclusion would be his technique oviosuly works well for him.

Similiarly, with Sehwag you were arguing that if he did manage to improve his deficits it would be in spite of his technique. I then said, it would only be a step further in suggesting he has good technique; i.e. it works for him.

Once again, nothing incongruous here.
Well I think he'd have a better chance of improving his record if he had a better technique. That's my point.
What he's achieved so far is in spite of his technique, his technique can be improved, thus I feel his performances can be improved.

Which takes us back to my very first post IIRC. If Batsman A averages 55 using a textbook technique and Batsman B averages 55 using a flawed technique, then it's stupid to consider Batsman A superior to Batsman B. In fact I think it more logical to think the opposite but illogical to consider either :p
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yes, and you can't be a consistently successful batsman in test cricket with all those abilities and zero technique.
Yeah, technique is obviously a big factor as well. It's not as simple as saying that better technique = better batsman though. If had had zero reflexes or zero shot selection or zero anything else you'd be rubbish. Technique is important but it's not the only thing.
This was established ages ago.
 

Top