Rahul Dravid vs Kevin Pietersen (talent)

[sayon basak]

Not really a talent. We are talking about things that are instinctual and not the result of pure training.

Pretty sure If Pietersen never trained a day in his life, he wouldn't be much better than me. What you are referring to is being able to execute unorthodox shot. That's it. If he never practiced those in his life, he'd not be able to do them.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sorry KP.

Matches up very well with KP imo. AB de villiers could do absurd things and was an all round incredibly talented player at all facets of the game, so I can see why you could make the case he was easily more talented than Dravid.

KP nah. This is just attacking bias at play nothing else. He was a better ball striker that's all, Dravid was way more talented at plenty more things.

 

[subshakerz]

I think I kinda understand the talent part. In school, very often if there was a sudden pop quiz or test, I would easily be at the top but when we had actual planned tests (what we call exams in India) quite a few kids would score more than me coz they would prepare better, put in more effort and time unlike me who can be pretty lazy. I guess the question here is something similar.

There seem to be batsmen who can just wake up and walk in and still go better against test match bowlers than others who can be pretty clueless without full preparation. Of course, its just our imagination most of the time as we do not always know how much players practice etc. So it can well be a visual illusion that is created in our heads. I heard that Joe Root does not do much nets two days from the game or so, just a few knocks to feel the ball in the middle of the bat. Whereas folks like Virat can be pretty meticulous in their preparations. I guess its stuff like that, even though, as I said earlier, its most likely either hearsay or just some illusions based on how folks bat.

It's not just that though. There are some physical gifts like reflexes and power some cricketers have that others do not.

And some achievements on the field that are simply outside the possibility of certain cricketers regardless of training.

And then natural talent in terms of thinking out of the box shot selection and ways to play.

 

[subshakerz]

Pretty sure If Pietersen never trained a day in his life, he wouldn't be much better than me. What you are referring to is being able to execute unorthodox shot. That's it. If he never practiced those in his life, he'd not be able to do them.

Sorry but we are comparing professional international cricketers. It's always going to be a mix of talent and training. Question is what's the mix and who has more talent in their equation.

 

[subshakerz]

Matches up very well with KP imo. AB de villiers could do absurd things and was an all round incredibly talented player at all facets of the game, so I can see why you could make the case he was easily more talented than Dravid.

KP nah. This is just attacking bias at play nothing else. He was a better ball striker that's all, Dravid was way more talented at plenty more things.

More powerful striker, better reflexes against pace and bounce, but also more inventive in shots.

Also naturally fearless against spin and using his feet against them brilliantly.

 

[sayon basak]

Sorry but we are comparing professional international cricketers.

Swap me with Suryakumar Yadav. International cricketer. Plays unorthodox shots.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

The player that’s better in t20 is the one that is more talented I guess

 

[subshakerz]

Swap me with Suryakumar Yadav. International cricketer. Plays unorthodox shots.

I think those shots have to come across with some type of success for that to qualify as talent but I don't see your point.

 

[subshakerz]

The player that’s better in t20 is the one that is more talented I guess

Not really. Many constraints in that format.

 

[sayon basak]

I think those shots have to come across with some type of success for that to qualify as talent but I don't see your point.

Is SKY more talented than Dravid? SKY is way more innovative at making shots.

 

[Thala_0710]

Is SKY more talented than Dravid? SKY is way more innovative at making shots.

No.. It's not about innovative shots

 

[subshakerz]

Is SKY more talented than Dravid? SKY is way more innovative at making shots.

No he lacks basic natural abilities of a top bat to even enter the conversation.

 

[sayon basak]

No.. It's not about innovative shots

Pretty sure I saw a point being made for KP in that regard.

Ok, what is it about?

 

[subshakerz]

No.. It's not about innovative shots

Innovative shots are a part of it but you need to have talent to have a basic batting defense also, which requires hand eye coordination and reflexes to see the ball early.

 

[DrWolverine]

Guarantee you that if training and discipline are taken out of the equation for both, KP scores more runs

Being disciplined is also a talent.

 

[Thala_0710]

Talent is more about how natural a stroke maker you are and your ability to play quality bowling, how high your potential ceiling is. i.e if everything else theoretically went right, how good you could be

 

[sayon basak]

Talent does not exist.

 

[DrWolverine]

Talent is more about how natural a stroke maker you are and your ability to play quality bowling,

For sake of a debate

Is the inability to defend really talent or just a lack of discipline dressed up as flair?

 

[subshakerz]

Being disciplined is also a talent.

That's really debatable. Some people might not be born with it.

 

[subshakerz]

Talent does not exist.

So every bat could play fast bowlers like Viv if they just trained hard enough?