• 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.

Sloggin' Batsman = Good Batsman ?

masterblaster10

Cricket Spectator
It's good to see that this topic has brought about some discussion.

The point, was not if slogging is an effective technique of batting; we know it is more than likely to fetch one runs, albeit at risk, and thus implied more often in the shorter version of the game, ie. one day cricket. Test Cricket happens to be another ball game however. Good batsman are expected to play for time, defend, score when needed (with minimum risks), and of course once in a while every good batsman also slogs (depending upon conditions, for instance, when batting with tailenders etc.).

The point, is also not to categorize slogging ie. 1) good slogging (gilchrist, gayle, sehwag, cairns etc.) and 2) bad slogging (afridi, tailenders - some of them are pretty good on their day too).

The topic is - if batsman who ALWAYS have a mind set of slogging (and actually thats the best they know, or can do) are good batsman (or complete batsman, to be more clear) or not? And that is where I tend to differ. To me a good batsman is an all round batsman. I have seen many a times, Gilchrist and likewise (good or bad sloggers all alike), cannot often play any different then they can. And when they want to, you wish they never did (since they often look poor doing that) and that's when commentators emphasize that they should play their - 'natural game'. This stat is prominent enough by simply looking at their strike rates in both versions of the game.

That to me is a weakness. And the reason for me to NOT put them in the same class as Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Kallis etc. (which apparenly are far better batsman, since they can switch their mode of strokeplay with ease).
 
Last edited:

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
bestfriendh said:
WAT...........i have seen sachin slog.......lara slog........and remember steve waugh with his slog sweep???..........slogging is a very effective run gettin technique which all the great batsmen have used in some point of time.......... :) :D
yes ok, that granted under normal circumstances there would be no reason for these players to slog.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Which involved little in the way of slogs and mostly improvised authentic strokes.
As we've seen on here though, one man's 'improvised authentic stroke' is another man's slog.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
bestfriendh said:
WAT...........i have seen sachin slog.......lara slog........and remember steve waugh with his slog sweep???..........slogging is a very effective run gettin technique which all the great batsmen have used in some point of time.......... :) :D
I disagree. Sachin and Lara may slog once in a while. But thats rare. You cant confuse very aggressive batting with slogging. Which is realy hitting the ball with a predetermined shot irrespective of the line and length of the ball. This kind of slog (and that has to be the definition for it) is a hit or miss affair. What Sachin and Lara do, when they hit good length deliveries on the rise straight out odf the ground is to use their skills of footwork, great hand eye coordination, timing, power and skillful strokeplay to hit the ball lesser mortals would have defended.

I would say the difference between the batting of stroke players like Lara, Tendulkar and Richards and sloggers(who shall remain unnamed) is that while a Richards etc will be able to play different aggressive shots for the same delivery, a slogger will have just one shot for any delivery. The difference is crucial and the effect is the same ONLY when the slogger comes of. But his success rate is much much lower than that of a Richards.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
SJS said:
I disagree. Sachin and Lara may slog once in a while. But thats rare. You cant confuse very aggressive batting with slogging. Which is realy hitting the ball with a predetermined shot irrespective of the line and length of the ball. This kind of slog (and that has to be the definition for it) is a hit or miss affair. What Sachin and Lara do, when they hit good length deliveries on the rise straight out odf the ground is to use their skills of footwork, great hand eye coordination, timing, power and skillful strokeplay to hit the ball lesser mortals would have defended.

I would say the difference between the batting of stroke players like Lara, Tendulkar and Richards and sloggers(who shall remain unnamed) is that while a Richards etc will be able to play different aggressive shots for the same delivery, a slogger will have just one shot for any delivery. The difference is crucial and the effect is the same ONLY when the slogger comes of. But his success rate is much much lower than that of a Richards.

Very well put, SJS. I think that more than one shot per ball Vs one shot to every ball is a very important distinction between sloggers and good batters.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Son Of Coco said:
As we've seen on here though, one man's 'improvised authentic stroke' is another man's slog.
Hmm - true to an extent, but there'd be more agreement than I think you think.
Did you, for instance, see the Astle 222?
 

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Hmm - true to an extent, but there'd be more agreement than I think you think.
Did you, for instance, see the Astle 222?
Richard,

Is Astle's innings one of the best chanceless innings you have seen?
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Gilchrist is probably a bad example to use, really. Because until he switches on the 'Blitzkreig' mode in his brain (it seems to happen that suddenly to me, anyway!), he's generally pretty orthodox. His preference is for the horizontal stuff (he can drive pretty well too but his driving isn't in the same 'full-face of the bat' style as Sachin, Lara or Ponting) but generally, unless it's a particularly bad ball, he's fairly straight-up in style.

The fact that Gilchrist has a strike rate of 80 AND an average of 50+ in Tests suggests that he is one of the very few players who can combine good, decisive hitting with good orthodoxy early in his innings. When he gets going, though, he's one of the cleanest, glorious swing-through-the-line hitters I've ever seen. Now who would dare not call that great batting, regardless of the fact it looks less than 'classical'?
 

Black Thunder

School Boy/Girl Captain
IMO a slogger is someone who hits across the line with great regularity and into the air with great regularity.
 

C_C

International Captain
SJS, i am not convinced that sloggers have one stroke to a particular delivery while class bats have many...infact i think sloggers play more variety of shots against a particular delivery than the class bats....

Take a ball that is ripe for a cover drive for example....a batsman like tendulkar or lara would cover drive it or straight drive it or maybe even cut it.....but a slogger like Afridi would play a flick to it....

As per the nexus debate if sloggers are good batsmen...sloggers play low percentage cricket....but if they get runs, they are just as good.
I dont care how you get runs or wickets, if you do get runs and wickets more consistently by slogging than a classical player, you are better.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Take a ball that is ripe for a cover drive for example....a batsman like tendulkar or lara would cover drive it or straight drive it or maybe even cut it.....but a slogger like Afridi would play a flick to it....
Yeah exactly. I saw Afridi play some shots against the Aussies in Hobart I've never seen any other batsman play. Certainly not that any other batsman would consider playing (as you said, low percentage cricket).

As per the nexus debate if sloggers are good batsmen...sloggers play low percentage cricket....but if they get runs, they are just as good.
I dont care how you get runs or wickets, if you do get runs and wickets more consistently by slogging than a classical player, you are better.
Eeeek! I agree!!! :scared:

I don't like this new way of doing things. Why can't we go back to normal?

Hey C_C; STATS SUCK!!!!

:jerry:
 

nikhil1772

State Vice-Captain
C_C said:
SJS, i am not convinced that sloggers have one stroke to a particular delivery while class bats have many...infact i think sloggers play more variety of shots against a particular delivery than the class bats....

Take a ball that is ripe for a cover drive for example....a batsman like tendulkar or lara would cover drive it or straight drive it or maybe even cut it.....but a slogger like Afridi would play a flick to it....

As per the nexus debate if sloggers are good batsmen...sloggers play low percentage cricket....but if they get runs, they are just as good.
I dont care how you get runs or wickets, if you do get runs and wickets more consistently by slogging than a classical player, you are better.
Thats the difference between people like Afridi and people like Lara and Tendulkar...

Whenever you select 'sloggers' in the team,though they can make runs...they dont guarantee it every match...and selecting them just for the sake they have good Strike rate and good average doesn't make sense to me...one good innings in every four is not a very great career...may your average be 35 or 40...half the time in their career they are useless to the team...

I dont think slogging should be out of Cricket...I love it too...but a batsman dedicated his whole career to slogging...thats where the argument creeps in

BTW I dont think Gilchrist is a slogger...he just scores runs very fast
 

Swervy

International Captain
C_C said:
As per the nexus debate if sloggers are good batsmen...sloggers play low percentage cricket....but if they get runs, they are just as good.
I dont care how you get runs or wickets, if you do get runs and wickets more consistently by slogging than a classical player, you are better.
very true...as long as that is what the team/captain expects of you, most definatly.

There was one time a while ago though when Younis khan (I think) hit 50 in about 25 balls in a test that Pakistan were trying to save...obviuosly that innings was of no use and maybe the guy (if there was aguy who did this!!!) who scored 10 runs in 2 hours , in that situation, did what was needed ,and so really that lower slower innings should be considered the more successful.

But in general CC, in what might the first time ever, I agree with you :D
 

Black Thunder

School Boy/Girl Captain
very few sloggers do score many runs. Or at least they'll score some big runs in quick time and follow it with a series of low scores. As CC says, it is low percantage cricket.

For the Australian's here who follow tennis, you may be Andrew Ilie. If you wanted to use a cricket term, you'd call him a slogger. Played low percantage tennis, but if on one particular day it came off he was practically unbeatable. But the problem for him was he couldn't win tournaments as his low percantage play was very unlikely to yield him 5, 6 or 7 consecutive victories.

Some of the best innings in cricket (particularly ODI's) have been played by batsmen slogging (Jon Davison Canada v WI, a handful of Afridi innings amongst others) but when you look at the great scheme of things, no batsmen who you would put in the "greats" category would be considered a slogger.

Slogging is just not going to be able to be succesful over an extended period. And truth be told, it's better kept to the tailenders........
 

Swervy

International Captain
Black Thunder said:
very few sloggers do score many runs. Or at least they'll score some big runs in quick time and follow it with a series of low scores. As CC says, it is low percantage cricket.

For the Australian's here who follow tennis, you may be Andrew Ilie. If you wanted to use a cricket term, you'd call him a slogger. Played low percantage tennis, but if on one particular day it came off he was practically unbeatable. But the problem for him was he couldn't win tournaments as his low percantage play was very unlikely to yield him 5, 6 or 7 consecutive victories.

Some of the best innings in cricket (particularly ODI's) have been played by batsmen slogging (Jon Davison Canada v WI, a handful of Afridi innings amongst others) but when you look at the great scheme of things, no batsmen who you would put in the "greats" category would be considered a slogger.

Slogging is just not going to be able to be succesful over an extended period. And truth be told, it's better kept to the tailenders........
was that Davison innings slogging..i thought most of that was good hitting
 

Black Thunder

School Boy/Girl Captain
Swervy said:
was that Davison innings slogging..i thought most of that was good hitting
yeah great innings. A lot of good hitting, a bit of slogging. Wouldn't call it a pure slog-a-thon, but it's too early in the morning to rack my brain for 100% accuracy.
 

Top