Superman weeps

[Ikki]

Nah that's cool. Top post TC.

I saw it completely the other way. I thought even with his technique and inherent risks he looked a cut above and just not troubled by bowlers.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nah that's cool. Top post TC.

I saw it completely the other way. I thought even with his technique and inherent risks he looked a cut above and just not troubled by bowlers.

I agree, when he was going at the bowling attack he looked to me like there was no way to get him out unless he made a mistake. Still remember the game vs NZ a few years back when they had posted about 500 first innings and Australia were batting last with no real hope of chasing down the total. Gilly and Waugh came together and Gilchrist went nuts for a number of overs and all of a sudden there were men back on the fence everywhere. It was only when Waugh (I think) was run out off a Gilly straight drive that they put the defences back up and played out the draw.

Definitely looked more assured than a tailender having a lucky day. That's Ian Bell

 

[thierry henry]

I agree, when he was going at the bowling attack he looked to me like there was no way to get him out unless he made a mistake. Still remember the game vs NZ a few years back when they had posted about 500 first innings and Australia were batting last with no real hope of chasing down the total. Gilly and Waugh came together and Gilchrist went nuts for a number of overs and all of a sudden there were men back on the fence everywhere. It was only when Waugh (I think) was run out off a Gilly straight drive that they put the defences back up and played out the draw.

Definitely looked more assured than a tailender having a lucky day. That's Ian Bell

Funnily enough, Ian Bell exemplifies to me someone who looks like a batsman but doesn't really perform.

To me, Gilchrist looked like an unco. But then again, so have most Aussie left-handers of the last ten years, for some reason.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Funnily enough, Ian Bell exemplifies to me someone who looks like a batsman but doesn't really perform.

To me, Gilchrist looked like an unco. But then again, so have most Aussie left-handers of the last ten years, for some reason.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at

 

[Top_Cat]

Nah that's cool. Top post TC.

I saw it completely the other way. I thought even with his technique and inherent risks he looked a cut above and just not troubled by bowlers.

Once he started playing Tests, sure. I was more referring to before 2000. After that, yeah he was just brilliant. His 152 in England, even on the back of awesome batting beforehand, was incredible. Have rarely seen such consistent hitting from anyone not named Gilchrist.

 

[Richard]

Guess Gilchrist and Nasser Hussain had far more in common than anyone realised.

Like most, this really surprises me, I expected this sort of thing from someone like Damien Martyn, but not Gilchrist.

Classic example of the contradiction between the level-headed head and the up-and-down heart.

 

[Matt79]

Feel it appropriate to add that for all his talk of how much of a mess he was, rarely did it impact his performance - indeed some of his best was produced when he was most upset. Only in 05 does it appear to have affected him, and even then it's prolly a chicken-egg thing re his technical prob and his emotional one.

Makes him more admirable in a way. Some who feels no fear or pressure isn't really brave or tough, they're just insensitive. To feel that way and perform despite it though.

 

[Eclipse]

To me he batted like a tail-ender playing that one innings where he makes 50 and constantly looks like he's going to get out. Except he did that EVERY innings.

I'm exaggerating but serious. He just didn't look good. Or safe. Or like he knew what he was doing. But he kept scoring runs.

Just a perception, hate it if you like.

That's funny, I always thought the exact oposite.

When he was on song it looked to me like he was never going to get out until the moment he did.

 

[Richard]

Some who feels no fear or pressure isn't really brave or tough, they're just insensitive.

Ind33d.

Of times in cricket, something which in wider life is a negative can be hugely helpful. Insensitivity can vastly improve a player compared to what he would be if he was more sensitive.

Of course, in Warne's case it seems his insensitivity spreads into the rest of his life; in Stephen Waugh's case it emphatically does not.

 

[Uppercut]

Ind33d.

Of times in cricket, something which in wider life is a negative can be hugely helpful. Insensitivity can vastly improve a player compared to what he would be if he was more sensitive.

Of course, in Warne's case it seems his insensitivity spreads into the rest of his life; in Stephen Waugh's case it emphatically does not.

Funny you should post that, here's a quote i posted just a few days ago from Warne in another thread on the 2005 Ashes tour:

“At night I’d lie there and go, ‘****, when am I going to see my kids?’ There were times I’d sit there and drink my mini bar until three in the morning just to get to sleep. Set the alarm, wake up and say, ‘Here we go again.’ I cried a fair bit when I was by myself: ‘You dickhead, what are you doing? What have you done?”‘

Warney's a bit daft, but i don't think he's as insensitive as he appears either.

 

[Richard]

Possibly Warne is more the type who acts first and thinks... thinks a little bit, that is... later (I think I've said that before). This means he does things that are incredibly insensitive before realising a little while down the line that he's caused hurt by doing them.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, he's probably the impulsive type who regrets his actions later.

 

[Uppercut]

Ind33d.

Of times in cricket, something which in wider life is a negative can be hugely helpful. Insensitivity can vastly improve a player compared to what he would be if he was more sensitive.

Of course, in Warne's case it seems his insensitivity spreads into the rest of his life; in Stephen Waugh's case it emphatically does not.

Coming back to this, where in life is sensitivity hugely helpful? Sensitivity to others feelings is a good trait for sure, but i tend to have more trouble with those who get emotional easily than the thick-skinned. The stronger someone's feelings the more likely they are to put them ahead of someone else's, in my experience.

Anyway, guess it's a debate for another time.

 

[Richard]

By "insensitivity" in life terms I tend to mean insensitivity to others' feelings, but yes, the sort of insensitivity that Stephen Waugh, Shane Warne and some others demonstrated on the cricket field is more to do with oneself.

Obviously if you're very sensitive in yourself that has its advantages and disadvantages. I generally think I'm somewhere in the middle in those terms though, so it's never overtly bothered me. I can't stand the attitude of those at one end of the scale, and am not always overtly keen on that at the other. I guess most people can tell which is which.