silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
100% not getting into this again.
So tell me this, if he just preys on impatient batsmen, how come he averages 9.83 against Kallis and 10.00 against Dravid. Unless you think those are impatient men. The fact is he relishes the patient men because they can never score against him and eventually they'll nick one or misjudge one.Matt79 said:Oh come on! This is a point I'd be genuinely interested in your opinion on, and its not in the middle of another thread or anything. I'm not trying to score points on the whole GM-OLAS thing or the Grace/Trumper thing either...
Look, I don't want to go insane here with praise but even an aggressive batsman (Tendulkar) still eonly averages 22 against him. Lara does better, so does Laxman.adharcric said:Good point. He actually does better against technically correct batsmen (Dravid, Kallis, tentative Tendulkar) than he does against the aggressive type (Pietersen, aggressive Tendulkar). So yeah, Richards might own him but the rest ... GM averaging 20 back in the day?
Yes but not necessarily as technically correct as some of the players of the past.Matt79 said:Good points. It was a theory, it sounds like its not a very good one, Dravid and Kallis are two of the more patient players going around today.
Oh? I find it hard to believe that there have been too many technically better batsmen than Tendulkar or Kallis or Dravid. Equalled certainly, but few surpassed. Technique these days is in short supply but IMO Tendulkar's technique is about as 'correct' as any player is likely to ever get. Dravid and Kallis with their defense are in the same boat.nightprowler10 said:Yes but not necessarily as technically correct as some of the players of the past.
Gavaskar had the better defense, but overall I don't think he had better technique than Tendulkar. Better than Dravid, yes.nightprowler10 said:Sure they're the most technically correct batsmen of our time, but as far as the McGrath debate goes, I doubt he would have this kind of success against someone with a better technique like, say Gavaskar.
I never said Sachin though, did I?silentstriker said:Gavaskar had the better defense, but overall I don't think he had better technique than Tendulkar. Better than Dravid, yes.
Oh, well yes Gavaskar did have better technique compared to Dravid. So maybe he would have averaged twice as much as Dravid.nightprowler10 said:I never said Sachin though, did I?
Haha, could be, but somehow I doubt it. I really don't think technique has anything to do with the whole thing anyway. Inzamam averages 24 against McGrath, but his technique isn't all that great. Younis has a better technique from what I know about batting, yet averages 15 against McGrath. I guess its got to do with a batsman's approach towards him, like the way Lara gets on top of him, or the way Anwar used to.silentstriker said:Oh, well yes Gavaskar did have better technique compared to Dravid. So maybe he would have averaged twice as much as Dravid.
I'd say a lot of batsmen from previous eras had more developed techiques because of the occasional rank-bad pitches they used to have to play on. In the modern era players with glaring flaws (Hayden & Smith are the two that come to mind) can have very successful careers because of the very true pitches they play the majority of their cricket on.silentstriker said:Oh? I find it hard to believe that there have been too many technically better batsmen than Tendulkar or Kallis or Dravid. Equalled certainly, but few surpassed. Technique these days is in short supply but IMO Tendulkar's technique is about as 'correct' as any player is likely to ever get. Dravid and Kallis with their defense are in the same boat.
Agree. Sehwag too.BoyBrumby said:I'd say a lot of batsmen from previous eras had more developed techiques because of the occasional rank-bad pitches they used to have to play on. In the modern era players with glaring flaws (Hayden & Smith are the two that come to mind) can have very successful careers because of the very true pitches they play the majority of their cricket on.
Players like Dravid & Kallis are almost a throwback in that they're primarily defensive batters with largely flawless techniques. Ironically neither open. The last quote-unquote "proper" opener we had was dear old Rigor Richardson.
at being overrated as being called the greatest bowler of all timeKaZoH0lic said:McGrath's the greatest.
mohammad16 said:at being overrated as being called the greatest bowler of all time
How do you arrive at that 22 figure? Tendulkar averages close to 50 in matches against McGrath.silentstriker said:Look, I don't want to go insane here with praise but even an aggressive batsman (Tendulkar) still eonly averages 22 against him. Lara does better, so does Laxman.