Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[sudzz]

This post is an off shoot of the ongoing new comers versus old timers debate.

We have seen time and time again Gilchrist change the course of a Test match with belligerent batting, so has Symonds in ODI's.

Before the advent of these guys as well there were really destructive players who could score very very rapidly yet build scores and partnerships and therefore innings of substance. The ready examples are Botham, Kapil, etc.

The question Iam raising is that a lot of the people derided the successes achieved in T20 saying that the stars of T20 wont have it in them to play any of the longer versions, we have been proved wrong to an extent by Robin Uthappa but in general it seems there is a requirement to be different in the longer version but isnt batting all the same at the end of the day? put bat to ball and send the ball to the right areas do it more often and you will score and score fast?

So why is it that it is believed that GG, RU, etc cannot replace the ageing stalwarts....

[indcric]

Hmm..

There are many differences between batting in shorter version & longer version:

1) In shorter version, the rules suit the batsman, like One bouncer per over rule. A fixed set of fielders can be outside circle for powerplay overs etc.
2) In shorter version, the need is to restrict number of runs more than taking the wickets.  This forces the captains to set a bit defensive fields.
3) In shorter version, a bowler can only bowl 4 (T20) or 10 (ODI) overs per match. So a bowler's spell will be of 2 or 3 or 4 overs(T20) or 5 or 6 overs (In ODIs). That reduces the chances of a bowler working on a batsman.
4) In the longer version, you have to face more number of balls, so there can be more good balls and it takes just one good ball to get the batsman out. So more number of balls, more chances of getting a batsman out.
5) In the longer version, pitch condition & the condition of the ball changes over the time (good bowlers can take of advantage of these change in conditions), there by a good batsman has to be able to adjust to changing conditions.
6) In the longer version, you have to concentrate for long periods. You have to be constantly thinking, since the bowler tries to out-think you. If you lose your concentration for just one ball, you are gone.


So, a batsman's weaknesses can be exploited better by a good bowler in the longer version of the game. A great batsman quickly overcomes his weaknesses. Flaws in a batman's technique develop over a period. A great batsman can get those flaws ironed out before it affects the team in many matches. Great batsmen can also cover those weaknesses in their technique by reducing those shots that expose their weakness, by adjusting footwork, by adjusting body movement, by adjusting the batting stance,  by adjusting the way they hold the bat etc. A great batsman can also adjust to changes in pitch condition & the change in condition of the ball.

[sudzz]

Hmm..

There are many differences between batting in shorter version & longer version:

1) In shorter version, the rules suit the batsman, like One bouncer per over rule. A fixed set of fielders can be outside circle for powerplay overs etc.
2) In shorter version, the need is to restrict number of runs more than taking the wickets.  This forces the captains to set a bit defensive fields.
3) In shorter version, a bowler can only bowl 4 (T20) or 10 (ODI) overs per match. So a bowler's spell will be of 2 or 3 or 4 overs(T20) or 5 or 6 overs (In ODIs). That reduces the chances of a bowler working on a batsman.
4) In the longer version, you have to face more number of balls, so there can be more good balls and it takes just one good ball to get the batsman out. So more number of balls, more chances of getting a batsman out.
5) In the longer version, pitch condition & the condition of the ball changes over the time (good bowlers can take of advantage of these change in conditions), there by a good batsman has to be able to adjust to changing conditions.

So, a batsman's weaknesses can be exploited better by a good bowler in the longer version of the game. A great batsman quickly overcomes his weaknesses. Flaws in a batman's technique develop over a number of matches. A great batsman can get those flaws ironed out before it affects the team in many matches. Great batsmen can also cover those weaknesses in their technique by reducing those shots that expose their weakness. A great batsman can also adjust to changes in pitch condition & the change in condition of the ball.

Valid point these and ones I used to believe till recently, but IMHO that the way people like Gilchrist in tests, Symonds in ODI or even Gayle in both forms of the game or when Sehwag was in form even him in Tests have shown us that when we score at 3+ in tests and at about 6+ in ODI's even if it is a for a period of one-two session in tests and for about 15-20 overs in ODI's the game completely changes and the bowling gets demoralised and on coming batsmen can milk the bowling for runs or even play their shots more effectively.

Why go far even when we were doing well under SG both in India and away, we were consistently scoring fast in test matches (we for some reason could never replicate that in ODI's effectively).

Therefore to say that these guys will get found out or will not be able to sustain their momentum over longer stretches does not seem to hold very true. These can guys can still play the way they do for about a session and half in a test match or about 15-20 overs in ODI's and contribute more than a painstakingly complied century in three hours.

[indcric]

No body said that people who score very fast like Gilchrist, Sehwag, Jayasurya & Gayle are not suited to play tests. People are only saying you need right technique to survive in tests for a long time.

The question here is: Are there any apparent weaknesses in Gilchrist's technique? Bowlers found out Sehwag's weakness and now he is struggling. But he was good enough to hide his weakness for so long, that is the reason he played those many test matches.

People who are saying RU can't play test matches are saying that based on their observations of his batting technique. Any weaknesses you have will be brutally exposed by quality bowlers in longer version of the game.

[broadbat]

Thats true sudzz, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Until they are tried out and fail, no one can be written off saying that they will not do well in Tests. Too much is being made out about technique etc. In modern cricket there are people from both side of the coin who have been successful. I don't think more than 20-30% of players playing Test cricket currently have the so called 'perfect technique'. What ultimately counts is self belief and the desire to do well. Most brilliant players have a style that is their own and not from a coaching manual. In my view most players who fail lare those who lose the plot mentally than anything else. However the ability to maintain concentration levels for long periods of time is a must for all batsmen aspiring to play in Tests. Btw I am still to learn what the bowlers have found out about Sewhag that is causing him to fail. In most innings that I have seen him, he seems to self destruct more than anything that the bowlers do.