Print

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

[fineleg]

Inspired by another conversation with toney...this can be a thread of its own.

Once upon a time, people fawned over Sanjay Manjrekar saying he is the purest technician - I thought he was alrite, but nothing spectacular. What are the thoughts of people in this DG? abt Sanjay Manj?

Bring on a list of technical batsmen you have observed.

We will start with RD - great technical bat.

We will define technical as meaning "as close to copybook as possible"...Is that definition ok?
In terms of positioning, foot movement, bat movement etc etc. AS WELL as SHOT-SELECTION (technical imo shud include right shot selection for right ball).

[ramshorns]

I promise not to start another controversy on top of the one started by Toney and leave VVS out of it, so that another thread need not be started.

[fineleg]

I promise not to start another controversy on top of the one started by Toney and leave VVS out of it, so that another thread need not be started.

VVS is an artist, not a technical copybook great - do u even think he is (in ur opinion)?

[ramshorns]

I promise not to start another controversy on top of the one started by Toney and leave VVS out of it, so that another thread need not be started.

VVS is an artist, not a technical copybook great - do u even think he is (in ur opinion)?

Meant as a toungue in the cheek comment after all the great threads dedicated to VVS.

[prfsr]

Inspired by another conversation with toney...this can be a thread of its own.

Once upon a time, people fawned over Sanjay Manjrekar saying he is the purest technician - I thought he was alrite, but nothing spectacular. What are the thoughts of people in this DG? abt Sanjay Manj?

Bring on a list of technical batsmen you have observed.

We will start with RD - great technical bat.

We will define technical as meaning "as close to copybook as possible"...Is that definition ok?
In terms of positioning, foot movement, bat movement etc etc. AS WELL as SHOT-SELECTION (technical imo shud include right shot selection for right ball).

Sunny, surely?

One thing to consider is that batsmen change a lot. Not all change as extremely as Mohinder (new stance etc etc). But many pick up bad habits. Vengsarkar was good technically at the beginning but towards the end he had a very very ugly push to the slips which really looked like he was giving catch practice to the slips. Sidhu started as a strokeless wonder but developed into a very clean hitter of spin bowling.

Manjrekar was good. Not sure what spectacular means in the context of being technically correct. I mean technique is technique. And I disagree that there is one correct stroke for a particular ball. One batsman would use footwork to move into position to hit a good length ball through the covers. Another may defend it very correctly (manj would probably be the latter ). BOth may have the correct technique but the first bat may be spectacular for the choice of shot but not because of technique.

Some bats were technically ok, but looked very awkward. Anybody remember Gaikwad? His first movement would be getting up from his hunched stance, so the most visible part would be the posterior end jumping up (sorry for the bad description -- you had to see it)

-P

[fineleg]

That must have been funny to say the least! If thats what Gaikwad! stance was.

Kris Srikkanth was a weird stance.

Yes,  I guess SMG was technical.

[fineleg]

What abt other countries?

Was Boycs technical? Others? Barry Richards?
(I havent seen these, but some of u may have?)

[toney]

prfsr,
I agree. Sunny is probably the most technically correct batsman I have seen. I also agree that there doesnt need to be anything spectacular about being a technically correct player. In fact, that very often makes a batsman look less spectacuular. SMG's technique was awesome.

[avinashgodkhindi]

The funniest stance was that of Ijaz ahmed around the world cup 1987. Anyone remember the semi finals and his dismissal to bruce reid caught at fineleg, his left foot would point towards thrid man and so  the bowler used to get an unusual view!!!!

[CLR James]

Sunny is certainly the most technically accomplished batsman I have ever seen. The balance was beautiful and the driving and the flicking especially was sublime. He had all the shots, but did not always bring them out. One thing distinguishes Sunny from being a mere 'technician' -- he was a great timer of the ball, which is a god given talent.

Boycott came close, but his hyper cautious approach was sometimes quite unpalatable. He had a 'top bottom' grip (right hand right at the bottom of the handle, left hand at the very top), as a result he never really drove the ball, merely pushed it, or punched it in front of the wicket. It is also because of the same grip that the signature Boycott stroke was the square cut. He unleashed it perhaps once, every 50 deliveries to momentarily lighten up an otherwise dull and dreary afternoon. But boy, when he did, the bat came down like a sledge hammer and ball rocketed to the point fence.

Another thing that distinguished Boycott from Gavaskar was his pathological distrust of the pitched ball. As a result, Boycott always wanted to play on the front foot, even the three quarter deliveries, killing the swing or spin of the delivery. Gavaskar would play the same off the backfoot and score runs at a faster rate.

[Aloo Kashmiri Ul Haq]

what about the newer lot in team india viz Dhoni, Pathan (come on he is a batsman too now), Raina, Kaif (he's still a newbie for me) , Uthappa, Venu "i am rock star" rao and even Yuvraj.

to me raina looks the most compact batsman of the list

[toney]

dy,
Yeah, Raina looks compact. That leads me to this question:
Which southpaw has a really great technique? I cant think of many.

[pieterSAN]

Pathan and Rao have good technique

[gullu]

Sanjay Manjrekar was technically very good but he didn't have mental toughness. I remember he was having lot of problems with Merv Hughes when India went to Australia in 1992.

When India toured Australia in 1999, I felt Dravid would meet Sanjay's fate but Dravid is made of sterner stuff.

[gouravk]

Yup. I remember Javed saying in that 1989 tour that Manjrekar looked like a combination of Gavaskar and Vishwanath.

[gullu]

Pathan has excellent technique. He uses his feet well, can play strokes on both sides of the wkts, and judges line of the ball well.

I would even say that technically (not productively), he is the best left-hand Indian batsman.

[prfsr]

I think left handers are spoiled by people saying how elegant they are before they develop their technique

Speaking of left handed elegance, anyone remember Border? 

-P

[ramshorns]

I think left handers are spoiled by people saying how elegant they are before they develop their technique

Speaking of left handed elegance, anyone remember Border? 

-P

I associate Border more with grafting than elegance.  He pales in comparsion to Gower his contemporary, though more productive and very reliable.

[squarecut]

How about Desmond Haynes from WI?

[gouravk]

surprised no one mentioned jacques kallis

[squarecut]

surprised no one mentioned jacques kallis

yup he should be there with RD on the top

[fineleg]

How about Desmond Haynes from WI?

was he technical guy? Thought he was a great batsman but not orthodox.

[prfsr]

I think left handers are spoiled by people saying how elegant they are before they develop their technique

Speaking of left handed elegance, anyone remember Border? 

-P

I associate Border more with grafting than elegance.  He pales in comparsion to Gower his contemporary, though more productive and very reliable.

Ram: Border was as clumsy as anyone I have seen, hence the smileys! Gower was a treat to watch.
-P

[ramshorns]

I think left handers are spoiled by people saying how elegant they are before they develop their technique

Speaking of left handed elegance, anyone remember Border? 

-P

I associate Border more with grafting than elegance.  He pales in comparsion to Gower his contemporary, though more productive and very reliable.

Ram: Border was as clumsy as anyone I have seen, hence the smileys! Gower was a treat to watch.
-P

Yep, I knew that was the reason for the smileys.  But Border was one tough son of a gun.  I would rate him along with Javed as the most clutch players and very reliable in any situation when the team needs them in the 28-30 year of my following cricket since I was 7.   

[squarecut]

How about Desmond Haynes from WI?

was he technical guy? Thought he was a great batsman but not orthodox.

I watched lot of Dessy didn't see anything unorthodox. Technicality is not associated with the great WI batsmen anyway

[ramshorns]

How about Desmond Haynes from WI?

was he technical guy? Thought he was a great batsman but not orthodox.

I watched lot of Dessy didn't see anything unorthodox. Technicality is not associated with the great WI batsmen anyway

Yes SQCUT you are right on that one. 

[gullu]

Border was bit like Graham Thorpe. Gritty but ugly.

[squarecut]

Graham gooch is one other guy who is very orthodox but with a very high backlift.

[justforkix]

Any reason why SRT is not mentioned here ?!?!? He's a copybook cricketer + can do play a lot more imaginative strokes. But he plays all the traditional strokes copybook style....

[squarecut]

Any reason why SRT is not mentioned here ?!?!? He's a copybook cricketer + can do play a lot more imaginative strokes. But he plays all the traditional strokes copybook style....

Yes he should be there. Most of the folks have this mindset of technical batsmen means grafters similar
to RD/Kallis.  Most free scoring batsmen are not associated with technically good.

[toney]

jfk, sqcut,
this thread started from a discussion between fineleg and me about SRT being technically correct. Glad you guys are on my side

[fineleg]

As i said, IMO, SRT not really the best of copybook cricket...thats what i've felt.

[toney]

fineleg, does a technically correct batsman have to play ONLY the copybook cricket shots? By that count, RD who also plays the reverse sweep isnt one.
And you didnt answer me. Which shot of SRT isnt technically good?

[fineleg]

fineleg, does a technically correct batsman have to play ONLY the copybook cricket shots? By that count, RD who also plays the reverse sweep isnt one.
And you didnt answer me. Which shot of SRT isnt technically good?

Honestly, toney - its a perception I have.
And, I am thinking why, and here is the reason I get (if I get others as I think, I'll post) -
The shots themselves are fine - it is the manner of dismissals.
RD's wicket had to be really earned. (until recently when you can claim he is also playing a few loose shots), whereas SRT dismissals have been softer many times, a loose shot, going for the cut when the ball was not there to be cut, playing too far away from the body, playing too close to the stumps. A wafty drive away from the body and edge or inside edge.
Trying to go over the infield, and played it too early to lob it up in the air.
Not rolling over the wrists enough to keep the ball ALL the way on the ground when going for a pull and hence the resulting miscue (typically RD is beautiful in keeping the ball along the ground by rolling the wrists  over the ball).

SRT trying to be more aggressive has sacrificed technical perfection - he has gained from that approach, no doubt, but in my viewpoint, RD is the technical guy.

These are things, I associate more with SRT than with RD - and hence my perception has been shaped.

[toney]

IMO, playing a false shot because you are beaten by a good ball (such as a slower ball) isnt reason enough to call a batsman "less" technical. For argument's sake, by that same logic, everytime RD gets dismissed, isnt that a false shot too? I understand what you mean but dont agree.

Anyhow, we need more men in the list. No Pakistanis yet?

[fineleg]

IMO, playing a false shot because you are beaten by a good ball (such as a slower ball) isnt reason enough to call a batsman "less" technical. For argument's sake, by that same logic, everytime RD gets dismissed, isnt that a false shot too? I understand what you mean but dont agree.

Anyhow, we need more men in the list. No Pakistanis yet?

Yes, toney - I know my argument is not totally sound - but just a perception.

Pakis! Hmmm...lets see....
I dunno - was Zaheer Abbas anything? or Mudassar Nazar? Did not see these guys much.
Yousuf Youhana was someone with fairly good technique.

[poondu]

IMO, playing a false shot because you are beaten by a good ball (such as a slower ball) isnt reason enough to call a batsman "less" technical. For argument's sake, by that same logic, everytime RD gets dismissed, isnt that a false shot too? I understand what you mean but dont agree.

Anyhow, we need more men in the list. No Pakistanis yet?

Yes, toney - I know my argument is not totally sound - but just a perception.

Pakis! Hmmm...lets see....
I dunno - was Zaheer Abbas anything? or Mudassar Nazar? Did not see these guys much.
Yousuf Youhana was someone with fairly good technique.

Mudassar Nazar belongs in the list of most boring batsmen 

[fineleg]

IMO, playing a false shot because you are beaten by a good ball (such as a slower ball) isnt reason enough to call a batsman "less" technical. For argument's sake, by that same logic, everytime RD gets dismissed, isnt that a false shot too? I understand what you mean but dont agree.

Anyhow, we need more men in the list. No Pakistanis yet?

Yes, toney - I know my argument is not totally sound - but just a perception.

Pakis! Hmmm...lets see....
I dunno - was Zaheer Abbas anything? or Mudassar Nazar? Did not see these guys much.
Yousuf Youhana was someone with fairly good technique.

Mudassar Nazar belongs in the list of most boring batsmen 

Boring but technical?  Jacques Kallis is boring many a times.

[poondu]

don't think he was techie. Seen him fish outside off many many times. More of a subcontinent player only if I remember right.

[toney]

What abt Hanif Mohammed, the king of slow innings? We can safely rule out Zaheer Abbas. He was a beautiful artist.