Print

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

[fineleg]

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

Could be a technical artist, no? 

[poondu]

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

Could be a technical artist, no? 

Remember VVS  ?  

[toney]

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

Could be a technical artist, no? 

I guess so. But do we know of any?

[Sahir]

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

Hanif Mohammed was said to be a brilliant technician.  I suppose you would need a pretty good technique to survive for over 16 hours in a Test innings!

[CLR James]

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

Yes, but given that Zed is the only subcontinental player to have more than 100 fc hundreds, a lot of them in those damp, swinging English wickets, he did have technique too (although like Azhar, suspect against short bowling on hard wickets). Zaheer also had the most beautiful cover drive I have ever seen.

[Sahir]

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

Yes, but given that Zed is the only subcontinental player to have more than 100 fc hundreds, a lot of them in those damp, swinging English wickets, he did have technique too (although like Azhar, suspect against short bowling on hard wickets). Zaheer also had the most beautiful cover drive I have ever seen.

Imran Khan still insists Zaheer Abbas is the best timer of the cricket ball he has ever seen.

[squarecut]

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

Yes, but given that Zed is the only subcontinental player to have more than 100 fc hundreds, a lot of them in those damp, swinging English wickets, he did have technique too (although like Azhar, suspect against short bowling on hard wickets). Zaheer also had the most beautiful cover drive I have ever seen.

Imran rated Inzi was the best comapred to SRT,Lara etc.

Imran Khan still insists Zaheer Abbas is the best timer of the cricket ball he has ever seen.

[Sahir]

Well, you can make a pretty strong case for Inzi...I don't think that is as wild a claim as some make it out to be, especially when you consider that Inzi has really been a matchwinner over his career.  When you consider that 17 of Inzi's 25 centuries have come in Tests that Pakistan have won and that he pulled off some spectacular cameos in the 1992 WC (particularly the 60 off 37 balls in semis while chasing a large NZ total) to help them win the tournament-- the argument holds some water.

[kban1]

My list of technically correct batsmen

1) SMG (actually he should occupy the 1st 3 spots  )
2) Geoff Boycott
3) Sanjay Manjerakar
4) Rahul Dravid
5) Sachin Tendulkar
6) Jacques Kallis
7) Greg Chapell

[toney]

kban, I thought you were banned!!

I agree with your list, its a great one. But I have to say, Greg Chappel may go higher up in the list going by what I have read about him.

[pieterSAN]

My list of technically correct batsmen

1) SMG (actually he should occupy the 1st 3 spots  )
2) Geoff Boycott
3) Sanjay Manjerakar
4) Rahul Dravid
5) Sachin Tendulkar
6) Jacques Kallis
7) Greg Chapell

I would have Sachin Tendulkar ahead of Rahul Dravid.

[Sahir]

kban and/or CLR,
did either of you ever watch Barry Richards play?  Many rave about his technique... am interested in your thoughts

[kban1]

Sahir:

I have watched footage of Barry Richards play --attacking bat, great driver, had all the strokes and had perfect balance when executing them.

Unfortunately what I say was also highlights which makes it difficult to judge techical correctness since the emphasis is on run scoring shots. He looked technically correct in the footage I saw, but IMO, too small a sample for me to judge. Thats why i did not add him to the list although I thought about it.

I have heard a lot of people say he was excellent technically, and I have no reason to doubt that --just that I could not say so independently.

[kban1]

jiet:

I would have Sachin Tendulkar ahead of Rahul Dravid.

And I would not disagree with placing SRT above RD, even if marginally so if we go by technique.

Essentially, I made a fine distinction in my post --technique vs technically correct (copybook). I used the latter criteria, which is why I put Manjerakar above RD, and RD above SRT.

If we use the technique criteria then the list will definitely take a different look  -- both order wise and name wise. For example, based on technique, I would include Viv, Inzi (both of very good technique but not purely copybook) as well as someone like Miandad (excellent technique, but highly non-copybook).

[kban1]

toney:

kban, I thought you were banned!!

yeah, had to bribe Dex. Sent him some sweets, specially ordered from Devon Street in Chicago (via CP -- he selected rosogollas  ).

Yes, Chapell had good technique for sure and technically was close to copybook as well. As I explained above to jiet, I did not go by strong technique but by copybook technique, hence my ordering.

But the list is debatable except maybe for the first 2 spots --SMG and Boycs.

[pieterSAN]

jiet:

I would have Sachin Tendulkar ahead of Rahul Dravid.

And I would not disagree with placing SRT above RD, even if marginally so if we go by technique.

Essentially, I made a fine distinction in my post --technique vs technically correct (copybook). I used the latter criteria, which is why I put Manjerakar above RD, and RD above SRT.

If we use the technique criteria then the list will definitely take a different look  -- both order wise and name wise. For example, based on technique, I would include Viv, Inzi (both of very good technique but not purely copybook) as well as someone like Miandad (excellent technique, but highly non-copybook).

I see where you are coming from. However I stick to my point of Sachin being probably more technically correct than Dravid. Sachin does have some failings but so does Dravid. With Dravid I have found the him very likely to "up periscope" while ducking. Also in forward defence Sachin seems more likely to move bat and pad together and without the gap.

If these things fall under technique then perhaps you could explain the distinction? Thanks.

[kban1]

jiet good points:

talking of RD -- other than the ones you mentioned, his backfoot defense against the incoming ball is not up to the mark from a technical standpoint.

On the other hand SRT's defense against the suddenly rising ball into the midriff area is not copybook either - he gets caught too often between the instinct to play an attacking shot or fending at it. Also SRT's front foot drive (not the defense) to the incoming delivery sometimes leaves a considerable gap between bat and pad.

As I mentioned earlier, if you make the argument that SRT is better than RD, I would not disagree much with you at all. Its a matter of opinion where the margin of variance / preference is quite small, IMHO. To me, a lot of the positions other than the top 2 (SMG and Boycs) are interchangeable.

[gouravk]

Yes, RD also has a problem of sometimes being too copybook and resultantly edging to slips when facing leg spinners.

[kban1]

great point gouravk (applause) --I think he fails to adjust for the drift sometimes, something a Warne produces. Thats where the copybook style or maybe more accurately, not being flexible in mixing technical correctness with strategy / flexibility (negating the drift and subsequent turn, a la SRT) costs him.

[fineleg]

Kban,
Good to see u in the discussions again! Welcome back.

[kban1]

Thanks fineleg!!

[justforkix]

Kban,
Good to see u in the discussions again! Welcome back.

length of kban's posts (#lines) since his return - 4, 8, 8, 7, 6, 9, 3, 1 Average = 5.75  . Now we know, why he was banned

[kban1]

jfk:

Is that Kaifesque ? Or am I not there yet ?!!   

[fineleg]

jfk:

Is that Kaifesque ? Or am I not there yet ?!!   

kix had a post - he deleted?

[justforkix]

jfk:

Is that Kaifesque ? Or am I not there yet ?!!   

kix had a post - he deleted?

yeah. dunno what happened. my browser and laptop crashed. now the post is missing

not an important one anywayz.

It was something about kban's average not kaifesque yet. Kaif had 37 in 8 innings, avg = 4.625 

[toney]

Back to the above discussion:
I dont know if this is a matter of being technically correct or not. In the 1998 Ind Aus series, I remember Ian Chappel saying how RD and Greg Blewett treat an incoming delivery from a fast bowler (probably on middle and leg) differently. RD will usually attempt to play it wide of mid on (squarer) while Blewett was likely to play it straighter, to the left of mid on. IMO, a technically correct batsman would have done what Blewett did, considering the deliveries that Chappel based for this observation.
Over a period of time in intl cricket, this has become a slight irritant for RD too. Too many times, he has got bowled playing too square to incoming deliveries and getting bowled.

I have seen SRT having similar technical issues after a length of time.
To their credit, both batsman have been good enough to address such problems. But it always surprises me that such faults which creep in arent corrected within a series itself. This is where coaches and even the batsmen themselves have to be sharp.

[fineleg]

Back to the above discussion:
I dont know if this is a matter of being technically correct or not. In the 1998 Ind Aus series, I remember Ian Chappel saying how RD and Greg Blewett treat an incoming delivery from a fast bowler (probably on middle and leg) differently. RD will usually attempt to play it wide of mid on (squarer) while Blewett was likely to play it straighter, to the left of mid on. IMO, a technically correct batsman would have done what Blewett did, considering the deliveries that Chappel based for this observation.
Over a period of time in intl cricket, this has become a slight irritant for RD too. Too many times, he has got bowled playing too square to incoming deliveries and getting bowled.

I have seen SRT having similar technical issues after a length of time.
To their credit, both batsman have been good enough to address such problems. But it always surprises me that such faults which creep in arent corrected within a series itself. This is where coaches and even the batsmen themselves have to be sharp.

Probably faults that creep in are too hard to correct in the middle of the series. It may need time away from the middle, in nets to correct. Corrections of that nature usually happen when series is not on.

[gouravk]

Really ? I thought Blewett was one of the worst players of the incoming ball in the world.