Instagram


The Cricket Paper

Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    How does one define batting 'talent'?

    This word is very popular in cricket forums ,but i never understood what exactly it implies.I heard andy roberts in a recent interview scathingly attack the concept of talent by saying when mediocrities play mediocrities,some inevitably perform well and often get labelled as talented.Do you guys subscribe to this view?

    What makes a great batsman.I personally have divided a bastman's ability into 4 categories -

    1.TECHNIQUE -
    Includes stance,grip(determining shotmaking range),defensive compactness.

    2.NATURAL ABILITY -
    Includes eyesight,footwork,hand eye co-ordination,ball sense(ability to judge line and length quickly,play late)and general reflexes.

    3.MENTAL TEMPERAMENT -
    Includes concentration(to play long innings),ability to handle pressure,adaptability to survive according to conditions in the middle and opponents tactics , and focus.

    4.FITNESS -
    I believe this to be the least important from these 4 attributes of a batsman because cricket is a skill based game and we have seen many unfit great batsmen.But its importance is increasing rapidly these days with the amount of cricket played.I believe fitness can make a good batsman a better batsman,but it can't make a good batsman out of an average/bad one.

    Overall i think the combination of technique and natural ability as described above is what most people are trying to describe as 'talent' in a batsman.I'd like to know how you guys define batting talent in a clear way.

  2. #2
    Debut
    Sep 2013
    Runs
    9,536
    Mentioned
    111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think sitting from home watching TV, all I can say is batting talent is purely what 'appeals to the eye.'

    Thats how I have seen most batsmen selected and rejected over the years.

  3. #3
    Debut
    Nov 2017
    Venue
    India
    Runs
    47
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by austerlitz View Post
    This word is very popular in cricket forums ,but i never understood what exactly it implies.I heard andy roberts in a recent interview scathingly attack the concept of talent by saying when mediocrities play mediocrities,some inevitably perform well and often get labelled as talented.Do you guys subscribe to this view?

    What makes a great batsman.I personally have divided a bastman's ability into 4 categories -

    1.TECHNIQUE -
    Includes stance,grip(determining shotmaking range),defensive compactness.

    2.NATURAL ABILITY -
    Includes eyesight,footwork,hand eye co-ordination,ball sense(ability to judge line and length quickly,play late)and general reflexes.

    3.MENTAL TEMPERAMENT -
    Includes concentration(to play long innings),ability to handle pressure,adaptability to survive according to conditions in the middle and opponents tactics , and focus.

    4.FITNESS -
    I believe this to be the least important from these 4 attributes of a batsman because cricket is a skill based game and we have seen many unfit great batsmen.But its importance is increasing rapidly these days with the amount of cricket played.I believe fitness can make a good batsman a better batsman,but it can't make a good batsman out of an average/bad one.

    Overall i think the combination of technique and natural ability as described above is what most people are trying to describe as 'talent' in a batsman.I'd like to know how you guys define batting talent in a clear way.
    Tbh in cricket,word "talent" is generally used for players who has underachieved or underperformed.(for 90% cases like Rohit Sharma etc)

    I think almost all great players are talented.

    Batsmen who are rated as underachieved talented player generally have this:

    (Natural ability + how attractive his batting is) >>>(mental temparement,fitness etc)

    I don't think fitness and mental temparement is ever associated with "Talent" in cricket.

    if a player possess all these qualities in abundance then that player must be or would become an ATG.

  4. #4
    Debut
    May 2016
    Runs
    7,565
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Number 2 mainly. There are some aspects of mental temperament that are natural such as maintaining composure under pressure or on the big stage. Not everyone is born with a killer instinct.

    The rest fall under skills that can be developed.


    A skilled hawk conceals its talons.

  5. #5
    Debut
    Nov 2011
    Runs
    17,395
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    run tally. everything else comes after that.

  6. #6
    Debut
    Apr 2009
    Venue
    Australia
    Runs
    4,257
    Mentioned
    1101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    To be frank, even if a player has Natural ability, if he does not have the other 3 you mention it will count to nothing. So Technique, Temperament and Fitness are the most important aspects of cricket. Steve Waugh was never pleasing to the eye but was one of the best batters under pressure and almost singlehandedly dragged Australia to the 1999 world cup finals. I would prefer that than someone who scores a pretty 50 with his natural ability and gets out.

  7. #7
    Debut
    May 2015
    Runs
    3,240
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by giri26 View Post
    To be frank, even if a player has Natural ability, if he does not have the other 3 you mention it will count to nothing. So Technique, Temperament and Fitness are the most important aspects of cricket. Steve Waugh was never pleasing to the eye but was one of the best batters under pressure and almost singlehandedly dragged Australia to the 1999 world cup finals. I would prefer that than someone who scores a pretty 50 with his natural ability and gets out.
    Natural ability is the most important. There are thousands of cricketers with good temperament, fitness and technique. What separates them is their natural talent.

    At the top level, it matters a little less though. Rohit has more natural ability than Kohli, but isn't nearly as good.

  8. #8
    Debut
    Apr 2009
    Venue
    Australia
    Runs
    4,257
    Mentioned
    1101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sachin136 View Post
    Natural ability is the most important. There are thousands of cricketers with good temperament, fitness and technique. What separates them is their natural talent.

    At the top level, it matters a little less though. Rohit has more natural ability than Kohli, but isn't nearly as good.
    Natural ability allows you to get noticed and get selected but in the long run if you don't have the other 3 qualities, you will be discarded soon. If you take all the great players, they were more than the natural ability they possessed. What would you call someone like Shivnarine Chanderpaul? Steven Waugh? or even Rahul Dravid? Hard working cricketers who had great temperament, did not probably possess the natural ability of a Sachin Tendulkar or Brian Lara or Rickey Ponting but they conquered it by the other 3 qualities.

  9. #9
    Debut
    Oct 2017
    Runs
    65
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Umar Akmal is the definition of batting tailunt.

  10. #10
    Debut
    Dec 2011
    Runs
    7,570
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Stance is natural to a great extent.

    You cant expect Fawad Alam to have a stance like Saeed Anwar?

  11. #11
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Runs
    123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In my eyes "talent" gets used very loosely around the cricketing world. I guess to generalize it a bit every player that plays international games has to be talented as they were picked out of millions... so in that sense talented yes....

    when it comes to looking purely amongst the players.... good alrounders (above decent in all facets of games) are talented in my eyes... or batsmen or bowlers who are miles ahead of other purists... rest are dime a dozen in the game...

    and it is true that when yiu have mediocre players playing amongst each others you will have inflated avg's... and they come crashing down... similarly when u r playing amongst high lvls in domestic you may have lower avg's but on call ups they flourish bcoz they can handle the pressure.

  12. #12
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Runs
    1,260
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There is no strict definition. In my view when your talented your natural reaction is better than someone with less talent. That alone is not enough. Reacting to a ball getting out early is not talent. But Reacting and sustaining for longer period defines a hugely talented player. From top of my head. Sehwag is one such. Lot of players are talented. But they also become disciplined over a time. Some people practice so hard that they can mimic natural reaction by persistency. They acquire talent through practice. You cannot imitate Sehwag. You can imitate Dravid even Sachin.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •