Most boring & the most Stylish Batsman

[roseboy64]

Only in his setup. Shot execution is awesome.

 

[open365]

Hayden makes much better connection with the ball than Chanderpaul does.

 

[roseboy64]

Not for me. Chanderpaul's timing and elegance when he makes contact looks better than Hayden's bludgeoning.

 

[PhoenixFire]

AWTA, Hayden gives that impression because he just hits it as hard as he can, whereas Chanderpaul probably times it better and gets a better connection, but doesn't actually try and hit it that hard.

 

[roseboy64]

Made the point better, you did.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Made the point better you did.

 

[The Sean]

AWTA, Hayden gives that impression because he just hits it as hard as he can, whereas Chanderpaul probably times it better and gets a better connection, but doesn't actually try and hit it that hard.

You make it sound like he's a wild slogger with no talent or technique. The man isn't the walking personification of style, but by Christ he can hit a ball - not just because of a big wind up but because he can time the ball superbly too.

 

[open365]

I think that could be rearranged as "You mde the point i was makin better than i made it"

 

[PhoenixFire]

You make it sound like he's a wild slogger with no talent or technique. The man isn't the walking personification of style, but by Christ he can hit a ball - not just because of a big wind up but he can time the ball superbly.

We weren't really talking about how hard he hits it, because even I am happy to admit he hits it harder than anyone I have seen.

 

[roseboy64]

You made the point better than I did.

 

[roseboy64]

I think that could be rearranged as "You mde the point i was makin better than i made it"

Correct but with better spelling.

 

[roseboy64]

You make it sound like he's a wild slogger with no talent or technique. The man isn't the walking personification of style, but by Christ he can hit a ball - not just because of a big wind up but because he can time the ball superbly too.

Nah, he's definitely got all that.

 

[The Sean]

You made the point better than I did.

I preferred it when you sounded like Yoda.

 

[open365]

Preffered it like Yoda, Sean did.

 

[roseboy64]

I preferred it when you sounded like Yoda.

Also did I.

Preffered it like Yoda, Sean did.

Aye.

 

[haroon510]

there is a big defference between a stylish batsman and exciting one..

Stylish batsman are batsmans like saeed anwar, sechan Tendulker, Ricky pointing, Brain Lara, inzi... and so on... watching them playing big innings is just a treat. they define what cricket is all about..

we have exciting batsmans like Shahid afridi, Dhoni, Symonds, Gilly... what makes people exicited to watch them is that they have the ability to turn around the game in five or sixes overs. u have that amazing moment and u see how the game is changed from how it was afew minutes ago...

Boring batsmans are usually batsman with strong defence.. they play in the backfoot often.. for bowlers they are headach to get them out.. they play their natural game and it is a big challange to get them out for the bowlers... they can pile runs in any surface and any pitches in any country... what is wrong with thier innings are that it unwatchable.. u can still watch and enjoy it when there is movments in the pitch but other than that there is nothing exciting in thier innigs to remember a year or two years later..

I voted for King ViV KP... lol although it is a close one between him and Ricky pointing..
in stylish batsman

Exciting batsman i would have to say it is Gilly then afridi then dhoni..

boring batsman.. don't get me start with Dravid and Kalis again but i wana add Attapatu's name there also..

 

[PhoenixFire]

there is a big defference between a stylish batsman and exciting one..

Stylish batsman are batsmans like saeed anwar, sechan Tendulker, Ricky pointing, Brain Lara, inzi... and so on... watching them playing big innings is just a treat. they define what cricket is all about..

we have exciting batsmans like Shahid afridi, Dhoni, Symonds, Gilly... what makes people exicited to watch them is that they have the ability to turn around the game in five or sixes overs. u have that amazing moment and u see how the game is changed from how it was afew minutes ago...

Boring batsmans are usually batsman with strong defence.. they play in the backfoot often.. for bowlers they are headach to get them out.. they play their natural game and it is a big challange to get them out for the bowlers... they can pile runs in any surface and any pitches in any country... what is wrong with thier innings are that it unwatchable.. u can still watch and enjoy it when there is movments in the pitch but other than that there is nothing exciting in thier innigs to remember a year or two years later..

I voted for King ViV KP... lol although it is a close one between him and Ricky pointing..
in stylish batsman

Exciting batsman i would have to say it is Gilly then afridi then dhoni..

boring batsman.. don't get me start with Dravid and Kalis again but i wana add Attapatu's name there also..

That's not what is wrong, it is what is great about those players imo. There is nothing wrong with being defensive, just as long as it doesn't go OTT.

 

[adharcric]

what is wrong with thier innings are that it unwatchable..

Last time I checked, a large majority of cricket fans here on CW enjoy watching the likes of Dravid and Kallis at the crease.

 

[Richard]

Boringness -- not the opposite of style, or of excitement, but the absence of both. Atapattu and Richardson are classically boring players. Think back foot defensive or running it to mid-on for a single.

Atapattu and Richardson are complete opposites IMO - about the only thing they've got in common is slowness of scorng.

Atapattu's a complete natural and rarely plays an ugly stroke for me, while Richardson is a tailender who found-out he could actually bat semi-decently in his mid-20s, but could not discover any style whatsoever.

 

[Richard]

You make it sound like he's a wild slogger with no talent or technique. The man isn't the walking personification of style, but by Christ he can hit a ball - not just because of a big wind up but because he can time the ball superbly too.

That hardly registers for me, though - I don't really care how hard someone hits 'em when I judge attractiveness of stroke. You can belt the cover off the ball with all the finesse in The World (Sangakkara does sometimes, for instance), but Hayden doesn't.