Defensive batsmens vs Aggressive batsmens?

[deira]

which one do you prefer to watch? guys like Dravid or guys like lara, sehwag etc...

 

[andruid]

I do not care for aggression so long as the guy's techniques is aesthetically pleasing...

 

[Prince EWS]

My favourite batsmen are ones that have textbook (or at least very sound) techniques, who consistently minimise risk in order to score as many runs as possible while they are at the crease. Hence, I tend to be drawn to those labelled "defensive." I don't like them because they are defensive, but being such tends to go hand in hand with what I like seeing.

Batsmen who take risks and innovate to score runs off good balls whilst looking less than pure don''t appeal to me as much.

 

[cricketboy29]

My favourite batsmen are ones that have textbook (or at least very sound) techniques, who consistently minimise risk in order to score as many runs as possible while they are at the crease. Hence, I tend to be drawn to those labelled "defensive." I don't like them because they are defensive, but being such tends to go hand in hand with what I like seeing.

Batsmen who take risks and innovate to score runs off good balls whilst looking less than pure don''t appeal to me as much.

Couldn't have said it better

 

[ret]

I would like to have both types in my team but tend towards those who play with a positive frame of mind, i.e who make the bad balls count and rotate the strike

As a batsman, I would prefer someone like a Sehwag batting at the other end as he can get the bowlers out of their rhythm and make batting a little easier for me

On the other hand, I would not like to bat against someone like Dravid as he tends to block an end and sometimes not rotate the strike which would make me restless and also settle the bowlers in to a rhythm which may not be a problem for him but others .... though if I were as good as Tendulkar then I wouldn't care who is batting at the other end

As far as who I would prefer to watch, it's definitely the attacking ones .... nothing like watching that 6 hit over the 3rd man

 

[Jono]

In answer to the question, I enjoy both equally, and I think if you pidgeon hole a style of batting that appeals to you, and others hence are disliked (obviously we all have preferences, but not to such extremes) you're missing out on the beauty of cricket.

Even when they are wearing the whites, I will be stuck to my seat when Chris Gayle or Shahid Afridi has the bat in hand, yet I will also eagerly wake up early on Boxing Day to go watch Jaques Kallis and Rahul Dravid bat live at the MCG.

My favourite batsmen are ones that have textbook (or at least very sound) techniques, who consistently minimise risk in order to score as many runs as possible while they are at the crease. Hence, I tend to be drawn to those labelled "defensive." I don't like them because they are defensive, but being such tends to go hand in hand with what I like seeing.

Batsmen who take risks and innovate to score runs off good balls whilst looking less than pure don''t appeal to me as much.

Batsman such as Tendulkar and Sangakkara and to a lesser extent Sarwan and Jayawardene have sound techniques, yet can score at a fairly brisk rate. I wouldn't label them aggressive (though on occasion they can be, not in the Gayle/Gilchrist mode, but they definitely do often have stages of batting where runs flow).

Do these hence appeal to you more than say a Dravid, Kallis or Atapattu?

 

[ret]

My favourite batsmen are ones that have textbook (or at least very sound) techniques, who consistently minimise risk in order to score as many runs as possible while they are at the crease. Hence, I tend to be drawn to those labelled "defensive." I don't like them because they are defensive, but being such tends to go hand in hand with what I like seeing.

Oh, then you must enjoy watching a lot of nets .... cause usually you get to see that in nets where mostly everyone is playing textbook style

 

[albo97056]

I would not like to bat against someone like Dravid

I would, i bet his bowling is rubbish

 

[ret]

I would, i bet his bowling is rubbish

haha, nice catch .... yep. it should be 'with'

 

[Prince EWS]

In answer to the question, I enjoy both equally, and I think if you pidgeon hole a style of batting that appeals to you, and others hence are disliked (obviously we all have preferences, but not to such extremes) you're missing out on the beauty of cricket.

Even when they are wearing the whites, I will be stuck to my seat when Chris Gayle or Shahid Afridi has the bat in hand, yet I will also eagerly wake up early on Boxing Day to go watch Jaques Kallis and Rahul Dravid bat live at the MCG.

Batsman such as Tendulkar and Sangakkara and to a lesser extent Sarwan and Jayawardene have sound techniques, yet can score at a fairly brisk rate. I wouldn't label them aggressive (though on occasion they can be, not in the Gayle/Gilchrist mode, but they definitely do often have stages of batting where runs flow).

Do these hence appeal to you more than say a Dravid, Kallis or Atapattu?

Well, my favourite batsman to watch is Kallis. It's all just so perfect, and he doesn't look to score of balls that he shouldn't do. After Kallis, it'd be Tendulkar - he's the most textbook perfect batsman I've seen, and the "newest phase" of Tendulkar is all about minimising risk and batting for long periods, which is something I value highly.

I'm not sure what exactly that proves in relation to your question though. I really love watching all those you listed bat (Sangakkara slightly less so, but only because I have a slight preference to right handers). I couldn't really split Atapattu, Sarwan, Dravid and Jayawardene, and they all tend to bat at different tempos. So do they appeal to me more? Well, no, but they don't appeal to me less either.

 

[ret]

Gavaskar is infamous for batting for 60 overs, iirc, and remaining unbeaten for some 30 odd in an ODI .... you can bat in a game like you are in the nets

I will recall an instance from my school. Our school had invited a team from Hong Kong for a test and an ODI series .... the test was drawn but we lost the 40 overs a side ODI because of this sucker who batted at #3, played out most of the overs and scored just 13. Other batsmen got out trying to step it up .... I remember one of the tailenders walking up to him and saying 'I will overtake in you in an over' .... but that #3 looked picture perfect as long as he was at the crease

 

[albo97056]

I know Vaughan doesnt have the same average or some may say quality as kallis or dravid et al, but hes one of my faves to watch, cant say exactly why, just that it looks natural and when he hits the ball sweetly, you know that the shot couldnt be played any better by anyone, even if they tried for years

 

[andruid]

Steve Tikolo has a beautiful cut shot....

 

[Jono]

Well, my favourite batsman to watch is Kallis. It's all just so perfect, and he doesn't look to score of balls that he shouldn't do. After Kallis, it'd be Tendulkar - he's the most textbook perfect batsman I've seen, and the "newest phase" of Tendulkar is all about minimising risk and batting for long periods, which is something I value highly.

I'm not sure what exactly that proves in relation to your question though. I really love watching all those you listed bat (Sangakkara slightly less so, but only because I have a slight preference to right handers). I couldn't really split Atapattu, Sarwan, Dravid and Jayawardene, and they all tend to bat at different tempos. So do they appeal to me more? Well, no, but they don't appeal to me less either.

I guess, to simplify it, its more how they score the runs, with tempo being fairly irrelevant.

If not attempting to score runs off balls you shouldn't is the criteria, I guess that will have an effect of reduced scoring rates anyway.

One question regarding the "not scoring off balls he shouldn't try to". What if the batsman can play that shot well, and rarely if ever is dismissed by it? So for example a ball on and around off stump on a good length, the batsman can ALWAYS (hypothetical of course) successfully walk across his crease and dispatch the ball through midwicket for four. Would this not appeal to you?

The reason I ask is, even though its unorthodox, the topic of risk I find quite interesting. For example the Sachin of the 90s, and still Sarwan today, both play brilliant cover drives (and could cream them all day to the boundary), but are also prone to being dismissed by it as well. Wouldn't this be an analagous situation to my above hypothetical (however unrealistic). If the batsman can pull this shot off time and time again, with minimal risk (as per his ability), even if its unorthodox, it wouldn't fall under the phrase "attempting to score off balls he shouldn't", right?

Sorry to pose so many questions to you, I've just always found your specific niche batting attractions intriguing.

 

[andmark]

My favourite batsmen are ones that have textbook (or at least very sound) techniques, who consistently minimise risk in order to score as many runs as possible while they are at the crease. Hence, I tend to be drawn to those labelled "defensive." I don't like them because they are defensive, but being such tends to go hand in hand with what I like seeing.

Batsmen who take risks and innovate to score runs off good balls whilst looking less than pure don''t appeal to me as much.

Tendulkar?

 

[andmark]

Also depends what type of game

Test or odi match.
Tailender or top order.
How the team's got on in the match.
The weather condition
The atmosphere.

I'm a defensive batsman but never stay in enough time to get above ten. (To me that would be a huge achievement.)

 

[GIMH]

Yeah,I don't have a preference, there are batsmen that I really enjoy watching but I don't think you could group them together.

 

[roseboy64]

Don't really have a preference but do prefer attacking strokeplay most times. Defensiveness has its place as well.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm a defensive batsman but never stay in enough time to get above ten. (To me that would be a huge achievement.)

Haha, that brings back memories. I remember vividly the first time I managed to get to double figures. I was in such good touch that I managed 17 before I got cleaned up having under-edged a huge mow across the line.

The PB is now 31* and the dream is 50...

 

[haroon510]

Aggrassive difinatly.. here is what i like about aggrassive batsmans.. they have the ability to smash any bowler around the park at anytime and in any type of cricket match.. when it comes to bating what i seee in the batsman is the ability to take whatever the bowler offer them and make it score.. not just wait for the bad delieveries.. i like the type of batmans who go out there and get some runs from the bowlers.. not batsman who wait for bad delieveris and make runs on those..and wait for the bowlers to give them runs.. specially now day and let say afew years back with presence of Mcgrath, Murali, Warne and soo on... they don't give away that many bad delieveris.. and the only batsman i consider a good batsman when they have the ability to snatch runs from these bowlers.. wether by hiting them four or six or take singles, twos or threes.. a batsman who just wait for the bad delieveries will put me to sleep and i won't even rate him at first class level..