Ravi Bopara - another pretender?

[fredfertang]

Oh go on then if you must - I can tell you're keen on the idea

 

[sledger]

Alright, will go to the Three Tuns first to get some Dutch courage built up and then I'll torch it and go for a PFC.

 

[Richard]

A few exceptions: Gooch, Thorpe, Stewart, Butcher, Gatting, Smith, Gower, Botham.

Gooch and Stewart both had incredibly awkward-looking techniques, however much basic batting talent they possessed (hands-up who ever recalls a shot where either moved his front foot to the pitch of the ball?); I absolutely remember Butcher being branded soft or similar many times; Gower surely was the 1980s equivalent and certainly got accused at worst of repeated "soft shots"; Smith is a foreigner and to many British eyes "South African" and "Northerner" have the same "hard"ness about them, and Smith was always an obvious hardman in any case; Botham as mentioned isn't a southerner nor was he a specialist batsman, however much he could at one point have played as one; Thorpe was certainly far from technically perfect but got accused of not going on with the job and just playing a counter-attacking cameo with great regularity - and rightly so, because he did it with great regularity for the first 2\3s of his career or so.

Any more exceptions?

 

[Richard]

Grace, Hammond, Dexter, Cowdrey, Hobbs, May

I'm afraid I must say that matters were probably different in the 1950s; they absolutely were in the 1880s.

 

[Richard]

I'll chuck in Nasser as another southern non-softie too.

Reading what you're on about might be a good idea, rather than the repeated use-ignore-but-still-stick-your-nose-in-where-you-think-you-can-get-a-snide-put-down-in. Hussain was one of the most awkward-looking batsmen you could wish to see.

 

[Jamee999]

Soft doesn't equal awkward.

 

[Richard]

Have you read my previous posts from this chain?

Your above post suggests not TBH.

 

[zaremba]

Gooch and Stewart both had incredibly awkward-looking techniques, however much basic batting talent they possessed (hands-up who ever recalls a shot where either moved his front foot to the pitch of the ball?); I absolutely remember Butcher being branded soft or similar many times; Gower surely was the 1980s equivalent and certainly got accused at worst of repeated "soft shots"; Smith is a foreigner and to many British eyes "South African" and "Northerner" have the same "hard"ness about them, and Smith was always an obvious hardman in any case; Botham as mentioned isn't a southerner nor was he a specialist batsman, however much he could at one point have played as one; Thorpe was certainly far from technically perfect but got accused of not going on with the job and just playing a counter-attacking cameo with great regularity - and rightly so, because he did it with great regularity for the first 2\3s of his career or so.

Any more exceptions?

Gooch wasn't pretty but neither was he awkward-looking; the lack of foot movement doesn't make a player awkward (see Gower, DI);

Stewart ditto plus could play some very attractive shots;

Smith: ok he's a Saffer but to equate "Saffer" with "Notherner" is, frankly, to turn basic geography on its head;

Butcher: I never remember him being branded soft but there we go;

Gower: Was never branded soft as far as I recall, and had this happened I promise you I would have remembered (he being my boyhood hero);

Botham: I fail to see how the fact that he could bowl as well as bat changes anything;

Thorpe: I've rarely seen a batsman with a better all-round technique than that man - and I don't think that you would, in all honesty, see fit to describe him as "awkward". I assure you, he wasn't.

Any more exceptions required?

 

[Richard]

Gooch wasn't pretty but neither was he awkward-looking; the lack of foot movement doesn't make a player awkward (see Gower, DI);

Stewart ditto plus could play some very attractive shots;

Gooch and Stewart were both very far from classical batsmen, in the mould of a Bell or Vaughan. Or even an Atherton (who again, had his foibles). Both were among the best you could possibly wish to see off the back-foot to quick bowlers but aside from that they were very limited, and had frailties which could be and sometimes were exposed. It's about technical excellence, and both came nowhere close to attaining it. They were still excellent batsmen, but they were technically mediocre.

Smith: ok he's a Saffer but to equate "Saffer" with "Notherner" is, frankly, to turn basic geography on its head;

The point is about stereotypes - the British stereotype for northerner and SAfrican are very similar, that being "tough guy". And Smith fitted it to a teed.

Gower: Was never branded soft as far as I recall, and had this happened I promise you I would have remembered (he being my boyhood hero);

I've seen countless examples of him being pilloried for getting out to "soft shots".

Botham: I fail to see how the fact that he could bowl as well as bat changes anything;

He wasn't a specialist batsman. The whole thing relates to specialist batsmen. I said that ages ago, when I said it doesn't really matter much about bowlers (like James Anderson).

Thorpe: I've rarely seen a batsman with a better all-round technique than that man - and I don't think that you would, in all honesty, see fit to describe him as "awkward". I assure you, he wasn't.

Thorpe was crabby, jerky, and either nurdled or thumped the ball. He was definately not a classical caresser of it. His stance was crouched, his technique all about opening or closing the face at the last minute, and he played for the vast majority of his career almost exclusively square of the wicket. Again, he was a damn good batsman, but he was not remotely classically elegant and certainly always gave the impression of being someone who worked for his talent rather than had it come naturally to him. Had he looked as good as he was, I'd bet a fair bit people'd have been traducing him as someone who should've averaged 50+ and didn't (and probably didn't because he was soft).

Any more exceptions required?

Yes.

 

[zaremba]

Ok of that litany of dispute let me just pick up on a couple (and I'll ignore "to a teed").

Gower: I suspect that you're aware, even as you're carefully typing it, that "criticised for getting out with a 'soft shot'" is very different to "being soft". Which is what we're talking about. Truthfully, have you ever heard anyone say that David Gower was soft?

Thorpe: Again, I suspect that, in a different thread, and with a different polemical stance to defend, you'd say almost exactly the opposite about Thorpe (except for him being a terrific batsman, on which I think we'd always agree). To me, at any rate, his stance was a thing to behold. It's weird to say it, but he seemed so at home in his stance. His bat, his pads, his whole being seemed at one. To say that he was "crouched" does a great disservice to him. I can't think of a player that I've seen with a better stance. As for his play being crabby, jerky, etc, this just isn't the GP Thorpe that I watched during his career. Yes he was compact; yes he was pragmatic; and no you wouldn't describe him as elegant; but all the same he was a batsman who was, to my eye at least, not in the slightest awkward.

 

[tooextracool]

Gooch and Stewart were both very far from classical batsmen, in the mould of a Bell or Vaughan. Or even an Atherton (who again, had his foibles). Both were among the best you could possibly wish to see off the back-foot to quick bowlers but aside from that they were very limited, and had frailties which could be and sometimes were exposed. It's about technical excellence, and both came nowhere close to attaining it. They were still excellent batsmen, but they were technically mediocre.

Did you ever watch Stewart bat? Honestly, in terms of aesthetically pleasing, if I had to pick one out of Stewart, Vaughan or Bell to watch bat I would pick Stewart because he was elegance personified. Stewart's footwork and technique was light years ahead of both Bell and Vaughan who are both overrated (Bell frequently plays away from his body without any footwork and Vaughan's footwork led to his own demise in test match cricket) because they simply look good when they play their shots. Alec Stewart was hands down the best player of pace bowling in the 90s in England, and one of the best players of pace bowling around the world. Take the pace off the ball and that's when you had him in stitches.

 

[TT Boy]

Agreed. Stewart was very easy on the eyes against pace. In a struggling side full of aesthetically workmen like cricketers, Stewart was always a joy to watch. Use to love his pull shot off one leg.

 

[Pigeon]

Did you ever watch Stewart bat? Honestly, in terms of aesthetically pleasing, if I had to pick one out of Stewart, Vaughan or Bell to watch bat I would pick Stewart because he was elegance personified. Stewart's footwork and technique was light years ahead of both Bell and Vaughan who are both overrated (Bell frequently plays away from his body without any footwork and Vaughan's footwork led to his own demise in test match cricket) because they simply look good when they play their shots. Alec Stewart was hands down the best player of pace bowling in the 90s in England, and one of the best players of pace bowling around the world. Take the pace off the ball and that's when you had him in stitches.

Excellent point. I fully agree.

 

[Richard]

Did you ever watch Stewart bat? Honestly, in terms of aesthetically pleasing, if I had to pick one out of Stewart, Vaughan or Bell to watch bat I would pick Stewart because he was elegance personified. Stewart's footwork and technique was light years ahead of both Bell and Vaughan who are both overrated (Bell frequently plays away from his body without any footwork and Vaughan's footwork led to his own demise in test match cricket) because they simply look good when they play their shots. Alec Stewart was hands down the best player of pace bowling in the 90s in England, and one of the best players of pace bowling around the world. Take the pace off the ball and that's when you had him in stitches.

Stewart was superb against seam (though much stronger against the short stuff than full) and was indeed great to watch for me, because I've always enjoyed watching good batsmen pull and cut short, quick stuff. Off the back foot to quick bowlers, as I say, he was up with the best you'll see.

However, off the front foot especially and through the off especially but in other respects too Vaughan and Bell both look far more effortless, when the shots come off. That doesn't neccessarily make them better than Stewart, but it does mean their faults tend to be forgiven less readily. Ask anyone if they think Stewart underachieved and I doubt many will say yes, and if they do probably not by much. But I'd imagine 70%+ of people think Vaughan did and Bell has so far underachieved, regardless of whether they're right or wrong.

 

[Richard]

Ok of that litany of dispute let me just pick up on a couple (and I'll ignore "to a teed").

Gower: I suspect that you're aware, even as you're carefully typing it, that "criticised for getting out with a 'soft shot'" is very different to "being soft". Which is what we're talking about. Truthfully, have you ever heard anyone say that David Gower was soft?

No, I haven't, but I wasn't around at the time. Isn't he from Leicestershire BTW? Or did he just play for them?

Thorpe: Again, I suspect that, in a different thread, and with a different polemical stance to defend, you'd say almost exactly the opposite about Thorpe (except for him being a terrific batsman, on which I think we'd always agree). To me, at any rate, his stance was a thing to behold. It's weird to say it, but he seemed so at home in his stance. His bat, his pads, his whole being seemed at one. To say that he was "crouched" does a great disservice to him. I can't think of a player that I've seen with a better stance. As for his play being crabby, jerky, etc, this just isn't the GP Thorpe that I watched during his career. Yes he was compact; yes he was pragmatic; and no you wouldn't describe him as elegant; but all the same he was a batsman who was, to my eye at least, not in the slightest awkward.

Perhaps "awkward" isn't the exact word I'd have been best using. I simply mean less-than-copybook (and notably less-than-copybook). And I'm frankly astonished anyone would describe Thorpe as particularly copybook. His technique worked for him, but you'd not teach anyone to copy it. I'm not terribly surprised there's virtually no claim, anywhere, that Thorpe underachieved. He didn't look like a World-class player, just a damn good one - and that's precisely what he was.

 

[tooextracool]

Perhaps "awkward" isn't the exact word I'd have been best using. I simply mean less-than-copybook (and notably less-than-copybook). And I'm frankly astonished anyone would describe Thorpe as particularly copybook. His technique worked for him, but you'd not teach anyone to copy it. I'm not terribly surprised there's virtually no claim, anywhere, that Thorpe underachieved. He didn't look like a World-class player, just a damn good one - and that's precisely what he was.

I am not surprised that you feel this way considering that you have only really started watching cricket this decade. Thorpe seriously underperformed in the 90s, he would throw his wicket away often and his conversion rate, while not shocking was poor for someone of his caliber.

In his first 60 tests (all the way upto and including the WI tests) Thorpe was averaging below 39. He scored 6 centuries and 24 50s. This whilst having no visible technical weakness against spin or pace. There is little doubt that from the winter tour of Pakistan, his career was transformed, even though nothing in his technique changed, but mentally he had evolved as a player to the point where he was one of the best in the world. In his next 40 tests he scored 10 centuries and 15 50s. at an average of 55. This whilst his personal life was falling apart and despite all the mental frailties that had been plaguing him for his entire career. If you haven't read many articles regarding his underachievement, it's only because you haven't looked well enough. Equally, if you honestly think that someone who could play shots with equal ease off the front and back foot, or against spin and pace had technical issues, well I'd like to hear what those were.

Regarding Thorpe' not 'looking like a world class bat', well we all know what that's about. Quite frankly any player who is a nudger/nurdler rather than a demolisher like KP/ Gilchrist or a strokemaker like Tendulkar/Lara is always going to be considered less great. That's the way cricket watching society is, because players are rated based on how interesting it is to watch them bat rather than quantity of runs amassed or quality of innings played. Which is why rubbish test match batsmen like Gayle will always end up with more reverence over someone like Chanderpaul over time in much the same way that Bevan's ODI proficiency goes unnoticed when compared to Tendulkar and Viv's

 

[tooextracool]

Stewart was superb against seam (though much stronger against the short stuff than full) and was indeed great to watch for me, because I've always enjoyed watching good batsmen pull and cut short, quick stuff. Off the back foot to quick bowlers, as I say, he was up with the best you'll see.

However, off the front foot especially and through the off especially but in other respects too Vaughan and Bell both look far more effortless, when the shots come off. That doesn't neccessarily make them better than Stewart, but it does mean their faults tend to be forgiven less readily. Ask anyone if they think Stewart underachieved and I doubt many will say yes, and if they do probably not by much. But I'd imagine 70%+ of people think Vaughan did and Bell has so far underachieved, regardless of whether they're right or wrong.

People may not have thought Stewart underachieved, but that's only because he was an all rounder for the majority of his career rather than a specialist bat. Had he played as a specialist bat, people would often have questioned whether he could have done better. As it stands, he will probably go down as amongst the top 5 wicket-keeper batters of all time.

Nonetheless, his big inhibitor was his technique against spin and his struggles on slower surfaces.

 

[zaremba]

No, I haven't, but I wasn't around at the time. Isn't he from Leicestershire BTW? Or did he just play for them?

Schooled in Kent, ended up at Hampshire, in between played for Leicestershire (ie a Midlands club like Bell), speaks as RP as you can get.

Perhaps "awkward" isn't the exact word I'd have been best using. I simply mean less-than-copybook (and notably less-than-copybook). And I'm frankly astonished anyone would describe Thorpe as particularly copybook. His technique worked for him, but you'd not teach anyone to copy it. I'm not terribly surprised there's virtually no claim, anywhere, that Thorpe underachieved. He didn't look like a World-class player, just a damn good one - and that's precisely what he was.

I just disagree. I thought Thorpe's technique was compact and harmonious. He's now starting to be remembered as a nurdler which is just a travesty. He was very versatile (more than just about anyone else among his England contemporaries) and could play beautiful attacking shots, yes more reminiscent of Border than Gower but nonetheless easy on the eye.

 

[tooextracool]

Tbf, whilst Thorpe was more than capable of counter attacking, he was by and large more adept at the nudging and nurdling. Still remember him nudging and nurdling his way to his 100 at Lahore while hitting only a single boundary along the way.

 

[Richard]

Hardly anyone hit many boundaries in that game TBF, Atherton scored something like 72 with a couple in the same innings. It was as slow as any outfield I've seen, and decent-size boundaries as well. Anyway as regards Thorpe he was quite capable of being a counterattacker as well as a nurdler and in fact was at his best when he was switching between the two modes at short notice, because flexibility is an incredibly useful asset to have.

As regards the underachievement, I am indeed well aware that Thorpe underachieved in his first 7 years or so as a Test player, and that he was of times criticised for this at the time it was happening. Nonetheless, the point I'm making is that the wider crowd, which does tend to judge on cosmetics quite regularly, will not have seen him as an outstanding player, merely a very good one, so won't have - and didn't - pillory him anywhere near as much as Bell has been pilloried, despite the fact that Bell is, to my mind, a quite obviously inferior batsman in terms of basic physical talent. You say "Regarding Thorpe' not 'looking like a world class bat', well we all know what that's about." Yes, that's exactly my point that I've been making for the last 50-odd posts in this thread. Thorpe didn't look, to the casual eye, as potentially good as Bell does. Ergo people are going to be less surprised when he does less well (and look less often for silly excuses like "he's soft"), even if they should actually be more surprised should they look closer.