*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[Flem274*]

Thankfully you agree to the first part.

Of course talent is not measured in the way that SR and averages are but you may use subjective criteria. For e.g. how good or solid a player looks without having gone through too much training. That could be just one way to look at talent. Or how quickly you pick up the art from other players. Pakistani fast bowlers appear on the scene without too much coaching and seem pretty decent with the ball just by learning from their seniors.

Watching and learning isn't talent related though, that's just smart. Fast learners aren't always the most talented. At school there was a kid I knew who took about several centuries to learn how to do a maths problem, but once he clicked he was the best and the fastest in the class at those sorts of maths problems by quite a distance.

How good or solid a player looks is aesthetics, not talent.

 

[Hurricane]

Show me how to measure talent.

Test cricket is the top one percent of the bell curve. There isn't much between anybody at the elite level. India have more players than we do in the top 1% though, no questions there.

I remember a quote from someone that test cricket is 10% talent and 90% everything else. The 10% is absolutely crucial, but on talent alone you don't get far, someone will always jump ahead of you.

IF we take your statements to an extreme Flem then everybody is roughly equally talented at the elite level and the rest is just experience and hard work. If this was correct then everybody with the right coaching should end up with a 50 run average and 300 wickets. IF you don't then you are just work shy or didn't play enough games. I know this is not what you are saying but I am making an academic point.

I think talent directly translates into batting averages and test centuries

The 10% is absolutely crucial, but on talent alone you don't get far, someone will always jump ahead of you.

True. But I would be surprised if the Indians outworked the NZers in practice.

Try doing a man for man comparison of India vs New Zealand for talent starting with Ross vs Sachin -

In the bowling dept. it might be more interesting as you could argue that Southee is quite talented but is lacking experience.

 

[Hurricane]

You're saying results=talent.

I agree, every single Indian batsman is a better batsman than any of ours.

In terms of talent, well firstly how is hand-eye coordination measured? Test cricket is the top 1% of the world, I doubt there's much in it in terms of hand-eye. The main difference there is India has way more players with high levels of hand eye than we do.

But in technique, mental strength, experience, confidence, results and all those other factors India are ahead.

Technique although it can be taught is also related to talent. e.g the ability to time the ball is a talent. Mental strength is something you are born with. Confidence is probably something you acquire because of your past successes.

 

[silentstriker]

To say the Indian cricketers are the best because of their talent is an insult to the hard work they've put into all the other areas of their game.

That would imply that NZ are similarly talented by haven't put in the hard work into other areas of their game?

Watching the two teams field would lead me to question that....

 

[Athlai]

Phlegm be crazy.

 

[Prince EWS]

Phlegm be crazy.

Haha AWTA.

 

[JimmyGS]

I would be surprised if the Indians outworked the NZers in practice.

Without a doubt. More so in childhood but yes, as professionals as well.

 

[smash84]

They have more players in the top 1% most definitely, but show me how their players are more talented than others.

I am not trying to do a one eyed WW type post here. The Indian batsmen are streets ahead of our own. But if you have the talent to play test cricket, you are in the highest echelon of cricketers, the top few percent. Differences in talent will be minimal and the other factors needed to be a successful player skyrocket in importance.

To say the Indian cricketers are the best because of their talent is an insult to the hard work they've put into all the other areas of their game.

By that token there is not much difference in talent between the Indian batsmen or Bangladeshi batsmen or Pakistani or Australian bowlers and Zimbabwean bowlers.

So by your argument Jayawardena is as good a batsman as Bradman but JAyawardena didn't work so hard on his batting. After all their is hardly any difference in their talents. Do you really think that Bradman and Jayawardena don't have much difference in terms of talent???

Watching and learning isn't talent related though, that's just smart. Fast learners aren't always the most talented. At school there was a kid I knew who took about several centuries to learn how to do a maths problem, but once he clicked he was the best and the fastest in the class at those sorts of maths problems by quite a distance.

How good or solid a player looks is aesthetics, not talent.

And watching and learning an art might actually be more talent than being smart. Since picking up an art is something that comes to one naturally.

How solid a player looks is not aesthetics, it is technique, which as Hurricane points out is related to talent.

 

[Flem274*]

IF we take your statements to an extreme Flem then everybody is roughly equally talented at the elite level and the rest is just experience and hard work. If this was correct then everybody with the right coaching should end up with a 50 run average and 300 wickets. IF you don't then you are just work shy or didn't play enough games. I know this is not what you are saying but I am making an academic point.

Then why bother saying it?

I think talent directly translates into batting averages and test centuries

Then why does Shahid Afridi, someone who does have some pretty gun hand eye to do what he does, not have a big average?

True. But I would be surprised if the Indians outworked the NZers in practice.

I agree. By all reports quite a few of those Indian batsmen work extremely hard.

Try doing a man for man comparison of India vs New Zealand for talent starting with Ross vs Sachin -

In the bowling dept. it might be more interesting as you could argue that Southee is quite talented but is lacking experience.

Why? I'm not saying Ross Taylor is a better batsman than Sachin, and I believe one can't measure talent very well just by watching somebody play. It's too subjective. There's not much point anyway because they're both in the top 1% of cricketers and it comes down to who is better in the non talent related factors. That is Sachin Tendulkar by a mile.

Technique although it can be taught is also related to talent. e.g the ability to time the ball is a talent. Mental strength is something you are born with. Confidence is probably something you acquire because of your past successes.

Technique is not related to talent. I don't deserve to be labelled "batsman" when I walk to the crease but I have a pretty textbook technique. My technique doesn't change the fact my right eye barely works and I'm very good at missing the ball.

Mental strength being something you're born with is something I'm not sure on, but I feel someone can be raised to be mentally strong. Some complete flakes find courage out of no where, or go to Outward Bound (completely random example out of thin air) and come back a bit tougher, so I personally can't label it something one is born with.

 

[Burgey]

Depends how you define "talent" doesn't it?

You see blokes who crunch it and make it look easy but who don't go on to make big scores. Often those blokes are said to be "wasting their talent". On another view of it, the mental application side of thing is part of the talent you have.

 

[smash84]

Depends how you define "talent" doesn't it?

You see blokes who crunch it and make it look easy but who don't go on to make big scores. Often those blokes are said to be "wasting their talent". On another view of it, the mental application side of thing is part of the talent you have.

You have a point there.

 

[Flem274*]

By that token there is not much difference in talent between the Indian batsmen or Bangladeshi batsmen or Pakistani or Australian bowlers and Zimbabwean bowlers.

Knew this one was coming.

No, because Zimbabwe have far, far, far, far less players in the top 1% than Australia do.

So by your argument Jayawardena is as good a batsman as Bradman but JAyawardena didn't work so hard on his batting. After all their is hardly any difference in their talents. Do you really think that Bradman and Jayawardena don't have much difference in terms of talent???

And I knew this one was coming too.

Bradman is an outlier. In the batting bell curve he is the top of the top 1%. There is a difference in talent there and probably the only one in cricket that can be shown with a batting average. Note I said:

Talent wise there isn't much between the two sides tbh

In saying that, if Bradman wasn't the tough, hard working, uncomprimising Australian **** he was, imo he would have averaged less.

And watching and learning an art might actually be more talent than being smart. Since picking up an art is something that comes to one naturally.

There is no art to watching and learning. It's plain common sense.

Cricket can and does come to players naturally. I don't dispute that in the lower levels superior talent gets one through the ranks. To be a test class player you need a certain level of talent.

But when you reach the top, talent alone will not make you an ATG or even world class. You have to excel in the other areas of the game.

How solid a player looks is not aesthetics, it is technique, which as Hurricane points out is related to talent.

Technique has nothing to do with talent.

 

[Hurricane]

Then why does Shahid Afridi, someone who does have some pretty gun hand eye to do what he does, not have a big average?

What is talent to you - I get the feeling you have a unique or strict definition of the word.

To me it is more than hand eye coordination. Intelligence and temperament are part of it as well - what does talent mean to you?

 

[Flem274*]

What is talent to you - I get the feeling you have a unique or strict definition of the word.

To me it is more than hand eye coordination. Intelligence and temperament are part of it as well - what does talent mean to you?

Talent to me is the raw hand-eye coordination of a player.

 

[TumTum]

If Afridi had good hand-eye coordination, he wouldn't be getting out so quickly. Just saying...

 

[duffer]

Just quietly...

Harby

Probably considers himself an all-rounder now. I'll concede it to him if he tons up again.

 

[Hurricane]

Technique has nothing to do with talent.

Do you think that Chris Martin can be taught to have a technique as good as Sachin's?

OR are you going to say that Chris Martin is an outlier in which case I will pick another batsman.

 

[smash84]

Knew this one was coming.

No, because Zimbabwe have far, far, far, far less players in the top 1% than Australia do.

But the XI that make up the Zimbabwe team are the top 1% so they shouldn't be much different from the Aussies. It is just a question of hard work right?

[/QUOTE]In saying that, if Bradman wasn't the tough, hard working, uncomprimising Australian **** he was, imo he would have averaged less.[/QUOTE]

Obviously. Had he been a couch potato he wouldn't have been playing test cricket in the first place. But he had the talent that took him to heights where other hard working cricketers could never dream of getting.

[/QUOTE]There is no art to watching and learning. It's plain common sense.[/QUOTE]

If someone can consistently watch and learn much more quickly than others then I would say that the guy has talent.

[/QUOTE]Cricket can and does come to players naturally. I don't dispute that in the lower levels superior talent gets one through the ranks. To be a test class player you need a certain level of talent.

But when you reach the top, talent alone will not make you an ATG or even world class. You have to excel in the other areas of the game.
.[/QUOTE]

Obviously one needs to work hard. There is no denying that.

 

[Flem274*]

Do you think that Chris Martin can be taught to have a technique as good as Sachin's?

OR are you going to say that Chris Martin is an outlier in which case I will pick another batsman.

Chris Martin isn't in the top 1% of the batting bell curve though, he is irrelevant.

But yes, he can be taught to have a technique as good as Sachin's. Doesn't mean he has the ability to use it.

I'll state it one more time:

-There is very little difference in talent when working with the top 1% of cricketers in their respective fields.
-Test class cricketers are the top 1%
-The differences between test class cricketers have less to do with talent and more to do with the other facets of bowling/batting
-Some countries have more cricketers in the top 1% than others.

 

[Hurricane]

Talent to me is the raw hand-eye coordination of a player.

Then a lot of your statements are very consistent and difficult to dispute given that meaning. I think the rest of us have a different definition of talent and hence we are disagreeing with you. Talent to me means a god given gift to play the game of cricket well which is vs hard work.