*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[smash84]

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.

Agreed.

 

[Flem274*]

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?

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.[/QUOTE]

Most of those Zimbabweans aren't in the top 1% of cricketers though. That's why they're so bad in the first place. As I said, some countries have more players in the top 1% than others.

If someone can watch and learn more quickly than others at cricket I would say he is a fast learner. He could well hit his ceiling at club level, because despite picking up batting faster than his teammate, he might not have very good hand-eye in the first place.

I am not denying it takes a certain level of talent to be a test cricketer. Read my previous post where I explained.

 

[Flem274*]

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.

Yes, I think our definitions are a lot different.

 

[TumTum]

Yep Hurricane. Talent to me = Hand-Eye coordination + Gap finding ability + Reading the game (knowing what bowlers will bowl, and what shots to play at certain times). For a batsmen that is.

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

Someone I know made this video, it shows how Afridi plays his 1st defensive shot being back to Test cricket, missing a medium pace straight ball: YouTube - Afridi the Clown

Would you call that a "gun hand eye"?

 

[BeeGee]

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

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

What are you basing that statement on? Have you measured the hand-eye coordination of both teams? Out of both teams, which player has the best hand-eye coordination and which has the worst?

 

[NZTailender]

Flem

 

[Athlai]

McCullum has the best eyes in the New Zealand team according to an interview with Chris Martin (he had the worst). The test was an ability to be shown several lines of letters or symbols for an instant and then recite what they had been. Martin had only been able to name a handful while Baz could name several lines.

 

[Howsie]

Someone I know made this video, it shows how Afridi plays his 1st defensive shot being back to Test cricket, missing a medium pace straight ball: YouTube - Afridi the Clown

Would you call that a "gun hand eye"?

Knee Jerker.

 

[Bahnz]

Flem having a bit of a Richard moment tbh.

Talent to me is more than just hand-eye coordination. It also includes the ability to concentrate for long periods of time, to handle pressure, to have the natural athletic ability to move arms quickly etc.

And even purely on the hand eye coordination of batsmen alone, I have a hard time believing that Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Gambhir and Dhoni don't **** all over McCullum, Guptill, Taylor, Ryder, McIntosh and Hopkins.

 

[TumTum]

Knee Jerker.

Hey now, this isn't like something new, typical Afridi.

 

[DingDong]

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.

where r u getting these numbers from mate?

 

[Teja.]

Two decent (well, one superb, the other decent) batting line-ups versus two ordinary bowling attacks. NZ superior in the field (Dhoni the better keeper) evens out some of it a bit. Having not seen the India/Australia series, I'm struggling to see how this Indian bowling line up take 20 wickets consistantly. Khan is a good, solid bowler but the rest of 'em are no better than the Kiwis options, really. And I think this Kiwi bowling line up is pretty woeful.

Khan has evolved into much more than a good, solid bowler though. He had 12 wickets @ 21 in the Oz series, every other bowler who played both matches averaged atleast 10 runs more and did not take as many wickets. We're literally running on Zaheer being in unexpectedly insane form suddenly from being a mediocre bowler an year ago. It won't last long and when he's injured/loses his form, We're ****ed.

 

[vcs]

Zaheer has impressed me in this game by picking up more RHB.

 

[TumTum]

Khan is very ordinary though when the ball doesn't swing, so he should really be cleaning up when it does to maintain a good average. If he wants to finish with an average below 30, he should be doing better than just averaging 21 in his good series.

 

[Flem274*]

What are you basing that statement on? Have you measured the hand-eye coordination of both teams? Out of both teams, which player has the best hand-eye coordination and which has the worst?

Of course I haven't measured it, but we're dealing with the best of the best here. There is a ceiling for how naturally talented one can be. When you gather a group of players who are at or near that ceiling, the importance of natural talent diminishes and other attributes skyrocket in importance.

Flem having a bit of a Richard moment tbh.

Talent to me is more than just hand-eye coordination. It also includes the ability to concentrate for long periods of time, to handle pressure, to have the natural athletic ability to move arms quickly etc.

Handling pressure and concentration are mental attributes, and can be learned. People learn to handle pressure all the time. Hell, even Afridi has played a few innings where he has concentrated. I remember an ODI against us recently where he played with his brain.

And even purely on the hand eye coordination of batsmen alone, I have a hard time believing that Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Gambhir and Dhoni don't **** all over McCullum, Guptill, Taylor, Ryder, McIntosh and Hopkins.

McIntosh and Hopkins are barely in the top echelon (test class) batsmen though. Guptill's issues are mental and technical more than hand-eye.

I don't think the gap between the Indians and our test class batsmen (or anyone's test class batsmen) is very large at all in terms of hand-eye coordination. The Indians are just light years ahead in the other facets of batsmanship.

 

[TumTum]

Handling pressure and concentration are mental attributes, and can be learned. People learn to handle pressure all the time. Hell, even Afridi has played a few innings where he has concentrated. I remember an ODI against us recently where he played with his brain.

On the contrary, I believe from a young age you are gifted with those abilities as well. Certainly experience helps, but you can be naturally gifted to handle pressure as well.

With Afridi, his wreckless approach is bound to click at some stage. Not the best example tbh.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

(at Harby and Flem)

 

[Athlai]

Both swinging away and somehow missing the entire field.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Khan has evolved into much more than a good, solid bowler though. He had 12 wickets @ 21 in the Oz series, every other bowler who played both matches averaged atleast 10 runs more and did not take as many wickets. We're literally running on Zaheer being in unexpectedly insane form suddenly from being a mediocre bowler an year ago. It won't last long and when he's injured/loses his form, We're ****ed.

I was really judging Khan on the first day of this test when he was the most dangerous bowler, but still not very penetrative. I rate him, but he's never going to challenge the very best. One of India's best seamers for sure, but you definitely need more than just him, and the rest of your line up (at least in these two tests) look decidedly poor.

 

[Flem274*]

On the contrary, I believe from a young age you are gifted with those abilities as well. Certainly experience helps, but you can be naturally gifted to handle pressure as well.

After thinking about it more in the car, I agree, some people are born as calm under pressure.

But it can also be learned. Being born with a mental attribute helps, but mental attributes can also be learned.

With Afridi, his wreckless approach is bound to click at some stage. Not the best example tbh.

This was an extremely rare intelligent innings. I remember it well, because I was furious.