The batsmen who made batting look the most arduous and difficult

[Burgey]

Kallis.

 

[NZTailender]

For the amount of times I've read on this forum in the past how ugly Katich's batting was I thought his name would've cropped up by now...

 

[benchmark00]

For the amount of times I've read on this forum in the past how ugly Katich's batting was I thought his name would've cropped up by now...

You make posting look arduous, difficult and above all else - ugly.

 

[Briony]

Saw this Sri Lankan guy called Vandort ? - he could hardly hit it off the square and that was in an ODI and he was opening.

Ironic though that some of the guys mentioned in the other thread as pretty boy batsmen don't find it that easy to attain high averages as apparently they do making batting look 'easy'.

 

[utk]

I dont think Dravid makes it look difficult. The fact is that heactually ats much more than others. How many Test deliveries did Mark W face (he was very elegant/sublime agreed). But the fact remains if you gotta playe 30000+ test balls, you gotta do away with a bit of flair definitely. Guess thts wht he does. He has elegance for sure but also sacrifices on a few shots to stay longer. Sometimes he may struggle to survive and look edgy but thts coz hes still trying to fight it out than flash hard and throw away. Would love to hear a few expert opinions here onmy take. Love ya blokes..

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Andrew Jones would have to be pretty high on the list of least convincing batsmen, despite having one of our best averages. I'm also pretty sure Dan Vettori has taken a few lessons from him.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Saw this Sri Lankan guy called Vandort ? - he could hardly hit it off the square and that was in an ODI and he was opening.

Ironic though that some of the guys mentioned in the other thread as pretty boy batsmen don't find it that easy to attain high averages as apparently they do making batting look 'easy'.

http://mycricket.cricket.com.au/com...h.asp&locx=MATCH&matchid=1074461&gradeid=51_1

 

[L Trumper]

Because the Australia attack in Melbourne bowled better than the Sydney and Adelaide attack.

Yeah, of course. Bowling in that particular match is more helpful to win that match than their career bowling exploits obviously.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Azhar Ali and Shafiq.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bracken did not play in Adelaide Prince, Bichel did.

Anyway, the problem with this is you judge on names.

A classic case is the fact that Australia bowled far better in Melbourne than they did in Brisbane, yet on paper Brisbane's attack is supposedly better.

Had Dravid tonned up in Melbourne people could have easily said he only did it against Hilf, Siddle and an inexperienced Pattinson. Yet they bowled damn well didn't they?

Better to actually watch the bowling, not base it on paper. A ton against Steyn bowling crap is not as good as a ton against a Sreesanth who despite generally being ****, may have been on his game that day.

Because the Australia attack in Melbourne bowled better than the Sydney and Adelaide attack.

As a whole that attack bowled pretty much how you'd expect it to bowl across the series though. You'd have a point if my point was that Dravid scored all his runs at one venue against the worst attack of the series but my point was that the Australian attack throughout the series was pretty poor - and it was, both on paper and in practice. Dravid was awesome but when that series is the exception to the rule as far as his performances in Australia go I think it's fairly easy to spot the reason; the bowling on show wasn't representative of what one would typically have to face in Australia during Dravid's career. Even now.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Bracken did not play in Adelaide Prince, Bichel did.

Anyway, the problem with this is you judge on names.

A classic case is the fact that Australia bowled far better in Melbourne than they did in Brisbane, yet on paper Brisbane's attack is supposedly better.

Had Dravid tonned up in Melbourne people could have easily said he only did it against Hilf, Siddle and an inexperienced Pattinson. Yet they bowled damn well didn't they?

Better to actually watch the bowling, not base it on paper. A ton against Steyn bowling crap is not as good as a ton against a Sreesanth who despite generally being ****, may have been on his game that day.

Because the Australia attack in Melbourne bowled better than the Sydney and Adelaide attack.

They bowled "well" for one morning, the start of the 2nd day. Even then, the big thing for Aus was that the Indian tail folded a couple of times.

 

[Spikey]

(bar gayle)

 

[Jono]

They bowled "well" for one morning, the start of the 2nd day. Even then, the big thing for Aus was that the Indian tail folded a couple of times.

I reckon they bowled well in India's 2nd dig. They didn't let Tendulkar or Laxman get away and piled on the pressure once Dravid fell in the 90s.

 

[thierry henry]

I don't get the people saying Vettori, tends to make it look ridiculously easy to hit good balls to third man or fine leg if anything. Usually comes out very positively and hits the middle of the bat and scores quickly.

 

[longtom]

Kallis.

I dunno - I guess he has to settle for second place behind this bloke ....

 

[benchmark00]

He can make a ton with one leg in the air. Definition of easy imo.