Carl Hooper was more talented than Brian Lara

[Riggins]

Amla is way more unorthodox than AB.

 

[cnerd123]

Amla is way more unorthodox than AB.

I mean in that way really every batsman is unorthodox to some extent. Only a handful actually bat in a textbook manner.

I guess what I mean is that with Amla the ball goes where it 'should' go. He may execute shots in an unorthodox manner, but he plays down the right lines and hits the ball where you would expect it to be hit. With batsmen like ABDV and KP, they hit the ball where they want it to go, which usually results in shots that might be technically perfect but feel unorthodox because of the delivery they are played do. Plus they both do invent a lot of shots.

Lara gave off the same vibe; that he had 5 shots to any one ball. It's what made him so destructive. I can understand how some people would prefer batsmen who are more classical and 'correct' over someone like Lara.

Actually now that I've thought it out this isn't even relevant.

I guess I like guys who play exciting cricket over the predictable kinds; nothing to do with technique.

Lara's still great to watch tho so yea IDK watson's point.

 

[watson]

Honestly don't get the fapping that occurs over blokes with good looking cover drives. Worst ****ing shot.

Give me KP's flamingo flick any day of the week.

Nah, the cover-drive is still the batsman's money shot.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Lara looked different. Not elegant in the classical sense, but definitely very attractive.

I prefer the extravagant, flamboyant, somewhat unorthodox style of batsmen like Lara, Kambli, KP, VVS, etc more than the graceful strokeplaying of batsmen like Hooper/Waugh. I'd rather watch ABDV than Amla.

Same way I like my men.

 

[burr]

So what?! You could say that about a million pairings. Mark Waugh more talented than Steve. Damien Martyn more talented than Matthew Hayden. Means nothing. Natural talent is 10%, as we all know. Mental ability is where it's at.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So what?! You could say that about a million pairings. Mark Waugh more talented than Steve. Damien Martyn more talented than Matthew Hayden. Means nothing. Natural talent is 10%, as we all know. Mental ability is where it's at.

Thank you Sybil Fawlty. As true as that may be it's not the point. Unlike those pairings there is no argument for saying that Hooper is more talented than Lara and I was surprised that Ambrose would make that statement.

 

[burr]

well clearly there is an argument, because ambrose just made it.

 

[weldone]

Ambrose has seen both of them more closely than you or I. Even though I don't agree with him, his opinion is valuable nonetheless.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

talent is usually defined by all the hard work and training you don't see a person doing

 

[watson]

talent is usually defined by all the hard work and training you don't see a person doing

Ian Chappell once remarked in an interview that his brother Greg became a good captain once he had gone through his first form slump, and therefore was able for the first time to appreciate the fact that a fellow professional batsman can be really trying his arse off but still fail.

The fact is, we are all compromised to some degree by our own genetic make-up. Quite obviously my brain isn't hard wired to hit an on-drive because no amount of coaching or practice has ensbled me to do anything but work the ball off my pads. Similar with tennis. I can put a two-handed or one-handed backhand anywhere on the court, but have never been able to hit a top-spin forehand properly in 40 years of trying.

Talent means to be genetically predisposed to all of the skills required by a particular sporting pursuit. The rest is opportunity, application, and luck.

 

[honestbharani]

I reckon VVS had the best on drive in the business ever since he debuted in 1996... But he only became a good batsman after he started to learn when and how to play it judiciously instead of trying to ondrive every ball and being successful with 3 and then get out caught behind or at slips on the 4th.. Might sum up the talent Vs hardwork argument right there.

 

[jonbrooks]

Carl Hooper was my favourite cricketer when he was playing. He had that x factor and scored some good runs.

 

[Pratters]

I reckon VVS had the best on drive in the business ever since he debuted in 1996... But he only became a good batsman after he started to learn when and how to play it judiciously instead of trying to ondrive every ball and being successful with 3 and then get out caught behind or at slips on the 4th.. Might sum up the talent Vs hardwork argument right there.

That's a very good point.

 

[Jono]

It cracks me up how everyone keeps trying to explain to Lillian Thompson what Ambrose meant by his statement, and he has to keep responding saying "yeah I understand what he is saying".

I think LT's point is right, in that in the colloquial use of the term "talent" (i.e. batting seemed natural and effortless, seemed to do things others couldn't do), Lara's "talent" is right up there in history of cricket. So whilst its often hip to say that X player who achieved less than Y was more talented than Y, its a really weird thing to say when Y = Lara, one of the most talented ****ers to ever grace our game.

 

[Top_Cat]

It depends on what you mean by talent, really. It's not really an interesting debate for me because, well, there are more fun ways to analyse the game but if you cba and limit the definition to physical talent alone (what I reckon Ambrose was getting at, however you define it), whilst Lara was a gun obviously, Hooper was a ****ing freak. Effortlessly hit really long balls, could bowl and was other-worldly no matter where you put him in the field. Lara had him and most everyone else covered in just about any facet of batting, of course, but Hooper was what people mean when they say they'd pay to watch someone field.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah and it is interesting because Lara was pretty good in the field himself, esp. in terms of catching but while Lara made it look good, Hooper made it look simple. Pretty much like their batting IMHO.

 

[Jono]

I haven't read the book. Assumed he meant batting alone.

 

[kyear2]

Hopper was ridiculously talented. Lara though was a genius with the bat, Hooper just made it all look so simple and effortless while he was batting before he causally gave it away.

In the slips Lara was superb. Hopper was a the other level however, with Chappell, Hammond, Simpson,Waugh, Richardson etc.

Just amazing talent overall though.

 

[longranger]

Hopper was ridiculously talented. Lara though was a genius with the bat, Hooper just made it all look so simple and effortless while he was batting before he causally gave it away.

In the slips Lara was superb. Hopper was a the other level however, with Chappell, Hammond, Simpson,Waugh, Richardson etc.

Just amazing talent overall though.

You've got 4 XI's in your signature, why not add India and Pakistan as well?

 

[jcas0167]

So says Curtley Ambrose on page 45 of his autobiography. He obviously knows them personally and saw more of them at close quarters than any cricket fans, but I think he's lost his marbles. Hooper's record was a little less impressive than it should have been given his undoubted talent, but Lara is one of a handful of genuine geniuses in history.

I remember Viv Richards saying in a video about his career how much he enjoyed batting with Hooper in the 1991 England series, he thought Hooper was going to be an ATG. He had a very easy, fluent style and made it look easy.