Defensive batsmens vs Aggressive batsmens?

[irfan]

I think it all boils down to whether you have a short attention span ( can only sit through a Gayle, Gilly whirlwind) or a long attention span (prepared for a Dravid, Kallis stodgefest)

 

[Eclipse]

I think it all boils down to whether you have a short attention span ( can only sit through a Gayle, Gilly whirlwind) or a long attention span (prepared for a Dravid, Kallis stodgefest)

Hmm I don't think that makes sense II could watch Gilly bat for 6 hours easily.

The thing that makes it exciting for me is the boldness of taking on a quality bowler, it's not easy to do and takes some guts as well.. It's far easier to be a defensive batsman much of the time. However I do not like players who play with reckless aggression

I love watching back's to the wall defensive innings as well though but overall i would lean slightly towards the shot-maker.

 

[pasag]

In answer to the question, I enjoy both equally, and I think if you pidgeon hole a style of batting that appeals to you, and others hence are disliked (obviously we all have preferences, but not to such extremes) you're missing out on the beauty of cricket.

Even when they are wearing the whites, I will be stuck to my seat when Chris Gayle or Shahid Afridi has the bat in hand, yet I will also eagerly wake up early on Boxing Day to go watch Jaques Kallis and Rahul Dravid bat live at the MCG.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

 

[Black_Warrior]

umm I dont understand the topic...defensive vs aggressive batsmen?? in what context?? Sometimes you need a defensive batsman, sometimes you need an aggressive one!

 

[shortpitched713]

Interesting that aggressive batsmen are winning out here. Would have thought that the abundance of technique whores here on CW would have made it turn out the other way around...

 

[Prince EWS]

Interesting that aggressive batsmen are winning out here. Would have thought that the abundance of technique whores here on CW would have made it turn out the other way around...

I just voice my opinion a lot.

 

[Goughy]

I like the technically correct that then improvise on top of that sound foundation. A Pete Maravich type (for those that know basketball)

I hate those that limit themselves with just copy book technique, as its just the building blocks to success rather than the extras that add value.

I also hate players that try and be aggressive with clear technical issues. They are taking short cuts. Lots of International top order players fall into this category.

 

[Engle]

I enjoy batsmen who express themselves in a unique distinctive manner. Text-book shots can be a treat, but anyone can do this with sufficient training.

The ones that remain etched eternally in one's mind are the strokes that go beyond this and define the essence of that batsmans batsmanship.

 

[bond21]

Id rather watch Afridi for an over than Dravid for 50 overs.

 

[James_W]

I prefer exciting characters tbh, even if they are not the most technically correct.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Id rather watch Afridi for an over than Dravid for 50 overs.

God, I couldn't imagine anything more painful than having to watch Afridi for 50 overs.

 

[Richard]

Honestly couldn't care less - regularity of strokeplay is not something that impacts on how attractive I find a batsman - though it's fair to say obscenely fast and obscenely slow are both turnoffs. I'd hate, for example, a 30-over session where 190 were scored, and I'd hate one where 19 were scored as well.

A batsman's attractiveness to me is entirely and totally about how good he looks. Batsmen don't have to be technically perfect to be attractive, though truly awful types like Shahid Afridi I do sometimes turn the TV off when they're sticking around longer than they have a right to. But I'd enjoy a technically excellent Ian Bell less than I'd enjoy a technically less-than-perfect but magnificently fluid, poetry-in-motion Aravinda de Silva. Not that either are inattractive by any means - I'd have Bell over most others.

So in short - disappointed at the lack of an irrelevant-third (or, better, multiple-choice), as it means I won't be voting on this poll.