Exciting batsmen

[Kenny]

Hayden and Gilchrist bat 'ugly'? That statement is incomprehensible to me.......I think the most breathtaking innings I ever saw was Roy Fredericks at the WACA ground on a fast bouncy pitch against Lillee and Jeff Thomson at their peak.

He smashed 169 off not too many balls, it was just amazing. Thommo was getting so mad a few of his bouncers were flying over the batsman's head........over Rod Marsh's head........bouncing about twice and smashing into the fence. It was bloody quick. In fact frightening......but Fredericks just had a day out.
I remember he was out first ball after tea, c.G.Chappell, B. Lillee. The whole crowd kind of collectively sighed, cos it was a bit of an anti-climax after his fireworks.

Out of the modern play players, Lara is good to watch, Hayden, Gilchrist, haven't seen enough of Flintoff, Symonds is alright too.

I'll never forget that day when Lillee and Thomson were made to look like medium pacers by that little West Indian though.
Alvin Kalicharran got a hundred as well, I think, but it was rather overshadowed.

 

[age_master]

Specifics would suffice I think mate.

leave him hes trying to sound intellectual

 

[Richard]

im trying to sound intellectual, eh
well at least i know how to use punctuation and capital letters

 

[Richard]

Hayden and Gilchrist bat 'ugly'? That statement is incomprehensible to me.......I think the most breathtaking innings I ever saw was Roy Fredericks at the WACA ground on a fast bouncy pitch against Lillee and Jeff Thomson at their peak.

He smashed 169 off not too many balls, it was just amazing. Thommo was getting so mad a few of his bouncers were flying over the batsman's head........over Rod Marsh's head........bouncing about twice and smashing into the fence. It was bloody quick. In fact frightening......but Fredericks just had a day out.
I remember he was out first ball after tea, c.G.Chappell, B. Lillee. The whole crowd kind of collectively sighed, cos it was a bit of an anti-climax after his fireworks.

Out of the modern play players, Lara is good to watch, Hayden, Gilchrist, haven't seen enough of Flintoff, Symonds is alright too.

I'll never forget that day when Lillee and Thomson were made to look like medium pacers by that little West Indian though.
Alvin Kalicharran got a hundred as well, I think, but it was rather overshadowed.

That innings of course is legendary. Personally I've never seen a ball of it but I have seen videos of the best of one or two of Fredericks' innings. I rather liked the look of him, but not because he scored fast, because he played the hook and cut with such finesse and dominance.
Hayden and Gilchrist just take a swing. The fact that they generally score very fast by Test-match standards doesn't make them in the least attractive to me.

 

[marc71178]

im trying to sound intellectual, eh
well at least i know how to use punctuation and capital letters

Anyone else spot the irony?

 

[PY]

leave him hes trying to sound intellectual

im trying to sound intellectual, eh
well at least i know how to use punctuation and capital letters

Handbags ready.....take a step when I count. 1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10. Swing those handbags ladies :P

 

[thierry henry]

Hayden and Gilchrist just take a swing. The fact that they generally score very fast by Test-match standards doesn't make them in the least attractive to me.

Again, I totally agree. Hayden is utterly mechanical, while Gilchrist doesn't really play cricket shots at all- he has one shot, which is to plonk his foot in the vague direction of the ball and swing his bat in the same general direction. Great eye? Yes. Butt ugly batting? Also yes.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Well, mate, most of Australia likes him, and it's not for nothing.

 

[thierry henry]

Obviously you like him, he is a terrific cricketer and a well performed batsman. But still totally unattractive to watch from a neutral perspective.

 

[Linda]

So what your saying is, that everyone not from Australia (i.e. neautral) doesnt like watching him bat because he hasnt got a textbook style of batting? Runs dont matter to you eh?

Me, I like to see boundries hit.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Me, I like to see boundries hit.

Me too, and it's nothing to do with having no appreciation for nurdling the ball or whatever you might say. More often than not it's the best shots that go to the boundary. I guess that makes Gilly a bloody good batsman then.

 

[thierry henry]

I never said anything about TECHNIQUE. I am talking about AESTHETICS.

This thread is about exciting batsmen. Personally, as a rule I don't find a ball travelling to the boundary exciting. If that's what thrills you, maybe you should consider going out into the back yard and rolling balls against a fence, or whatever.

I find ATTRACTIVE strokeplay exciting, as I assume most people would. I don't find the strokeplay of Hayden or Gilchrist at all attractive. I don't deny that they are good batsmen. I am not commenting on their technical aptitude.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Most of Australia likes to watch them. Therefore they are attracted to watching them. Therefore they are attractive batsmen. Therefore they are attractive.
I don't know what your definition of attractive is but its not the same as everyone elses. So keep thierry henry's own personalized, dictated dictionary definitions to yourself.
Find a different way of saying what they do/do not do for you. Don't butcher our language.

Furthermore, perhaps there are other reasons people like to see a ball going to a boundary. Perhaps the ball hitting the boundary is the end-result of what they do like experiencing. A giant backswing, crunching the ball, seeing it race away etc.

And furthermore... Oh just shut up.

 

[PY]

You have such an eloquent way of putting things Mr Ged :P.

'Fraid to say I agree with Thierry Henry (<spit> Arsenal player <spit>) , they aren't attractive strokeplayers. In fact sometimes, the raw power is just plain ugly. But it's undeniably entertaining for most people. However, I can see how people say that it isn't because it doesn't look classy but it's darn effective.

 

[Richard]

t h, I thank you for your support and I am glad to hear you find the same components of batting attractive as I do.
However, we simply must recognise that there are some strange people in this cricketing World who place more personal value on strike-rate (and especially boundary ratio) than style.
Personally I think the greatest skill in batting is scoring fast without needing to hit boundaries. However I'd always prefer see Hussain or Kallis hit 100 off 200 balls than Gilchrist or Afridi hit 100 off 70. Even if both were thoroughly good, chanceless innings.
Another reason Australians so adore Gilchrist and Hayden is because the runs they have have played such large parts in so many Australian victories.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Therefore they are attractive.

Wasn't Brett Lee polled as the most attractive Aussie cricketer earlier this year? :P Wasim Akram, Sachin Tendulkar, Corey Collymore are the others who come to my mind.

 

[thierry henry]

Most of Australia likes to watch them. Therefore they are attracted to watching them. Therefore they are attractive batsmen. Therefore they are attractive.
I don't know what your definition of attractive is but its not the same as everyone elses. So keep thierry henry's own personalized, dictated dictionary definitions to yourself.
Find a different way of saying what they do/do not do for you. Don't butcher our language.

Furthermore, perhaps there are other reasons people like to see a ball going to a boundary. Perhaps the ball hitting the boundary is the end-result of what they do like experiencing. A giant backswing, crunching the ball, seeing it race away etc.

And furthermore... Oh just shut up.

HAHAHA!

This misses the point by so much and is so irrelevant I don't know where to start. The way I set out my previous post COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD, I am astonished you have come up with such a ridiculous retort.

So I see that your point is as such- most of Australia likes to watch Gilchrist and Hayden bat, therefore they find their batting attractive, therefore they are attractive.

I don't dispute that, but I didn't realise the topic at hand was "What batsman do most Australians find exciting?"

I was under the impression that we were discussing what batsman WE, as INDIVIDUALS, found exciting. Keep in mind the word here is EXCITING. See my previous post for a definition of exciting. Either accept it or try to dispute it logically.

I personally am excited by attractive strokeplay. I personally don't find the strokeplay of Gilchrist or Hayden attractive. What each individual finds attractive, a matter of aesthetics, is entirely subjective and no more or no less than a simple opinion. I have answered the question in the correct matter and to my own satisfaction and in this particular case it is impossible to do more than that.

 

[marc71178]

Wasn't Brett Lee polled as the most attractive Aussie cricketer earlier this year? :P Wasim Akram, Sachin Tendulkar, Corey Collymore are the others who come to my mind.

As what?

Attractive Australian Cricketers?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As what?

Attractive Australian Cricketers?

At the WC they polled 150+ (?) women as to the most desirable cricketers and those were some of the names. I think Brett Lee was there... not sure.

 

[Gaijin-san]

I don't dispute that, but I didn't realise the topic at hand was "What batsman do most Australians find exciting?"

Oh and you have missed my point, Mr Thierry Henry. You said that Hayden and Gilchrist are plain and simply not attractive. I said that many people find that they are.