How were Tendulkar and Dravid different when it came to batting technique?

[Kirkut]

I'm guessing this may have been discussed in CW before. In case not, just curious as to who was more technically sound of the two?

Tendulkar is regarded to be the most perfect batsman technique-wise, but in my opinion he had a tendency to punch the ball with a very strong bottom hand grip while Dravid looked more fluidic and played with soft hands.

Besides Tendulkar and Dravid, which batsman possessed the most perfect technique in your opinion?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Ian Bell
Ramnaresh Sarwan

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm guessing this may have been discussed in CW before. In case not, just curious as to who was more technically sound of the two?

Tendulkar is regarded to be the most perfect batsman technique-wise, but in my opinion he had a tendency to punch the ball with a very strong bottom hand grip while Dravid looked more fluidic and played with soft hands.

Besides Tendulkar and Dravid, which batsman possessed the most perfect technique in your opinion?

Dravid used his bottom hand a lot on his drives to redirect the ball into gaps. It's actually a low-key very unconventional way of playing cover-drives because he would reach out away from the body quite often to drive square of the wicket with a wristy flick. He's pigeonholed as having a textbook technique because he was a very defensive batsman and those players generally are assumed to have used a conventional method. Most videos of his great tons in swinging conditions are peppered with those strange long-stride away from the body flicked drives, which goes against most of what you're usually taught to do. He got away with it because he still played it really late. There's a few in this innings which are kinda like what I described:

It kinda got him into trouble when there was a bit more pace off the wicket though, because he'd sometimes get stuck in the crease. Late in his career, he'd constantly glove the ball to deliveries on a length to which his weight probably should've been back rather than forward. Tendulkar with his smaller more subtle foot movement was far less prone to that.

 

[Kirkut]

Dravid used his bottom hand a lot on his drives to redirect the ball into gaps. It's actually a low-key very unconventional way of playing cover-drives because he would reach out away from the body quite often to drive square of the wicket with a wristy flick. He's pigeonholed as having a textbook technique because he was a very defensive batsman and those players generally are assumed to have used a conventional method. Most videos of his great tons in swinging conditions are peppered with those strange long-stride away from the body flicked drives, which goes against most of what you're usually taught to do. He got away with it because he still played it really late. There's a few in this innings which are kinda like what I described:

It kinda got him into trouble when there was a bit more pace off the wicket though, because he'd sometimes get stuck in the crease. Late in his career, he'd constantly glove the ball to deliveries on a length to which his weight probably should've been back rather than forward. Tendulkar with his smaller more subtle foot movement was far less prone to that.

Awesome post. Did see Dravid batting that way in his 233 at Adelaide, plenty of those long strides.

But it always seemed that Tendulkar went hard on the ball especially when hitting the ball in the V, compared to Dravid or Martyn who appeared more like 'touch' players.

 

[Kirkut]

Ian Bell
Ramnaresh Sarwan

Yes, Bell is underrated. He looked perfect when on song.

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar has a better technique overall because he was better at the basics.

No exaggerated hand movements, played the ball later, head steadier, bat straighter.

Sachin yes did punch the ball more but was more committed in his strokeplay, whereas Dravid's soft hands were a weakness when the pitch had more bounce. Though perhaps Dravid may have been slightly better at negotiating swinging conditions as he was more patient.