Top_Cat said:
Exactly. So explain Ponting's success in bowler-friendly conditions other than in India. Luck and miracles don't count.
im sorry what? i think you've misread the point ive been trying to make. my point is that pontings success on seamer friendly conditions is not due to technique but because of a very good eye and good temperament. his technique is just about good enough for him to succeed on seamer friendly wickets considering all his other qualities as a player. tresco and gayle on the other hand have such horrible techniques, that despite a very good eye in both cases, and a good temperament in trescos case, it still doesnt help either of them succeed on seamer friendly wickets
Top_Cat said:
So now it's 'very ordinary'............ Really, this is getting crazy. All of the things you're talking about (hard hands, shuffling across, etc.) only happen early in Ponting's innings'. Once he's set, he plays with excellent soft-hands. In all of his dismissals in India in 2001 (and trust me, I watched every tortured moment), they got him early because he really isn't a great starter much like Dean Jones wasn't. But as he showed in a losing Test series in SL previous to that one and in just about every other country in the world, once he's in, he's fine. The shuffle across disappears, the hands get softer.
the 'shuffle across' does not disappear, and its glaringly obvious. yes it becomes less prominent as his innings progresses, but it still
exists . however once he starts to get his eye in, he tends to hit that ball more often than he misses it.
Top_Cat said:
As for Chris Gayle; his technique isn't as abysmal as you make it out to be. Relative to other pure technicians, maybe it's not as good, but if there's one thing you can assume about anyone playing for any of the major Test-playing nations is that their core technique is at least 'very good'. Trust me, bad technique will not see you even selected for ONE Test for any country (other than the obvious minnows) no matter how naturally gifted you are. It simply doesn't happen.
how is it possible for any batsman's technique to be too much worse than gayles? no footwork and poor body position, along with mindless slogging. and believe it or not you can be selected for any country in the world despite having a horrible technique, because your temperament, eye and other qualities makes you into a decent enough player to score a few runs in domestic cricket.
Top_Cat said:
I can only assume from your designation of Test-level players' techniques as 'a joke', etc. that you've never faced decent (grade-level) bowlers. Trust me, without a very good grasp of technique, even they will chew you up, let alone Test-level bowlers. You won't understand until you face guys who can put the ball in the corridor 5 times an over and move the ball around. Really. The biggest difference as you move up the levels isn't that bowlers bowl heaps more excellent deliveries; you just get fewer bad deliveries. That's why you need to game to combat that or you won't last.
players with a good eye dont need technique to succeed against poor bowling on flat wickets, that i can assure you off. theres a major difference though between a poor technique and an ordinary technique, and as such a player with a poor technique will by and large be clueless on seaming wickets at the intl level, while the player with the ordinary technique can succeed on seaming wickets assuming he applies himself.
Top_Cat said:
im not sure what these pictures are supposed to prove, because i think the best way to analyze someones technique is by looking at videos. pictures can make anybody look good.
