The Great Australian side compared to the Talented and Incosistent Pakistan Side

[aussie]

Well since australia won 2-1 in the west indies in 1995 and became the undisputed number one side in the world the haven't looked back, and frankly no team could match them at all. But if u look at the group of players pakistan had during that period the matched australia for talent. For example they opened with Aamair Sohail and Saeed Anwar which on a given day could challenge either the taylor-slater or langer-Hayden openig partnership for ability and runs but not consistency. In the middle was an abundance of top class and talented batsmen with lads such as Ijaz ahmed, saleem malik, inzamam, basit ali, asif mushtaba and youhana, they also had two top class wicket-keepers, Moin Khan and Rashid Latif when in top form where superb. Their Fast bowling attack was led by the two W's Wasim and Waqar with good bak up from Aquib javed, Ata-ur-Rehman and at that time the young exciting Shoaib Akhtar, in the spin department the had two very accomplished spinners in Saqlain Mushtaq & Mushtaq Ahmed while Arshad Khan lent handy backup. While they had the emergence of exciting all-ronders such as Afridi, Razzaq and Mahmood. If Pakistan could have had put unity and consistency together they could have had a powerful unit at that time.

 

[cricket player]

Yeah I thought pakistan could have been a much better side they are now,If they would have been consistent With the team that you have mentioned.what a talented team The pakistani was back in the 2000,With young rich talented youngsters like razzaq and afrid and with so much stroke play saeed anwar amir soahil and inzimam ul ha,then great bowling attack,wasim akram,waqar younis,shoaib akhtar,That was the reason why india couldnt beat them back then,There was so much talent That they would have had a chance winning againts australia,

 

[Richard]

In the middle was an abundance of top class and talented batsmen with lads such as ... youhana

Err... no.
Not in Test-matches.

 

[Swervy]

Err... no.
Not in Test-matches.

you cant just say Youhanna isnt talented, but only in tests..the guy is either talented or he isnt.

I for one think he isnt that bad a player, whether it be test or ODI. he may not have realised his full potential in tests but that doesnt mean he has no talent

 

[Richard]

How on Earth can't you say he's talented in one form and not the other?
The two game forms require many different talents - that's why there are so many players who can play in one form and not the other.

 

[Swervy]

How on Earth can't you say he's talented in one form and not the other?
The two game forms require many different talents - that's why there are so many players who can play in one form and not the other.

you are either a talented player or you arent..the talent doesnt just disappear coz you are playing test....you maybe more suited to one form of the game however

 

[a massive zebra]

you are either a talented player or you arent..the talent doesnt just disappear coz you are playing test....you maybe more suited to one form of the game however

Please explain the cases of Michael Bevan and Neil Fairbrother, or Michael Slater and Geoffrey Boycott.

 

[age_master]

the talent is there, but the games aren't suited to to that form

 

[Richard]

you are either a talented player or you arent..the talent doesnt just disappear coz you are playing test....you maybe more suited to one form of the game however

No, it doesn't "disappear" - it's just never there, FFS!
Some players have the talent for limited-overs-cricket and not for First-Class stuff.
It's not rocket-science.

 

[Richard]

Please explain the cases of Michael Bevan and Neil Fairbrother, or Michael Slater and Geoffrey Boycott.

Nick Knight, Graeme Hick, Yuvraj Singh (possibly), Mohammad Kaif, Yousuf Youhana, Saqlain Mushtaq, Harbhajan Singh, Ajit Agarkar, Gavin Larsen, Chris Harris, Geoff Allott, Nathan Bracken, Geirant Jones, James Kirtley, Matthew Hoggard, Michael Vaughan, Chris Read, Mark Ealham, Alan Mullally, VVS Laxman, Mark Richardson, Jacob Oram, Roger Twose, Jacques Rudolph, Kumara Dharmasena, Mahela Jayawardene, Ian Bradshaw, and God-knows-how-many others...
The First-Class and limited-overs games have many, many differences and there are so many players good at one and not at the other that it's untrue.

 

[Swervy]

Please explain the cases of Michael Bevan and Neil Fairbrother, or Michael Slater and Geoffrey Boycott.

all very talented players..some players styles more suited to the shorter game. Still the basic/fundamental skills of batting are the same whatever version of the game is being played...the talent is there in all players listed above, just the mentality of the players is different, or the strengths one player may have might suit the ODI game or whatever

 

[Richard]

Exactly - the strengths of game are different - the talent required is different. Yes, there are some very basic talents (eye, hand-eye co-ord) that are the same, but there are all sorts of things that come into it, things that render the two game-forms exceedingly different.

 

[Swervy]

Nick Knight, Graeme Hick, Yuvraj Singh (possibly), Mohammad Kaif, Yousuf Youhana, Saqlain Mushtaq, Harbhajan Singh, Ajit Agarkar, Gavin Larsen, Chris Harris, Geoff Allott, Nathan Bracken, Geirant Jones, James Kirtley, Matthew Hoggard, Michael Vaughan, Chris Read, Mark Ealham, Alan Mullally, VVS Laxman, Mark Richardson, Jacob Oram, Roger Twose, Jacques Rudolph, Kumara Dharmasena, Mahela Jayawardene, Ian Bradshaw, and God-knows-how-many others...
The First-Class and limited-overs games have many, many differences and there are so many players good at one and not at the other that it's untrue.

yes there are many players that are good at one form and not at another..however, it is still the game of cricket. batting fundamentals do not change with different forms. You either have a good eye for the ball or you dont, you either know how to play certain shots or you dont. All of the above players have a talent in the game..some players above have strengths that suit one form of the game or another

 

[Richard]

Yes, they all have some talents - but they do not have sufficient talent in one form, they do in the other.
It is not "the game of cricket", either - there are two games of cricket (well, two that we're talking here) - limited-over-cricket and First-Class-cricket. And they have many, many differences.

 

[Swervy]

Exactly - the strengths of game are different - the talent required is different. Yes, there are some very basic talents (eye, hand-eye co-ord) that are the same, but there are all sorts of things that come into it, things that render the two game-forms exceedingly different.

maybe what you define cricketing talent as is different to what I define it as.

talent for me is the hand eye coordination, the eye, the ability to pick length early etc...all of that... pretty much all the rest is coached. Of course talent could be defined as the ability to pick up was is coached quickly I guess, I just dont see talent being like that.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, they all have some talents - but they do not have sufficient talent in one form, they do in the other.
It is not "the game of cricket", either - there are two games of cricket (well, two that we're talking here) - limited-over-cricket and First-Class-cricket. And they have many, many differences.

They are different tactically, but the actual playing of the game itself is the same (apart from the odd rule difference like short balls etc)..you need to the same things right..thats why both forms are still both called 'cricket'

 

[Richard]

maybe what you define cricketing talent as is different to what I define it as.

talent for me is the hand eye coordination, the eye, the ability to pick length early etc...all of that... pretty much all the rest is coached. Of course talent could be defined as the ability to pick up was is coached quickly I guess, I just dont see talent being like that.

Talent is ability, skill.
Simple as.

 

[Richard]

They are different tactically, but the actual playing of the game itself is the same (apart from the odd rule difference like short balls etc)..you need to the same things right..thats why both forms are still both called 'cricket'

And you also need lots of different things right.
The odd rule difference (there are actually a few) makes a hell of a difference.

 

[Mecnun]

Talent is talent and remains talent however the application of that talent is different in the two forms of the game . Some can make the change in applying themselevs effectively between the shorter version and the longer whereas others fail.

 

[Richard]

No, there are certain talents that are required for the limited-overs game, and certain ones for the First-Class game.
Some have both, some have one and not the other.