Who had a better technique : Sachin or Gavaskar?

[subshakerz]

Yeah it all comes down to execution. If you can perfectly execute a fewer amount of strokes and adapt them to any delivery don’t I’d argue that’s better and more efficient and more impressive than having to use a more varying amount of strokes.

i.e someone who uses the reverse sweep or doesn’t

Also reminds me of the Barnes quote re: the googly.

Ok but that despite having a poorer technique not because of it.

 

[Bolo.]

Steve Waugh is an example. Do you honestly think he has a better technique?

It's not a better technique if you are limited in how you can handle deliveries and have to restrict your shots, even if you still somehow make it effective at scoring runs. Effectiveness is different than technique. A person can have perfect technique but not score for other reasons.

Waugh cutting out risky shots is a big part of what made him effective. It's not a technique that would work for everyone. For players with less concentration (or don't put as high of a premium on their wickets) missing out on run scoring opportunities might result in being less effective. But it is a technique that worked better for him than Sachin's (for example) did for him.

 

[subshakerz]

Waugh cutting out risky shots is a big part of what made him effective. It's not a technique that would work for everyone. For players with less concentration (or don't put as high of a premium on their wickets) missing out on run scoring opportunities might result in being less effective. But it is a technique that worked better for him than Sachin's (for example) did for him.

Technique means playing a ball on its merits. If a ball is there to pull and hook, the technically correct thing is to play that shots or to duck or navigate it to the off side for example. It isn't getting hit by the ball deliberately which often happened with Waugh. Yeah he was effective but it's not by being technically sound.

 

[Coronis]

Ok but that despite having a poorer technique not because of it.

Why does that make it poorer?

 

[subshakerz]

Why does that make it poorer?

Because you are technically unable to play certain shots or defensive strokes.

 

[Bolo.]

Technique means playing a ball on its merits. If a ball is there to pull and hook, the technically correct thing is to play that shots or to duck or navigate it to the off side for example. It isn't getting hit by the ball deliberately which often happened with Waugh. Yeah he was effective but it's not by being technically sound.

Playing a ball on its merits means different things to different bats. For AB, the reverse sweep was a percentage shot, and he is just playing the ball on it's merits. For bats without his speed, its a terrible idea.

For Waugh, playing a ball on it's merits often meant doing nothing.

 

[Coronis]

Because you are technically unable to play certain shots or defensive strokes.

But you’re technically proficient enough with the rest of your strokes to not need those strokes.

imo a simpler technique with the same result as a more complicated one is better.

 

[subshakerz]

Playing a ball on its merits means different things to different bats. For AB, the reverse sweep was a percentage shot, and he is just playing the ball on it's merits. For bats without his speed, its a terrible idea.

For Waugh, playing a ball on it's merits often meant doing nothing.

Ok but there is is a playbook on how to ideally play deliveries. The one playing the reverse is better off.

If there is a steep bouncing delivery, one bat crouches under and hooks, the other just gets hit on the shoulder.

 

[subshakerz]

But you’re technically proficient enough with the rest of your strokes to not need those strokes.

imo a simpler technique with the same result as a more complicated one is better.

That's reductive. Just because you can score with other strokes doesn't mean those missed strokes are a good thing.

And no, Tendulkar with a more complicated technique was more adaptable in the long run and hence had the ability to score everywhere and against all types of bowlers.

 

[Bolo.]

Ok but there is is a playbook on how to ideally play deliveries. The one playing the reverse is better off.

If there is a steep bouncing delivery, one bat crouches under and hooks, the other just gets hit on the shoulder.

That playbook doesn't include the reverse sweep. I'm not penalising him for breaking the 'rules' when it got him results. And by the same logic, we shouldn't penalise Waugh.

 

[Coronis]

That's reductive. Just because you can score with other strokes doesn't mean those missed strokes are a good thing.

And no, Tendulkar with a more complicated technique was more adaptable in the long run and hence had the ability to score everywhere and against all types of bowlers.

But the whole point of this discussion was @Bolo. talking about a hypothetical player who would have similar results…

 

[subshakerz]

But the whole point of this discussion was @Bolo. talking about a hypothetical player who would have similar results…

Ok but I have even stated that you can achieve the same results with a more deficient technique since it's not just technique that leads to runs. It's also temperament, etc. However all things equal a more technically equipped player would have better results.

 

[Coronis]

Ok but I have even stated that you can achieve the same results with a more deficient technique since it's not just technique that leads to runs. It's also temperament, etc. However all things equal a more technically equipped player would have better results.

I just think that leads to a player with more useless strokes that they rarely use.

 

[subshakerz]

I just think that leads to a player with more useless strokes that they rarely use.

Lol really? Give me an example. If you have a long career you are going to use those strokes at some point.

 

[Coronis]

Lol really? Give me an example. If you have a long career you are going to use those strokes at some point.

Meh. I don’t have any specific examples. I’m just saying inherently having more strokes doesn’t make your technique better. We fundamentally disagree right there, so lets leave it at that.

 

[sayon basak]

Technique has little to do with having higher number of strokes in your armory.

 

[subshakerz]

Technique has little to do with having higher number of strokes in your armory.

It has something to do with it. Technique isn't just limited to defense. It also applies to strokes.

 

[subshakerz]

Meh. I don’t have any specific examples. I’m just saying inherently having more strokes doesn’t make your technique better. We fundamentally disagree right there, so lets leave it at that.

Ok. You asked me for examples last time, yes? Anyhoo isn't not a big deal.

 

[Coronis]

Ok. You asked me for examples last time, yes? Anyhoo isn't not a big deal.

Well yeah like I wasn’t talking about any specific players so no examples lol