What is the context of measuring “talent”

[Global.Baba]

I know there are going the jibes about Rohit Sharma :) but based on @putrevus quote earlier that Kapil did not do enough to justify his “talent” got me thinking. This is a guy with 600+ international wickets and some match winning knocks and is considered one of the best allrounders of all time.

 

I see this being used for Sachin as well.

 

All players who are good enough to play first class cricket have the same basics at a ground level. 

 

The ones who succeed seem to have the temperament and also the extra time to play their strokes at the grand stage.

 

If someone says Kambli was more talented than Dravid. How would we define that? Dravid clearly played some ATG pace bowlers and made runs where as Kambli got rattled by Winston Benjamin.

 

You can’t say because Kambli partied hard  or Dravid was goody too shoes because guys like Richards and Greenidge used to smack bowlers for fun with a hangover.

 

At the end of the day numbers matter and that’s how talent can be defined.

 

Same applies to bowlers. We tend to call the ones with pace as talented and the ones who are medium pace as trundlers or talentless.

 

At the end of the a guy who figures out how to take wickets is talented.

 

@Muloghonto do you think someone like say Fannie Devillers or Craig McDermott were more talented than Anderson or someone like Saqlain was more talented than Kumble? 

 

 

[Global.Baba]

I think the term should be potential and not talent. A youngster might have potential but how he rakes up numbers and displays to be the best in the world shows talent.