Technique of batsman in the video : Is it exquisite or not ?

[Khalpat]

Here is how India TV covered this thread. Timeline -------------------- 2000 - Jack Hobbs selected as 3rd greatest cricketer of the century after Bradman and Sobers. Warne and Richards round the top 5. 2002 - Jack Hobbs selected in ESPN Legends of cricket under 10 rank. 2004 - Richie Benaud selects Jack Hobbs as the opener for all time greatest XI. 2012 - BB launches a ferocious deep dive to finally lift pardah over the Anglo-Saxon conspiracy. Kya suljha paayenge BB ye rahasymay guthi? Dekhte rahi chewtiyapa non-stop. xxx PS: Mcenley - you should be happy that this thread proves your point that comparison across eras is almost always a comparison of fans who initiate it, rarely about players.

To be frank I do not find anything bad in this thread. Its ok, Jack Hobbs would have been the best cricketer according to English media and wannabes would also rate him very high but really look at the footwork and technique, its awful man. You being a big fan of Mohinder Amarnath, have you seen how Amarnath has taught batting in series "Learn Cricket with Amarnath". But to be frank, 20 years down the line when people will be calling Sehwag as one of the legend of game, one of the BB of that time would surely come up with his footwork clip. The most important fact in batting is hand eye coordination and every other aspect of batting footwork, body movement, grip of batsman are secondary and this aspect can not be judged by this video.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Stuge]

HIS batting stance looked like tailender batting or maybe he was Sehwag like in terms of hand eye coordination of his time .

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

You have the words of your beloved experts that you trust soo much and I have the videos ( plenty of them not just a "Deck" of 5 videos as you keep telling ) together they should tell a wonderfull story of a bygone era which various experts have used very flattering adjectives to describe such as "golden era" .

Words don't say much neither does videos. I make my judgment on what I see not on what others record or speak. I am not gullible to sentiment and opinions of lesser known men. I draw theories from data not data from theories, opinions aside.

Instead we have posters like sabby calling Hobbs technique as comparable to Chris Martins, Khalpat calling it ugly and rkt.India calling it similar to Nehra. Why is this disconnect happening ?

The Outsider, Lurker, Ultimate_Game, Raghav_12 call the technique exquisite and Hobbs a great. Twisting theories to suits facts is someone's forte. Detecting these twists is mine. Get the drift? Stay clear.

I can see why given how you are shying away from answering straight forward questions.

I shy away from all questions/exercises which make no sense. Thanks for acknowledging my aptitude.

Nepotism ? Really. And how is it nepotism when we are talking based on neutral evidence such as the video ? Unless you think I went back in time and got a doctored video that shows him in poor light.

Who are you to decide what's neutral evidence?

What about facts ? Why don't you stand up and properly explain why you are right in technical terms instead of hurling silly peurile statments such as .. "hehehe look at that guy he think Hobbs is not a great when Cardus himself thinks he was a legend ... whatta foolish posters ... yada yada yada" ?

It's time for you to sit down (not stand up mind you) with a cool head and read, in multiple posts, the 1001 different reasons given. I understand it's difficult to read and assimilate but I've tried my level best to break the gestalt. And yes, before you try to pen me down the 1001 reasons - it was a metaphor.

Just to see how large the disconnect is between my understanding of cricket and the understanding of you and posters that support your views.

You created a poll not me and therefore you're doing the exact same thing you're asking me not to do. Since, you in all probability will want to disagree I would like to quote you. properly explain why you are right in technical terms instead of hurling silly peurile statments such as .. "hehehe look at that guy he think Hobbs is not a great when Cardus himself thinks he was a legend ... whatta foolish posters ... yada yada yada" ? To a lot of humble men, it may suggest the obvious. However, for people drowned in false modesty they would want to play Dravid's or a Gavaskar's best shot. Words reflect your mind, your opinions. Your nepotism reflects in one post, forget between others. You're just too much fun to let go!

[Crookbond]

Here is how India TV covered this thread. Timeline -------------------- 2000 - Jack Hobbs selected as 3rd greatest cricketer of the century after Bradman and Sobers. Warne and Richards round the top 5. 2002 - Jack Hobbs selected in ESPN Legends of cricket under 10 rank. 2004 - Richie Benaud selects Jack Hobbs as the opener for all time greatest XI. 2012 - BB launches a ferocious deep dive to finally lift pardah over the Anglo-Saxon conspiracy. Kya suljha paayenge BB ye rahasymay guthi? Dekhte rahi chewtiyapa non-stop. xxx PS: Mcenley - you should be happy that this thread proves your point that comparison across eras is almost always a comparison of fans who initiate it, rarely about players.

You know the sad part Lurker. In the process of this partisanship attitude, the beauty of the game, the way it has evolved, the appreciation and the gentleman game - everything's lost. I feel sad for the game, in this aspect.

[Crookbond]

To be frank I do not find anything bad in this thread.

Is it not a bit foolish on our parts to compare people across eras? Give it a good thought buddy.

Its ok, Jack Hobbs would have been the best cricketer according to English media and wannabes would also rate him very high but really look at the footwork and technique, its awful man. You being a big fan of Mohinder Amarnath, have you seen how Amarnath has taught batting in series "Learn Cricket with Amarnath".

Now, here's what I call being modest. I really appreciate it. It's fine you find the footwork and technique not up to modern standards. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. :two_thumbs_up: However, unlike others you're ready to listen to others too and give a good thought about it. Bravo!

But to be frank, 20 years down the line when people will be calling Sehwag as one of the legend of game, one of the BB of that time would surely come up with his footwork clip. The most important fact in batting is hand eye coordination and every other aspect of batting footwork, body movement, grip of batsman are secondary and this aspect can not be judged by this video.

It's the exact point my friend. You're nailing it. So, there is a teeny-weeny chance in the whole world that Jack Hobbs may have had some skills which may not be written in words or videos. Forget Sehwag, you will have people thrash Dravid in a decade's time. Would that be right? No. He had a role in the team and he played for it. Similarly, a Hobbs if given all the equipment/training/facilities which a modern day great has had may or may not have adapted. There's no way to bet your money on one side. This is my point. I hope you agree to this.

[cameron_black]

looks a bit like sehwag

[maniac]

Where is the Option for can't really judge???....Going by the look of it...back then the emphasis was firmly on backfoot play and I am assuming the length was shorter compared to what it is now where bowlers bowl a much fuller line... I am not getting into the whole protection back then and now argument but clearly the video indicates that.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

I'am too ... if someone is willing to CLEARLY spell out how and why the technique is exquisite in pure technical terms. Just don't expect me to follow "Expert" opinion like sheep. Go ahead please explain why this technique is so exquisite. I wont make fun of you. If you prefer PM me.

Read the source, Luke.

[vvvslaxman]

Here is what we call as exquisite technique.

I have got better [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPhBMzxyYD8]Kohli slams Malinga for 24 runs in an over - YouTube[/ame]

[Bumper]

Forget this technique-sheqnique, Hobbs is a true great. The 4 foot gap between his bat & pad is well ahead of his peers and way ahead of anything a modern player could conjure up. Who was that guy bowling ? Hobbs had enough time to sip a cup of tea and get back to the crease between the point of delivery and the point of bat making contact with the ball. And was he bowled ? Never mind, he played without a helmet remember ? PS: All you suckers who bought into this man's greatness, pls drop me a note, I got a garage full of goodies to sell.

[Khalpat]

I have got better Kohli slams Malinga for 24 runs in an over - YouTube

To be frank, I am not a big fan of Kohli technique, there is something drastically wrong, may be even while hitting a straight drive also his bat comes from third man angle which doesn't look good . Rohit and Rahane technique are much better but like I said before footwork, bat follow through, Grip stance everything becomes secondary the primary is hand eye coordination. And this is where Kohli is much better. When everything Footwork, hand eye coordination, stance, grip, still head comes into one man batting then he becomes a Sachin Tendulkar.

[Raghav_12]

The Outsider, Lurker, Ultimate_Game, Raghav_12 call the technique exquisite and Hobbs a great. Twisting theories to suits facts is someone's forte. Detecting these twists is mine. Get the drift? Stay clear.

Mcenley, I think you have misunderstood my post. I was taking a swipe at the fact that Hobbs hit most of his centuries after turning 40 and played international cricket until age of 46. In current time game has become so fast that most of the players, however great they were, start the start struggling once they cross 35, forget about 40 or 45. Clearly cricket was much slower in time of Hobbs and you can't even compare his technique with any modern batsmen. But yes, he was great for his time.

[CG]

Technique is determined by the playing conditions,Pitches,Bowlers of the era,Pitches were uncovered ,so may be most technique are not pretty to eye but effective.Yes cricket has evolved ,everything does todays technique are due to all the inputs of the previous generation cricketers.Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

[vvvslaxman]

To be frank' date=' I am not a big fan of Kohli technique, there is something drastically wrong, may be even while hitting a straight drive also his bat comes from third man angle which doesn't look good . [b']Rohit and Rahane technique are much better but like I said before footwork, bat follow through, Grip stance everything becomes secondary the primary is hand eye coordination. And this is where Kohli is much better. When everything Footwork, hand eye coordination, stance, grip, still head comes into one man batting then he becomes a Sachin Tendulkar.

Runs without Technique >>> No runs with technique. ANyway Rohit's technique vanishes once the bowling quality and pitch conditions change.

[CG]

Runs without Technique >>> No runs with technique. ANyway Rohit's technique vanishes once the bowling quality and pitch conditions change.

:hysterical::hysterical: Guess you did not watch rohit in cb series in 2008 or in t20 world cup in wi on abouncy pitch ,when no other indian batsman could go on to double figures.In the end guy with better technique will be more successful

[vvvslaxman]

:hysterical::hysterical: Guess you did not watch rohit in cb series in 2008 or in t20 world cup in wi when no other indian batsman could go on to double figures

Guess you didn't see how clueless he was in South Africa against bouncing , seaming ball. Rohit's average vs Australia 10 matches 193 runs 21.44 avge 70.69 Strike rate.. plz don't tell me this is a great stat. vs England 5 matches 50 runs 25.00 avge 68.49 strike rate vs South africa 7 matches 105 runs 15.00 avge 61.76 strike rate These are some pathetic figures

[CG]

Guess you didn't see how clueless he was in South Africa against bouncing , seaming ball. Rohit's average vs Australia 10 matches 193 runs 21.44 avge 70.69 Strike rate.. plz don't tell me this is a great stat. vs England 5 matches 50 runs 25.00 avge 68.49 strike rate vs South africa 7 matches 105 runs 15.00 avge 61.76 strike rate These are some pathetic figures

He did well in the same southafrican conditions so be it in t20 ,last tour he did adapt well. These are few matches ,Kohli averages 30 against aus and 13 against pak .