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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

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 .

vs Australia 33 Kohli.. which is certainly not bad..compared Rohits 21. Look at the strike rate. Kohli 81. Rohit 70. There is ocean of difference between them.

[Khalpat]

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

Fair enough thats about personal choice. I would never like to see Javed Miandad batting but always liked the batting of Saeed Anwar. But I am just curious since in the end for you everything ends with total runs then you must be a big fan of Sachin and the guy in your name would be very low in your fav batsman rating right?

[CG]

vs Australia 33 Kohli.. which is certainly not bad..compared Rohits 21. Look at the strike rate. Kohli 81. Rohit 70. There is ocean of difference between them.

Its 24 for rohit not 21 and there is not ocean of diff between 33 and 24 considering rohit played most of his matches in aus and at no 5 or 6.Any ways batsman test come in tests and he will be very good at that considering he averages 63 at first class level and will not do worse than kohli average of 32.:giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[rkt.india]

From Cricinfo- I don't know about his status as player, but surely among middle aged players, his records are untouchable. He surely would have had very great technique which didn't need reflexes to be fast. Just to put things in perspective, there has been just one century scored by players past age of 40 in last 22 years. (Gooch hammering 210 against lowly NZ attack)

This in itself show how poor was standard of cricket back in those days.

[vvvslaxman]

what about truck loads of runs with technique against some of the very best bowlers of all time ?

Bottomline is runs.. with or without technique. It doesn't matter. Manjrekar was considered to have one of the best technique India ever had.. we all knew what happened to his career.

[vvvslaxman]

Fair enough thats about personal choice. I would never like to see Javed Miandad batting but always liked the batting of Saeed Anwar. But I am just curious since in the end for you everything ends with total runs then you must be a big fan of Sachin and the guy in your name would be very low in your fav batsman rating right?

Sachin/Laxman had stellar career. Kohli has already become some sort of a veteran. Rohit is a non-starter. He just doesn't fit in this comparison.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CasualVisitor]

Talking in absolute terms, modern day batsmen have far better technique than what Jack Hobb's video depicts. There are no two ways about the same. The debate is can technique of different eras, as distant as 30s and today's, be compared in absolute manner. Probably no.

[CasualVisitor]

Sachin/Laxman had stellar career. Kohli has already become some sort of a veteran. Rohit is a non-starter. He just doesn't fit in this comparison.

One never knows what a good knock under trying circumstances against a quality attack can do to a talented batsman's confidence and career graph. All I can say atm is Wait n watch :winky: . EDIT: What's with 1 hour difference in post timings? Day-light saving issue?

[Crookbond]

Mcenley' date=' 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.[/quote'] I didn't. In fact, I agree with you. So, do you. The word exquisite has to be taken into context.

[Crookbond]

Technique is determined by the playing conditions' date='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.[/quote'] Hence, comparison across eras is futile.

[Crookbond]

This in itself show how poor was standard of cricket back in those days.

It also shows you can't compare across eras. Just because players didn't have modern day facilities, don't make the players poor. They were the best in their times. Also, you can't guarantee them failing/ succeeding in the modern era, unless you time travel. One can only guess and that's where sentiment creeps in.

[Crookbond]

Talking in absolute terms' date=' modern day batsmen have far better technique than what Jack Hobb's video depicts. There are no two ways about the same. [b']The debate is can technique of different eras, as distant as 30s and today's, be compared in absolute manner. Probably no.

Repeated this a 100 time but partisanship takes over the mind and therefore, the words.

[zen]

This thread is like 'old wine in new bottle' :cantstop: ..... Same crap is being recycled

[vvvslaxman]

This thread is like 'old wine in new bottle' :cantstop: ..... Same crap is being recycled

+1 Absolute nonsensical future predictions from 60s and extrapolation.

[Crookbond]

+1 Absolute nonsensical future predictions from 60s and extrapolation.

:icflove:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --