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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

If it doesnt meant anyone is the best of all time why where you agreeing with the Gang leader when he categorically puts Bradman Ahead of Hobbs and doesnt even entertain Tendulkar's claim ?

Remember he also says you can't compare across eras (in hundreds of other posts), Bitoo V.D.O. Shooter? It's an interesting case of selective amnesia.

Maybe you need to understand what I have been saying for many many years .. heres another attempt in very simple words .... hope it registers in your brain : Most modern era greats >>> All pre-WWII era greats on the basis of absolute batting skills. Why ? some of the reasons are : 1. Bowling standards 2. Fielding Standards 3. Multiple formats with hectic schedules 4. Many different surfaces 5. No practice matches.

Here's what you need to register in your brain - the above is your opinion and you're entitled to it but you can't prove it unless you can time travel and stop playing with words.

[Crookbond]

I didn't read that BTW ... unless you convince me that the video is a fake one.

It's implicit you didn't read, just as you don't carefully read other posts. Never mind, training in progress.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Khalpat]

Folks like WG Grace and Hobbs actually were the first ones to discover some of the basics' date=' you are referring to. To know more about Hobbs in particular, please read - [url']http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/155470.html

WG Grace, Seriously come on man now we should give credit to those shepherds of England who actually invented this game. Kahan se kahan pahuch gaye hum. Lets agree on few things: Cricket this wonderful game was invented by English shepherds, the person who ever played the first ball was the one who gave us the basics Cricket has evolved from shepherds to WG Grace to Hobbs to Don to Len Hutton to Garry Sobers to Viv Richards to Sachin Tendulkar and it will surely goto a better hand. Every era has his own greats in terms of batting if Sir Don was the greatest of pre World war era then Sachin Tendulkar is of post Indian liberalization era. Eventually the technique has improved just as Bollywood movies in terms of script and story. Now a days movies are much better practical when compared to say 50s movie. Acting has also improved but still no one will dare to compare Irfan khan with Dilip Kumar. So if many of us feel Sachin batting in terms of technicality is better than Don Bradman or Hobbs they are not completely wrong because this the way it should be right everything will improve right? But again as a Batsman it is rediculous to compare because it was diff era. Now, every one has some soft corner for batsman of their era like my father still beleives G. Vishwanath has been Indias best batsman. He is not right completely we know that , he might be correct as per copy book batting is concerned but Cricket game has evolved and Batsman had to play more and more attacking shot. You can not defend the ball whole day. So I never try to convince him that Sachin is better but it is a fact Sachin is better right in the same way my next generation will find it very tough to convince me that some new batsman is better than Sachin. He would be surely because this how human being evolution is but I will not be convinced because Sachin has given me smile most number of times.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

General batting skills of the time. Look at the batting techniques of leading batsmen of those times they give a big frikkin clue.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUux1p1Vg3A]Mohammad Asif - Sachin Tendulkar Bowled - YouTube[/ame] And this is a great technique.. ? this ball is not even a touch low.. but he pretends as if ball is keeping low. Asif by no means an express pace bowler. Imagine you play on pitches where ball could behave anyway. Given the history of Sachin's batting ability on pitches that are not having true bounce i would back an old timer than sachin to come out on top.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Khalpat]

And this is a great technique.. ? this ball is not even a touch low.. but he pretends as if ball is keeping low. Asif by no means an express pace bowler. Imagine you play on pitches where ball could behave anyway. Given the history of Sachin's batting ability on pitches that are not having true bounce i would back an old timer than sachin to come out on top.

Brilliant, two kind of people would be feeling very proud today: First: The green gheto forum. You have made Sir_Afridi kind of posters look like Dr Manmohan Singh. Second: The idiots who anchor cricketing shows at Aaj Tak, Star Plus, India TV. Suddenly I think Vikrant Gupta is the most intelligent cricketing expert of this planet. Even by your standard this was very poor attempt to defame your great player.Should I show you the expressions of Laxman when he gets bowled. Khair unlike you I love each and every batsman who has played for India.You are saying that Don or Hobbs never got out right? And one clip proves that technique is poor I can show you 18,341 shots of Sachin which has been technically perfect. Your take 1 or 18,341.

[CG]

And this is a great technique.. ? this ball is not even a touch low.. but he pretends as if ball is keeping low. Asif by no means an express pace bowler. Imagine you play on pitches where ball could behave anyway. Given the history of Sachin's batting ability on pitches that are not having true bounce i would back an old timer than sachin to come out on top.

The main problem is Imagination,No discredit to the legends,But fans imagine how dangereous uncovered pitches were as if it rained every night &uncovered pitches were mostly low and slow not underprepared . People imagine fast bowlers in those days were 160km/h+,even though evidence suggests they were not but its folklore. Todays what cricket is ,all credit should go to the precious generation cricketers as they all have helped ,but some tales are not true.

[vvvslaxman]

Irrelevant unless you are going to claim that Tendulkar plays like this in every match and that every match where Bowes and Toshack bowled had variable bounce. BTW Bradman by his own admission was not a fan of bad pitches. He prefered batting on good batting pitches and used to offer the opposing captain to go for pitches to be covered. Do you know this ? but you forget that Tendulkar was at his worst during this time. Why dont you show his 100 vs McGrath ? Because it doesnt suit your agenda. Why dont you show footaqe from his 100 at Perth and Jo'Burg circa 1992 ... same reasons. How about the 55 at Wankhede on a piss poor dirt bowl ? Same reason. How about the 50 vs Bond on a green track .. same reason and so on and so forth. this is a very old and lame paki trick.

100 vs Mcgrath that is not a true pitch? or even 100 at perth or Jo burg pitch? That 55 is the only one innings that he can talk of albeit came against a piss poor spin attack. On drop in pitches he made a 52 in NZ. But 3 more failures. You couldn't use that for your argument as that doesn't suit your agenda? Neither of those 50s were great innings by any standard. Sure he batted longer than his colleague in the match. That is all he can gloat about.

[vvvslaxman]

Brilliant, two kind of people would be feeling very proud today: First: The green gheto forum. You have made Sir_Afridi kind of posters look like Dr Manmohan Singh. Second: The idiots who anchor cricketing shows at Aaj Tak, Star Plus, India TV. Suddenly I think Vikrant Gupta is the most intelligent cricketing expert of this planet. Even by your standard this was very poor attempt to defame your great player.Should I show you the expressions of Laxman when he gets bowled. Khair unlike you I love each and every batsman who has played for India.You are saying that Don or Hobbs never got out right? And one clip proves that technique is poor I can show you 18,341 shots of Sachin which has been technically perfect. Your take 1 or 18,341.

I can post it myself. But this is not about Laxman. I have criticized Laxman more than you can imagine.. just because i have his nick.. don't think i am his worshipper. Anyway point here is when you mock yesteryear for techniques is you have to take a look at your own godly cricketers who needed a coach to learn skills. Cricket just like any other sports has evolved. these players were different stages of evolvement of the game. Now Pietersen can play shots that nobody can imagine even 10 years back. That doesn't make him a better player than them. Tendulkar started his career where cricket had already come a long way. That in itself is a huge benefit. It is not like he is way way above his contemporaries. There are equally good players in his era if not better. But guys like Vijay Merchant,, Lala Amarnath played in an era where cricket was still evolving. Cricket even took a break. with world war1, world war 2, depression, independence fight... there were so many factors. This is an era where you get 20 lakhs right after scoring a 100 in a ODI in a losing cause. (Sachin got 20 lakhs right after his 143 at sharjah). So leave the great players to their era instead of taking a dig at them. But for them you would not be playing cricket. You would still be playing gilly dhanda.

[Khalpat]

I can post it myself. But this is not about Laxman. I have criticized Laxman more than you can imagine.. just because i have his nick.. don't think i am his worshipper. Anyway point here is when you mock yesteryear for techniques is you have to take a look at your own godly cricketers who needed a coach to learn skills. Cricket just like any other sports has evolved. these players were different stages of evolvement of the game. Now Pietersen can play shots that nobody can imagine even 10 years back. That doesn't make him a better player than them. Tendulkar started his career where cricket had already come a long way. That in itself is a huge benefit. It is not like he is way way above his contemporaries. There are equally good players in his era if not better. But guys like Vijay Merchant,, Lala Amarnath played in an era where cricket was still evolving. Cricket even took a break. with world war1, world war 2, depression, independence fight... there were so many factors. This is an era where you get 20 lakhs right after scoring a 100 in a ODI in a losing cause. (Sachin got 20 lakhs right after his 143 at sharjah). So leave the great players to their era instead of taking a dig at them. But for them you would not be playing cricket. You would still be playing gilly dhanda.

That is the whole point mate, you will criticize LAxman and I will criticize Sachin but never for technicallity yaar come on. 2 Janam le loonga to bhi na kabhi Sachin jaisa Straight Drive nahi Laxman jaisa onside flick khel paunga. I have said already Cricket has evolved you will go only to Don, I am going till that shepherd who actually invented this cricket game. Ranjit Singh jee, Dileep Singh jee everybody has contributed in the evolution of this game. This thread was about the technicality of great yesteryear player and in OP BB didnt said a word against he just asked our suggestion that what we think and my impression was it looked horrible to eyes. If you do not find it horrible or if you find technicality exquisite you are nothing but a hobbs bhakth.Its exactly similar to what Sehwag or Ganguly or Miandad footwork will be shown to the future generation. This nowhere proves that these batsmen are not great.

[vvvslaxman]

That is the whole point mate, you will criticize LAxman and I will criticize Sachin but never for technicallity yaar come on. 2 Janam le loonga to bhi na kabhi Sachin jaisa Straight Drive nahi Laxman jaisa onside flick khel paunga. I have said already Cricket has evolved you will go only to Don, I am going till that shepherd who actually invented this cricket game. Ranjit Singh jee, Dileep Singh jee everybody has contributed in the evolution of this game. This thread was about the technicality of great yesteryear player and in OP BB didnt said a word against he just asked our suggestion that what we think and my impression was it looked horrible to eyes. If you do not find it horrible or if you find technicality exquisite you are nothing but a hobbs bhakth.Its exactly similar to what Sehwag or Ganguly or Miandad footwork will be shown to the future generation. This nowhere proves that these batsmen are not great.

Do you seriously think he posted this to gain some insight about how cricket evolved. this is just a thread created to continue this bradman vs tendulkar thread. oflate i am seeing more and more threads on this. I suppose we need a seperate forum just for bradman vs tendulkar. It is clearly a potshot from the get go.If you fail to comprehend you are tendulkar bhakt. I am never bhakt of anybody. I am just against nonsensical extrapolation over decades. Just leave everyone to their own era. if Tendulkar had played in that era you think he would be playing reverse sweep or he would have had a better technique? Tell me with a straight face.

[Khalpat]

Do you seriously think he posted this to gain some insight about how cricket evolved. this is just a thread created to continue this bradman vs tendulkar thread. oflate i am seeing more and more threads on this. I suppose we need a seperate forum just for bradman vs tendulkar. It is clearly a potshot from the get go.If you fail to comprehend you are tendulkar bhakt. I am never bhakt of anybody. I am just against nonsensical extrapolation over decades. Just leave everyone to their own era. if Tendulkar had played in that era you think he would be playing reverse sweep or he would have had a better technique? Tell me with a straight face.

Tendulkar would have not succeed in that era as he himself has said that he is uncomfortable while playing even spinners without helmet and there were no helmets that time. Any ways leave this, do you think Gavaskar would have easily played Warne or Steyn. The answer is yes because Sunil Gavaskar basic technique was so strong that he would have survived. Do you think Sunil Gavaskar would have helped India in chasing a target more than 300 in ODI, the answer is No because even though his technique was perfect he had not improved on the aspect of scoring shots. Would Sandep Patil have played Steyn better no would Sandip Have helped India in getting 300 yes. Is Sandeep PAtil a better player than Sunny Gavaskar. Now comes two aspects: Technically no comparison but U_G would give his life to have PAtil in his team of ODI because he wants to see India winning at any cost. I would pick Gavaskar due to shear love of the game. You are talking about SAchin Vs Bradman, there are more than 10 batsman who would have played better than Bradman in that era but the only condition is they would have played few matches if this era: Richards Sobers Kallis Dravid Gavaskar Sachin(with Helmet) Mark Waugh Darell Cullinan Laxman and many more, not because they are better than Bradman just because these are the players whose basic cricket technique is perfect. They could have played for any team , any time. Do you think Hobbs would have succeded in this era No is the answer.

[vvvslaxman]

Tendulkar would have not succeed in that era as he himself has said that he is uncomfortable while playing even spinners without helmet and there were no helmets that time. Any ways leave this, do you think Gavaskar would have easily played Warne or Steyn. The answer is yes because Sunil Gavaskar basic technique was so strong that he would have survived. Do you think Sunil Gavaskar would have helped India in chasing a target more than 300 in ODI, the answer is No because even though his technique was perfect he had not improved on the aspect of scoring shots. Would Sandep Patil have played Steyn better no would Sandip Have helped India in getting 300 yes. Is Sandeep PAtil a better player than Sunny Gavaskar. Now comes two aspects: Technically no comparison but U_G would give his life to have PAtil in his team of ODI because he wants to see India winning at any cost. I would pick Gavaskar due to shear love of the game. You are talking about SAchin Vs Bradman, there are more than 10 batsman who would have played better than Bradman in that era but the only condition is they would have played few matches if this era: Richards Sobers Kallis Dravid Gavaskar Sachin(with Helmet) Mark Waugh Darell Cullinan Laxman and many more, not because they are better than Bradman just because these are the players whose basic cricket technique is perfect. They could have played for any team , any time. Do you think Hobbs would have succeded in this era No is the answer.

Basically you want to ignore the benefit they gained in modern cricket. No sir. You should assume they never played cricket in this era. Their learning everything has to be from the 30s, 40s. There has to be a level playing field.

[Khalpat]

Basically you want to ignore the benefit they gained in modern cricket. No sir. You should assume they never played cricket in this era. Their learning everything has to be from the 30s' date=' 40s. There has to be a level playing field.[/quote'] Then it alll depends on the natural talent plus discipline plus hand eye coordination plus love towards game. Now you please answer with straight face do you find Sachin Tendulkar lacking in any of these aspects. And yes these guys Bradman or Hobbs or WG Grace or even that shepherd would have reqd much more than this to survive in modern day cricket. If todays cricketer had some advantage so does batsman of that era also had to start with Bradman or Hobbs might have no clue of 100 mph Yorker of Akhtar or Warne spin or Wasim bhai reverse swing. May be Bradman would have struglled against a quality left arm like Zaheer who knows this. Looking at the technique of Hobbs I think Malinga would have taken his wicket 9 out of 10 times in first over itself. Since I do not have any idea about their hand eye coordination plus love towards game I can not comment how much they would have been able to survive. But yes Sachin would have and so did Dravid and Sunny and richards that I know.

[The Outsider]

Funny thread - yeah Hobbs' technique is top notch. He goes back and across, plays the cut shot perfectly, drives with control.

[CasualVisitor]

If you agree Ramakant achrekar >> Tendulkar then i agree to your theory. Why did he need a coach if he is that good? It is like you and i go and learn theory of relativity in school and say we are better than Einstein.

wtf....what kind of an argument is that?