PDA

View Full Version : Your definition of a batsman


AsifTheManRahman
March 21, 2010, 12:56 PM
Now I've seen people on this forum talk about their love for Mohammad Ashraful, some for Aftab Ahmed, others for Tamim Iqbal, Shahriar Nafees, Alok Kapali, Faisal Hossain, Imrul Kayes, Mahmudullah Riyad and so on. Some choices I agree with, others I think are gonjika induced. I'm really interested to see what others' definitions of a proper batsman are. This is for Tests and ODIs as clearly T20s are much different and a discussion there might fuel a debate over whether that format should even exist, which is not the intention of this thread.

I'll go first. I'm a huge sucker for the straight bat. Nothing delights me more than watching a batsman play it all along the ground in the V, head down on top of the ball and elbow straight up when it's pitched up in the slot, or punch it off the back foot when presented with something a tad short.

I'm also a sucker for solid defense and I mean both in terms of technique and approach. If you can't defend, you can't attack. Someone who gets behind the short ball or opaques the gap between bat and pad on the front foot defense really turns me on. Someone who takes time to get his eye in, settle down, work the ball around with ones and twos and goes for the kill later on makes it to my XI any day. A bit old fashioned, yes, but even today, it works for many Greats.

Against the spinner, I love it when someone uses the feet to curb the spin and is confident in doing so. The sweep is also a mighty weapon and if you can sweep often with the spin (or even against it occasionally if you have the confidence), you'll make a lot of runs against the slow bowlers.

Also, if you can play the ball late, I will take a picture of that and make a poster out of it.

These are some of the reasons I've liked Mushfiqur Rahim ever since I first saw him in a First Class game when he was 16. Over the years, I've always thought he could become a mainstay in the national team when many people were going after the likes of Nazimuddin, Aftab, etc. Even when he wasn't scoring, I got the feeling it was because he wasn't being given a long enough run in the middle order. To me he was always in the top two or three we had since he started his career and to be frank I always thought people who dissed him when he wasn't scoring at #8/#9 didn't understand the game much. But that's just me.

Same with Nayeem. I haven't seen him bat as much as many others (because thanks to the management he comes in at #8), but from whatever I had seen, I kind of got the feeling - and pretty early on in his international career too if I may add - that he would score lots of runs if allowed to bat where he has all his life, in the middle order. So far so good.

With MaRi, again, I liked him the first time he came into the scene for his ability to rotate and keep the score board flipping near the end of a one day inning even without too many boundaries. He had his glitches in technique but look at his defense now. He's obviously worked on it and I hope he continues to do so.

Now these are all intelligent cricketers who rely on cunning rather than power hitting to get the job done. Having said that, I am not totally averse to big hitting. In fact clean hits sustained over long periods of time are always welcome. That is why I like Tamim Iqbal. He still needs to master the art of clean hitting as we don't want him to live as dangerously as he sometimes does, but IMO, clean hitting != mindless slogging, which puts Tamim ahead of some of the non-batsmen that have played for us. If someone can hit for a hundred and fifty deliveries, all power to him.

These four are my first-choice batsmen in the Bangladesh XI. Shakib comes in right behind, but that's expected as he's an all rounder. Not that Nayeem and MaRi aren't, but I consider them to be better batsmen than bowlers, which isn't exactly rocket science.

Major turn-offs for me:

1. Playing across the line
2. Having no clue against the short ball.
3. Using the bat like a sword
4. Being unable to stick around for long enough (doesn't matter how much you make, because you will never make enough to be useful to the team)
5. Being incapable of defending.

If you're doing some or all of the above, it doesn't matter how good you look when you play a cover drive, if I were the selector I would not pick you. This is why I never liked guys who people think have a lot of so-called potential but never had anything to back it up, because they obviously got the definition of potential all wrong.

Now I'll admit one guy who fooled me (and he's probably fooled everyone in the world), is Mohammad Ashraful. Once upon a time I thought he had all the goods to succeed, but he has only himself to blame for not being able to.

So why do you like Mr. X, Y or Z? Let's iron out our differences.

al Furqaan
March 21, 2010, 01:26 PM
ATMR's list is thus (in order, correct me if i'm wrong):

Rahim > Naeem > Riyad
Tamim (precise rank unclear)

i'd pretty much agree with everything you said, including the ash part, which is pretty spot on.

my list is:

Mushfique (best temperement, best technique, solid stroke making, flair factor (FF) neutral)
Tamim (best stroke maker, solid technique, good temperament, FF +)
Naeem (best temperament tied with mushy, decent technique, decent stroke making, FF -)
Riyad (solid temperament, decent technique, average stroke maker, FF -)
Shakib (decent temperament, decent technique, solid stroke maker, FF +)
Junaid (solid temperament, average technique, average stroke maker, FF -)

The Bad List:

Imrul (average temperament, average technique, poor stroke maker, FF -)
Aftab (poor temperament, solid technique, decent stroke maker, FF +)
Ashraful (average temperament, poor technique, awesome stroke maker, FF +)

flair factor is a combination of media charm, the ability to look better than you are statistically, the inherent quality to shine on the biggest stages against the biggest names, that x-factor which makes or can make you a genuine match-winner, also requires a touch of arrogance and slight contempt for the bowler, even if he's Glenn Mcgrath or Wasim Akram or Shane Warne.

AsifTheManRahman
March 21, 2010, 01:28 PM
ATMR's list is thus (in order, correct me if i'm wrong):

Rahim > Naeem > Riyad
Tamim (precise rank unclear)

I wouldn't rank them. They are all different and valuable to the team in their own ways.

Neel Here
March 21, 2010, 01:35 PM
super article ! you just raised the bar for this thread.

I will agree with all of your post but add two points. cricket is at the end of the day a mental game. there have been many players with faulty techniques who have gone on to be very good, if not great players.

so I'll add two exceptions to that list, i.e even if the players excibit some of the symptoms in that list, they will be considered if :

a) the batsman is a fighter. he may have limited talent, faulty technique but doesn't give up. he backs himself to play well and overcomes his many shortcomings by sheer grit alone. he is a brave man, he is not cowed down. example - junaed
riyad also belongs to this group, not because he is not talented but because he is a fighter.
in my book fighter >> talented (unless you are tendulkar or lara)

b) the numbers speak for themselves. the batsman may have no technique, no defensive shots but he scores consistently. rare but we have one example, sehwag.

AsifTheManRahman
March 21, 2010, 01:37 PM
Neel, agreed and agreed.

Bruno
March 21, 2010, 01:37 PM
I would have to agree with your assessment of Mushi and Tamim.

My definition of a batsman is someone who:

i) uses their feet well.
ii) plays along the ground.
iii) takes minimal risks lofting the ball
iv) paces their innings intuitively
v)plays the ball on merit not emotion or predetermination

The perfect batsman that comes to mind is Sachin. His 200 against south africa is a good example of how much control, poise and charismatic someone can be with the bat.

Franjly, tamim can do it if he plays with a little less flash and a bit more care.

Spitfire_x86
March 21, 2010, 01:44 PM
Minimum qualification
30+ average. In ODIs, accompanied with 70+ strike rate.

High quality batsman
Test: 40+ average, ODIs: 35 average, 90+ SR or 40+ average, 80+ SR

Beamer
March 21, 2010, 01:54 PM
Great spirited stuff Asif.

You know, I was fooled as well ( not the only one ) by the likes of Ash, Aftab, Alok and all those pretenders before these guys came aboard. They stood out at that time, not because they were great by any stretch of imagination, but because they gave a glimmer of hope for the future. Now, they are so past!

BanCricFan
March 21, 2010, 02:00 PM
whatever Sachin Tendulkar does.

Ashraf-FTP
March 21, 2010, 02:18 PM
Lol. My definition of a batsman-

Whoever scores good runs consistently, dont care how :-p



[You cant beat that]

RazabQ
March 21, 2010, 02:20 PM
My definition is even simpler Asif. A test batsman is one who can absorb pressure and then make hey whenever the opportunity is there. And he scores by having simple effective gameplans that he can amend on they fly if needed. TI on that front is still a WIP - you can get to him. Junaid, surprisingly, can be a Test batsman. Ash can be - when he has his demons in control (think to his last century against Lanka). Naeem I'm still waiting to be convinced - he inside edges too much when trying to drive. Mushy is definitely a proper batsman. Riyadh is turning out to be one too. Why won't NI get it turned around? He was looking so good against Lanka before those brain-fart outs.

Neel Here
March 21, 2010, 02:21 PM
Great spirited stuff Asif.

You know, I was fooled as well ( not the only one ) by the likes of Ash, Aftab, Alok and all those pretenders before these guys came aboard. They stood out at that time, not because they were great by any stretch of imagination, but because they gave a glimmer of hope for the future. Now, they are so past!

ash can still come back. if he does come back on performance he will be a monster of a player.

dolcevita
March 21, 2010, 02:26 PM
Naeem will be move up the order soon like Mahmudullah
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

Orpheus
March 21, 2010, 02:27 PM
someone who uses a bat to hit his wife when she goes to the movie theater with her male co-worker??

Asif bhai should be our selector, coach, batsmen and cheerleader. We would never lose a game.

bangla-red
March 21, 2010, 02:31 PM
Someone who bats.

Haradhon
March 21, 2010, 03:35 PM
These four are my first-choice batsmen in the Bangladesh XI. Shakib comes in right behind, but that's expected as he's an all rounder. Not that Nayeem and MaRi aren't, but I consider them to be better batsmen than bowlers, which isn't exactly rocket science.


I agree with you for the most part except for:
1. Mushy's real test would be the upcoming away series in England. I want to see how he plays the rising balls on a bouncy pitch
2. I think Shakib plays the rising balls better; he does not play them away from the body. He and MaRi have the height advantage for playing pacers.
3. If we agree with you about Mushy why cannot he be the operner with Tamim for left-right combination, and then we find a second wicket-keeper in the team.
4. Aftab plays better than any quality pacer better then any other batters we have. Basher and Aftab perhaps have the best reflex and eye. He should be in for ODI because run rate in middle overs is important.
5. I like Juhurul's way of batting, perhaps his style will allow rotating of strikes and I will keep him in the pool.

Observations and opinions:
5. Our tail learns both technique and temperament better on the job, examples are Shafiul and Shahadat.
6. Let's promote Naeem and Riyad until we find a #3 from U-19's

AsifTheManRahman
March 21, 2010, 03:39 PM
I agree with you for the most part except for:
1. Mushy's real test would be the upcoming away series in England. I want to see how he plays the rising balls on a bouncy pitch

Indeed, but England will be a test for all of our batsmen and guys with the right technique will be more likely to succeed. Mushy does have a first class century in England.


4. Aftab plays better than any quality pacer better then any other batters we have.
Small sample size. We will talk once he starts to last longer than thirty deliveries.

BD-Shardul
March 21, 2010, 03:42 PM
Shardul's definition of batsmen:

A player who can occupy crease despite his technique and bat, bat and bat.

Example: Shivnaraine Chanderpaul, Hasim Amla (my bearded hero).

Ajfar
March 21, 2010, 04:04 PM
IMO anyone that can hold a bat can be considered a batsman. we should be asking what is the definition of a good batsman.

Zeeshan
March 21, 2010, 04:13 PM
One word: Sehwag

WarWolf
March 21, 2010, 04:21 PM
It's simple....
Who can stick around the wicket for a long time and scores good amount of runs.

Bond
March 21, 2010, 04:46 PM
Very well written.
Pleasant to watch
1: Ashraful's hook and pull
2: Tamim's sweep
3: Naeem's solid Defence
4: Mahmudullah's cover drive
5: Mushfiq's down the wicket straight over the bowler's head sixes

Biggest Turn off
1: Imrul Kayes dealing with short balls
2: Giving catches straight to the fielder
3: Run outs in test matches

alibangali
March 21, 2010, 05:07 PM
A sporting athlete goes through good and bad patches. The best are those who tough it out when things are not going well for them, those who can adapt their game when the general sport is changing, those who can adjust their style when their bodies are changing. As a batsmen players like Tendulker, Dhoni, Khallis and Sangakkara spring to mind. To me a great batsmen is one who bats to the situation and most importantly gets the job done. This can be blocking balls to earn a draw, hitting boundries to get the imposible win or the one who sits back and supports the other batsmen who is playing well so that they dont leave them short. In essence a great batsmen is one who has many dimensions and one who uses his god given talent by working hard and applying themself to the task at hand.

Farhad
March 21, 2010, 05:13 PM
I dont think Imrul's quite as bad as a lot of you make it seem. Granted, he's not the best Test batsman and should be nowhere near the team when we play test matches, but he's surprisingly effective as an ODI specialist, with an average of almost 40 after being brought back into the side (its worth noting that none of his games have been against weak sides). Even if you include his rather unimpressive first stint as an international batsman in the latter part of 2008 (after which he was dropped for a year), his average is still above 30 and among the highest in the team. Its a completely different story for Tests, though...

He's pretty much the anti-Junaid, who's absolutely pathetic as an ODI batsman, but seems to hold up pretty well in Tests. Junaid needs to be our opening option in tests, and we need to find a new #3. In ODI's, I quite liked the lineup that was put forth in the final ODI (still not convinced about Aftab though)...

alibangali
March 21, 2010, 05:25 PM
Tamim, Riyadh, Mushy and to certain extent Naeem are going through a good patch.
I just hope people dont stop supporting these players when they will eventualy hit a lean patch.
These batsmen are the new generation while players like ash and aftab the previous generation. Fans should not forget that players like ash and aftab did their bit for bangladesh cricket. They started the hope that bangladesh can get wins against other test playing nations. The new generation needs to take the hope and make it more consistent event on the calender. So far they all have had indvidual successes in 2010 however it has not come to a team success. Inshallah the 2nd test against england will be the first of many team successes.

Nafi
March 21, 2010, 05:25 PM
I like long walks on the beach

billah
March 21, 2010, 05:53 PM
If playing across the line is taken out from the skill-set of a good batsman, you would not have Lara on the list of the best in the business.

I like to see a good batsman with more complete set of skills, that includes swashbuckling mid wicket drives across the line. Same goes for hooks & pulls - the shots that come almost naturally for the Aussies and the South Africans.

After watching our guys play a substantial amount of cricket in the last few months, I'd have to say we have poor techniques in a few important areas. The worst of these in my observation -

1. No one, no one makes enough efforts to get in the line or on top of the ball. All of our top & middle play the ball with minimum footwork. There is however, minimum exceptions, since these few show the tendency to go to the line of the ball:
Good ones: They look the most compact in this respect

Mushfiq
Rokibul
Riyadh - this is why I think he will only get better with time, given the opportunity
Naeem - he showed some of it yesterday

Bad ones: Regardless of success, they are reckless

Tamim, Saqib are playing on 2 things - hand-eye coordination and bat speed. They are using the "bat as a sword". This is today's 300+ ODI batting. Tamim comes off successful more times than Shakib, sometimes by luck, other times bravery.

Junaid looks like it is actually hard for him to get on top of the ball - he is hunched over his bat, too much body weight projected over the bat to the front, reduced movement with the feet.

Imrul looks clueless with most deliveries - first thing he needs is a positive mindset, next improved techniques. He still doesn't know which deliveries to leave and which ones to attack. He really lets innocuous deliveries pass by, they attacks one that heads straight for the slip catcher.

2. Short ball - We really need to set up a couple of bowling machine in Mirpur for hours of practice this stuff. Junaid's out in the first innings (T1) looked like a scared girl trying to swat off a spider! He made 106 in the second, and did not look comfortable for one moment through the whole innings. They are regularly ducking on low deliveries, fearing they might be short ones.

Here also, I don't know if they are being trained to open their eyes wider at the moment of impact - a technique practiced by other batsmen today. When you see Tamim playing a short ball - often you will see that the camera is zoomed on his eyes. Junaid is the complete opposite. Yesterday, I saw Naeem pulling a rising delivery with his eyes fixed on the ball until the moment of impact. Is is any surprise that Tamim plays the snorters better than others and Naeem is called Chokka Naeem?

For the Short pitch deliveries

Tamim
Naeem - to some degree

The rest need to spend serious time in the nets to improve. In ODI, often you do not have the luxury to leave short deliveries - like Mushy or Junaid does. They all have to learn to play them better.

BTW - have you guys noticed that Bangladesh batting's catch phrase "Shot Selection" is kinda fading away? Nice, ain't it?:D

simon
March 21, 2010, 06:08 PM
Some1 who knows how to combine his brain & heart to good use.

WI4EVER
March 21, 2010, 06:19 PM
Batsmen I've Liked (I will only say 1 for the moment):

Rohan Kanhai -- Fearless and innovative strokeplay. He played his game the way he wanted to. One of the most complete batsmen of his time, he could play off the front foot and back foot equally well. An example: He came forward and drove Bob Willis to the cover fence, the next ball was short of a length outside off, his backfoot collapsed and the ball disappeared behind point.

Kabir
March 21, 2010, 06:28 PM
Mushfique (best temperement, best technique, solid stroke making, flair factor (FF) neutral)
Tamim (best stroke maker, solid technique, good temperament, FF +)
Naeem (best temperament tied with mushy, decent technique, decent stroke making, FF -)
Riyad (solid temperament, decent technique, average stroke maker, FF -)
Shakib (decent temperament, decent technique, solid stroke maker, FF +)
Junaid (solid temperament, average technique, average stroke maker, FF -)

The Bad List:

Imrul (average temperament, average technique, poor stroke maker, FF -)
Aftab (poor temperament, solid technique, decent stroke maker, FF +)
Ashraful (average temperament, poor technique, awesome stroke maker, FF +)


Agree with all of it except Ash (sorry to put him on the spot). IMO he has got poor temperament, okay technique, and rest is fine.

Kabir
March 21, 2010, 06:36 PM
Now, in response to the ideas in question. The two most important factors for me are footwork and being able to come under the ball. For natural talent, hand-eye coordination gets the most importance.

When it comes to a batsman being successful, ATMR's list of 'good-to-have-skills' are mostly textbook materials. In reality, the best batsmen in the world have not always played textbook material.

zman
March 21, 2010, 06:43 PM
Agree with all of it except Ash (sorry to put him on the spot). IMO he has got poor temperament, okay technique, and rest is fine.
I mostly agree with the above analysis. Only thing I'd probably change is put MaRi above Naeem for the time being.

Zeeshan
March 21, 2010, 07:00 PM
When it comes to a batsman being successful, ATMR's list of 'good-to-have-skills' are mostly textbook materials. In reality, the best batsmen in the world have not always played textbook material.

Hence one word:



Sehwag! :-D

Seriously, the way he tore up the top class South African bowlers in his fastest 300 innings was an eye candy and redefines the logic of what a test innings should be. Tamim is second of a kind. It's a new world of dynamic cricket...and having said that I am not putting forth of playing ura dhura shots, but sort of the controlled chaos that Sehwag produces like a tsunami by playing all around strokes and putting the attack on the bowlers themselves and not being cowered by them.

view360
March 21, 2010, 07:27 PM
A perfect batsman is the one who can keep the scoreboard ticking at a healthy rate while not giving away his wicket.

AsifTheManRahman
March 21, 2010, 07:27 PM
Let me reinstate that I'm not averse to non-textbook material. Playing across the line is fine if you can connect. If you can't, you get out leg before. It's all about picking the right ball to do it. Hand-eye coordination is also great (and I liked Bashar for it) and so are Sehwag and Bradman.

There's a lot of merit in getting the basics of batting right in difficult conditions as we will soon find out when our guys go to England. At the same time, doing everything by the book is not the only way to be successful. Batting for long periods of time, putting a price on one's wicket and most importantly scoring big are more important, irrespective of how you manage to do it.

But basics are basics, you don't see Sehwag being what he is by sticking out his bat to short deliveries in defense without getting behind the line, or Lara getting 400 in Test cricket by mistiming his drives through midwicket/missing them completely. You don't need to have copy-book technique to succeed, but most batsmen who have been successful in the past have got their basics right. My opening post wasn't meant to be as black and white as some of you are making it sound.

AsifTheManRahman
March 21, 2010, 07:30 PM
When it comes to a batsman being successful, ATMR's list of 'good-to-have-skills' are mostly textbook materials. In reality, the best batsmen in the world have not always played textbook material.
Which aspects of my list of good-to-have skills do the best batsmen in the world not have?

yaseer
March 21, 2010, 08:30 PM
Agree with you ATMR on your analysis. To add to that -

- A batsmen at first must possess a good defense. It must be difficult for bowlers to remove him.

- A good batsman knows his strength & limitation. He applies himself in the crease according to that. He knows his areas, plays on his strength and never tries his limitations. As long as you know your boundary, it is difficult to get you out.

- At the end it is a mental game and all players have to be cool enough to handle the pressure and apply himself. Same for the batsman.

- Knows the game, working on limitations and keep on improving.

Tendulkar, Lara, Pontings are born talent. You can't be like them.
I say ideal is Rahul Dravid or Kallis. Be like them on how they apply their strengths by being always aware of their limitations.

sufism
March 21, 2010, 08:53 PM
Finally some thoughtful discussions. Thanks to Asif bhai. Enjoyed reading the tread.

Tigers_eye
March 21, 2010, 10:06 PM
We have only one batsman. That is Shakib.

If you can't take singles, you are not a batsman. Singles, doubles, triples have to be more than DOT balls.

Shakib > Bradman > (Mushi + Tamim + Naeem + Riyad).

al-Sagar
March 21, 2010, 10:31 PM
ok
this should be a batsman's mentality

1. play as long as possible
2. dont look at the score card, just play each ball according to merit.
3. know ur strong points and weak points against different kind of balls. always try to use ur strong points and avoid ur weak points.
4. only look at the umpires to see if they have called the end of a session or day, then go and take a rest.
5. also sometimes look at ur captain if he has declared the innings or not.

Bruno
March 22, 2010, 12:39 AM
I like long walks on the beach

Me too. Maybe we should set up a day and time through match.com

Peace
March 22, 2010, 03:44 PM
For the next two days, my definition of a batsman is:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-2YnZtyNaj4/SiE1wEOpu4I/AAAAAAAAAVY/_KJmUWE7yIQ/s1600/funny%2Bcricket-batsman%2Bgoing%2Bto%2Bhit.jpg

Fazal
March 22, 2010, 05:06 PM
Just wait and see, Naeem will eventually set the real standard i.e. how bat like an ideal batsman.

Its not the style and technique that I am talking, its how you strategize your batting based on current situation.

Ash, Aftab,, Alok are allready proven Bhua
Ryiad and Rahim will eventually be very good.
Sakib looks like is spoiled by spending too much time with Ash.
Tamim is unique and imposing but cannot be a model batsman.
Junaid is too early to tell which way he will go.

RazabQ
March 22, 2010, 05:40 PM
Just wait and see, Naeem will eventually set the real standard i.e. how bat like an ideal batsman.Yes, short and nuggety will be the standard for our batting in years to come ... I hope not :)

Anyway, I propose the following definition of an umpire:

1) Must be educated
2) Preferably from a Western country and err ethnic and cultural affinity with our current opponent
3) Have great eye-sight
4) Have excellent hearing
5) Ability to quickly step out of the way of hard-hit shots
6) Excellent judgement
7) Unflappability in the face of sledging, excessive appealing
8) Equanimity
9) Good knowledge of the game - being a former player is ideal
10) Doesn't think of himself as bigger than the game
11) When umpiring against Bangladesh, forget 3,4, 6, and 8 when BD is bowling and add 7 to the list (3,4,6,8) when BD is batting.

Tiger444
March 22, 2010, 07:14 PM
I think it is really simple what a good batsman should do and that is 2 score runs.. Players like Jayasuriya and Shewag don't have the greatest technique but look at how effective they still are..Players score in different ways and as long as you can deliver a good amount of runs then you are a good batsman..i agree with fazal that naeem will set an example of what a good batsman does..i think naeem is the most versatile of all batsmen..he can score quick runs when needed, play a good paced innings if the team has lost key batsmen and when the team is in complete trouble then he can drop the anchor..i think tamim, shakib are similar in the way that they have a wide stance and can smash boundaries..they have a different approach then most batsmen but they key thing is, they get runs so i would call them good batsmen..mushy can score a quick 100 which he showed against 100 and a very patient 95 which he did against england, so i would he's a versatile batsman as well..mahmudullah in my opinion is a very similar player to naeem except he's not as good of a boundary hitter even though he does hit a good amount of boundaries..zunaed plays best when he plays a very slow innings even though he has the shots..when he plays 2 fast, then thats when he gets in2 trouble so i feel he's not that versatile of a batsman..he's still developing but this might just be the player he is..imrul and roqibul in my opinion are similar players..really struggle with the rising deliveries, good temperaments, and lack the boundary hitting ability..so they arent exactly the most versatile batsmen as well..even though i would rate roqibul slightly higher as a batsman compared 2 imrul because he has done better in longer version matches..ash/aftab/alok are players that mainly ride on luck despite their great talents..they seem 2 have good techniques but very poor temperament..i would rate them lower then all the above batsmen i mentioned..overall our batsmen are decent when compared to other batsmen in the world but they still need more experience and time..the way they are improving, they can potentially be dangerous batsmen..

AsifTheManRahman
March 22, 2010, 08:00 PM
Just wait and see, Naeem will eventually set the real standard i.e. how bat like an ideal batsman.

Uncle bhai, I like the way you think.

roaring tigerz
March 22, 2010, 08:01 PM
Batsman (noun): Someone who scores runs consistently and in large quantities. He possesses the skills to keep out the threatening deliveries and is adept at punishing the stray ones. A batsman is equally at ease against pace or spin. His physical capacity is matched by the mental prowess to bat for long periods. A batsman values his wicket, maximizes his strengths and more importantly, neutralizes his limitations.

Farhad
March 22, 2010, 08:33 PM
Batsman (noun): Someone who scores runs consistently and in large quantities. He possesses the skills to keep out the threatening deliveries and is adept at punishing the stray ones. A batsman is equally at ease against pace or spin. His physical capacity is matched by the mental prowess to bat for long periods. A batsman values his wicket, maximizes his strengths and more importantly, neutralizes his limitations.

I knew it was just a matter of time until some smartass brought out the dictionary...

beshideshi
March 22, 2010, 08:36 PM
For me a batsman is judged by the quality of the runs scored, and the time when the runs are scored. [A 30 run innings can be more valuable than a 200+ at times.] A batsman must be able to score runs when needed, must be able to occupy the crease when needed, and score boundaries at will, he must also be pleasing to the eye while doing the above.

Neel Here
March 22, 2010, 10:37 PM
We have only one batsman. That is Shakib.

If you can't take singles, you are not a batsman. Singles, doubles, triples have to be more than DOT balls.

Shakib > Bradman > (Mushi + Tamim + Naeem + Riyad).

hai re, 40+ avg rekheo poladare keu support kore na ! :-X