Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shuziburo
Clearly, you need some talent. But, the most talented ones are not always successful. Despite Shachin's inimitable career, I consider Gavaskar the best Indian batsman of all time. Clearly, he had talent. Otherwise, how could he handle the hostile pace bowling in WI in 1971 without ever facing a pacer on a bouncy pitch? People call him a boring batsman, but he had to be one. He knew that if he got out India would be in big trouble. I wonder how many records he would have broken if he had any support in the batting order earlier during his career. Anyone remember the thrashing he gave Ewen Chatfield (career economy: 3.57) during the 1987 WC? He used to be the hardest worker in the team.
|
Shuza Bhai, let me clarify what I mean by natural ability for batsmen. I mean the ability to sight the ball early and respond, not react to that delivery with a high percentage shot, be it a hook, a backward defensive or a good leave . Some batsmen can do it as early as it leaves the bowler's hand, and then accurately anticipate the torsion, pace, line and length of the delivery. With desire, discipline and hard work, they can harness that talent and play the ball according its particular merit with either high percentage shot, not by trying to execute a premeditated script irrespective of that merit in a particular match situation. This requires exactly the sort of temperament that makes a successful batsman with numbers that back-up his success.
It is not about being "boring" or "exciting". I am partial to "exciting" batsmen with generally a positive approach such as Sir Viv, Greg Chappell, Zahir Abbas, Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, De Silva, Dravid, VVS Laxman, Mahela Jayawardene, Michael Clarke, Kumar Sangakkara, Kevin Pietersen, AB Devilliers, Hashim Amla and Virat Kohli. I also appreciate "boring" guys like Gavaskar, Chaderpaul and Trott with their far more cautious approach. Whatever works in a particular match situation without harming the team's cause at the time is good batting.
One must remember that it is also about putting runs on the board and unorthodox forces of nature such as Javed Miandad, Sanath Jayasuriya, Chis Gayle and Virender Sehwag are also great players to be appreciated in their own right.
As far as our Bangladeshi batsmen are concerned, I feel Shakib, Tamim and Bijoy have what it takes to become our versions of reliable match winners like Miandad, Hayden and Clarke in that order, possibly between the age of 27-37, provided they overcome many of the damaging things about our cricket culture. I also believe that guys like Mushfiq, Riyad, Nasir, Hom, Soumya, Sohan and possibly Shourobh can become consistently useful contributors capable of retiring with more than decent numbers provided that they too work just as hard on all aspects of batting to optimize what they have.
Each of them needs to be vigilant against complacency, premeditation and work hard on their own. Each needs to consolidate his strength and rectify his flaws to become the best he can be, as consistently he can be. It is not only about rectifying biomechanic issues such as footwork, backlift and handspeed; but also psychosomatic ones such as calmness and judgement that can make him read the match situation, and then respond positively and decisively to that situation with the right high percentage stroke within his particular ability. It is all bout playing each ball according to its merit with best possible high percentage shot under the circumstances.
We cannot have talented AND hardworking guys like Ashraful simply throw their wicket away because of poor judgement and other psychosomatic inadequacies, or someone like Mohammad Nazimuddin who doesn't see the ball until it hits his bat. Both are equally harmful as is a premeditated slog sweep or a premeditated block in response to a full toss or a half volley. Both need desire and hardwork before they're overcome.