Free as it is to express opinions, we tend to enjoy a wide sway about what each of us mean by talent. I retain to define it as an exposure of instinctive aptitude to something, which is cricket as in our discussion. Of course it can only be experienced through an extent of exposure, though it might be there even if there is no exposure. But since we are not talking ideas, we cannot dispose the importance of exposure.
Greatness is manifested by the achievment earned by blending talent and hard work. In general, some (a lot, that is) of both should be there. If someone is short of paramount talent, he may be able to make that good with hard work.
Now hard work, or for that matter work in general, tantamounts to assumed physical and mental skills through adaptive learning process. Since work is one multiplying factor, there should be non-zero work to have a minimum exposure of the talent.
Since this thread was supposed to be all about talent, my thought is this: to get the measure of talent, one way might be, generally speaking, to take the 'work' part out of the achievment of each player, and to see what he is left with.
In my opinion, (given the thoughtlessness that he displays in his play (and after-play)) Basher's achievement may easily single out the superiority of his talent. His failure to reign his instinct might have doomed the team this (and some other, if any) series, but (or may be for this very reason), it goes to manifest his talent anyway. Now, whether we care or not for non-yielding talent, is a whole different story.
Ashraful would come next, in my opinion. And probably Rafique, Nafis, Kapali, Hannan etc. Among these bunch, hard work has given Rafique a fine edge towards the 'idea of greatness'. On the other hand, incidental factors like 'lean patch', 'lost form', 'mental block' etc have worked against offering better exposure of talent for Kapali and Hannan.
Mashud, Rana and Taposh could be categorized into the one that is overly returned by their vocation to 'hard work' part. And Rajin is on the verge of missing this clique, again possibly due to those foretold incidental factors.
|