Sachin Tendulkar vs Brian Lara

[manee]

Except Dare who does disagree and is hell bent on proving this theory wrong.

As I've been saying all along, Lara had a poor batting technique, which strongly contributed to why he failed so often. Had he been more consistant then he would've without a doubt been better then Tendulkar and had he had a better technique then he would've been more consistant.

The technique arguements ties up with Lara's inconsistency and furthermore relates to my reasoning why Tendulkar was better then Lara. So it does have some relevance to this discussion.

I've said this about 10 times in this discussion and everyone else see's where I'm coming from except the one-eyed West Indies supporters.

You miss my point. Lara's technique worked for him, it created enormously powerful backfoot strokeplay. You must understand that not all deficiencies have a simple explanation and also that a non-textbook technique does not mean a wrong one.

Lara's technique was suited to him. Your in depth statistical analysis seems to miss that Lara, on the whole, had an outstanding record, one of the best of all time and so it cannot be said that his technique did not work well for him. I understand your sentiment that a textbook technique maximises one's ability, but I don't think that is the case all the time.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Here is another example of Brian Lara's technique for Dare. I've done this to prove that the first demonstration I showed wasn't just as a one-off and that Lara got himself into the same position every single time he batted, which made him vonarable early-on in his innings. Firstly I would like to show the picture that I posted earlier in the thread.

Search "Rana Naved vs Brian Lara First Ball Out" on youtube

Rana Naveed gets Brian Lara out 1st ball to an inswinger. This is not a yorker and is pitched on a good length. Had Brian Lara had his eye-in then he probably would've hit this but he didn't have his eye-in and because of his poor technique, he played right across the line, getting himself into an awful position and was late on the ball.

If you watch the slow motion replay then you will notice that Lara gets his front foot right across his stumps, which means that if anything swings back into his pads then he will be off-balance to play the shot and will struggle to hit the ball. Hence, why I said that he gets himself into an awful position. You will also notice that his head falls across to outside off stump instead of staying straight, like it's suppose to. He is basically falling across the crease which means that he is getting into a poor position to play the ball. As I showed in my first demonstration, this is not a one-off and their is a pattern to this.

If you look at the first picture then you will see that it looks pretty much exactly the same to this clip I've just shown you. So, Dare, do you get it now?

aussie_ben91 added 3 Minutes and 5 Seconds later...

You miss my point. Lara's technique worked for him, it created enormously powerful backfoot strokeplay. You must understand that not all deficiencies have a simple explanation and also that a non-textbook technique does not mean a wrong one.

Lara's technique was suited to him. Your in depth statistical analysis seems to miss that Lara, on the whole, had an outstanding record, one of the best of all time and so it cannot be said that his technique did not work well for him. I understand your sentiment that a textbook technique maximises one's ability, but I don't think that is the case all the time.

Yes, it worked for him after he had his eye in. But the main reason why he wasn't as consistant as other batsman averaging 50+ was because of his technique and the position he got himself into.

I'm talking about early on in his innings, I've mentioned many of times that he had no problem once he was in because from there, he was pretty much unstoppable.

 

[manee]

Yes, it worked for him after he had his eye in. But the main reason why he wasn't as consistant as other batsman averaging 50+ was because of his technique and the position he got himself into.

I'm talking about early on in his innings, I've mentioned many of times that he had no problem once he was in because from there, he was pretty much unstoppable.

It is a fine point, which is unusual, for you*, but it can be argued that without his technique, he would not have averaged 50. He did not stumble upon his technique by chance, it is what works for him. Not any person can average 50, it takes talent and utilisation of that talent and this technique could have utilised his talent best, despite creating a deficiency early in his innings.

Tbh, I don't have a massively strong view on this particular topic, as you raise some good points, but I tend to disagree with analysis of batting techniques, as a rule because I think it is highly complex and due to complex factors like specfic reflexes, hand-eye coordination, and the like.

*Joking

 

[metallics2006]

Someone define perfect technique for me.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Someone define perfect technique for me.

Sachin Tendulkar

 

[King Pietersen]

Barry Richards.

 

[manee]

Sachin Tendulkar

Perfect is a strong word; Tendulkar gets bowled through the gate often, for example. To suggest that he has the perfect technique is to suggest that all of his dismissals come as a result of poor shot selection and then the argument decends into absurdity.

 

[aussie_ben91]

It is a fine point, which is unusual, for you*, but it can be argued that without his technique, he would not have averaged 50. He did not stumble upon his technique by chance, it is what works for him. Not any person can average 50, it takes talent and utilisation of that talent and this technique could have utilised his talent best, despite creating a deficiency early in his innings.

Tbh, I don't have a massively strong view on this particular topic, as you raise some good points, but I tend to disagree with analysis of batting techniques, as a rule because I think it is highly complex and due to complex factors like specfic reflexes, hand-eye coordination, and the like.

*Joking

That's the thing. He made up for all of those failures by not only scoring 100's but by scoring massive hundreds! It's not a matter of him not being a success because he failed so often, so early on in his innings but because he made the most of it when he had his eye in.

For example, he scored 400 not out. He'd have to get 8 ducks in a row before his average would drop to 50. Hell, if he averaged 10 in his next 10 innings following his score of 400 then he would still be averaging 50. He not only scored a 400, but a 375 aswell and I think he scored something like 6 other double-hundreds.

Hopefully you get where I'm coming from.

aussie_ben91 added 1 Minutes and 10 Seconds later...

Perfect is a strong word; Tendulkar gets bowled through the gate often, for example. To suggest that he has the perfect technique is to suggest that all of his dismissals come as a result of poor shot selection and then the argument decends into absurdity.

From what I've seen. He usually gets out, playing a lazy shot.

 

[metallics2006]

Sachin Tendulkar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_(cricket)

...Unorthodox Shots...

...Reverse drive

This is a shot that was used by Sachin Tendulkar in limited overs cricket when he was younger, against slower bowling to balls down the leg side. The batsman turns his body chest on to the bowling and turns his bat backwards and drives the ball in the opposite direction, catching up to it as it passes by. As the pace imparted to a ball by a batsman hitting the ball forward is substantially less than that of a bowler, by catching up to the ball and imparting extra momentum from behind, this causes the ball to run away very quickly and is difficult for fielders to stop. This is especially so as the region almost directly behind the batsman is usually unpatrolled by a fielder and because the wicket-keeper usually stands within a metre of the batsmen when a slower bowler is operating and thus cannot stop the ball unless it is hit directly at him and he cannot evade it.

No successful player can be totally orthodox in international cricket. You should be able to out think the bowler and the only objective should be to score runs. It does'nt matter how the runs come as long as they come. If Sachin had always followed his textbook perfect technique to score his runs, he would have eventually become predictable. Unorthodox shots gives the batsman an edge in a match and unorthodox batsmen keep the bowlers thinking.

 

[aussie_ben91]

We're talking about early-on in the innings.

 

[King Pietersen]

Barry Richards is regarded by many as a batsman with a near perfect technique, and he opened, so was very good early on in the innings against the moving ball. Tendulkar's technique early in an innings is superior to Lara's early in an innings though, it's just once Lara's in that he proves dangerous, and capable of making far larger scores than Tendulkar. Not sure if the large scores are due to his technique or mental strength though, probably a mix of both.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Sunil Gavaskar, also had a very good technique.

 

[manee]

That's the thing. He made up for all of those failures by not only scoring 100's but by scoring massive hundreds! It's not a matter of him not being a success because he failed so often, so early on in his innings but because he made the most of it when he had his eye in.

For example, he scored 400 not out. He'd have to get 8 ducks in a row before his average would drop to 50. Hell, if he averaged 10 in his next 10 innings following his score of 400 then he would still be averaging 50. He not only scored a 400, but a 375 aswell and I think he scored something like 6 other double-hundreds.

Hopefully you get where I'm coming from.

Ignoring the damage that it does to the reliability of the average, is it a bad thing that he scores those large scores? A perfect technique may certainly be something for him to fall back on early on in his innings, but with it, would he be the destructive force when he has his eye in, I doubt it, actually.

From what I've seen. He usually gets out, playing a lazy shot.

If a batsman has a perfect technique, than the execution of a shot can never be at fault.

 

[metallics2006]

We're talking about early-on in the innings.

Ricky Ponting does'nt have a high back lift and his batting technique is considered to be orthodox by anyone who follows cricket. Yet he is one of the poorest/shakiest starters in the game and when he gets going, he is unstoppable. I dont think the problem lies with the technique. Its the mind set. They are just not confident batsmen when they come out to bat.

 

[manee]

Yet he is one of the poorest/shakiest starters in the game

He is a weak starter, not sure I'd go that far though.