natupuram2002

Wisden Asia Cricket

'Batting should entertain'

Rahul Bhattacharya - July 3, 2003

In July's issue of Wisden Asia Cricket, Barry Richards talks to Rahul
Bhattacharya about what goes into the making of a great batsman, and
his nominees for the finest exponents of the craft.
Excerpts:


On what makes a good batsman

I suppose everybody has their own definition. There are those who
prefer the Geoff Boycotts and the Sunny Gavaskars – batsmen with a
great defence, who wear down bowlers. My definition is a bit different
– to me it's about domination and being able to assert yourself in a
reasonably good time. This requires skill, obviously, and it requires
precise footwork and the ability to simplify things. To me it's not
about an endless procession of letting balls go to see what the bounce
is like, what the weather's like and so on.

....Someone like Sachin [Tendulkar], he's got enormous skill, he's got
a simple technique, he's not complicated with his shot-making, and
he's got belief in his own ability. He has all the constituents of a
good batsman.

....I think the ability to analyse your game and overcome your
shortcomings is very important. You don't always have to be brilliant,
but if you have a deficiency, you have to develop the ability to not
get out because of it. That requires practice, skill, dedication and
all the other things that everybody who is at the very top of his
field requires.


On the greatest batsmen he has seen

Garry Sobers, Graeme Pollock, Viv Richards. And Sachin Tendulkar. I
think Brian Lara has got the skill to be a great, but whether he has
got the drive I am not sure. He is up and down. To me, someone like
Sachin is more consistent and really wants it more. He's a more
complete package. In my lifetime nobody springs to mind apart from
these names.

....When I think of Graeme, I think of timing and domination. The sheer
domination of the man – not just the high volume of runs, but also the
speed at which he got them – was incredible. He hit the gaps better
than any player I have seen in my life, including Sachin. I mean, you
might as well have had stones as fielders – hit the stone, you get
nothing; miss the stone, you get four.

I never saw bowlers containing Graeme. I remember he once got a 124 at
the Wanderers in 1975-76 and even Dennis Lillee (playing for the
International Wanderers) was being taken for six runs an over. Graeme
didn't look like he was taking a risk, but every over, relentlessly,
he'd whack a four somewhere. They said he didn't play the bouncer very
well, and he probably didn't, but he would find a way to get a four.
If nothing, he had that little short-arm jab over midwicket.

....Garry was more a back-foot player. He was not quite as tall as
Graeme, and he played the short ball much better than Graeme ever did.
Garry was all flourish, and with that extravagant back-lift he used to
just power the ball away. He'd back himself in all situations, in all
conditions. He had this great ability to play the ball late, to be
able to adjust if it spun or swung away from him. And he had great
wrists. Graeme was much more of a through-the-line hitter; Garry was
more flourish with the wrists. You could think of Graeme as a Matthew
Hayden, but a much better timer. Sachin is also like Graeme in terms
of those short-arm punches. Garry was more a Lara type.

....Viv was awesome; at times you just couldn't bowl to him. During
World Series Cricket (WSC) he was at his peak, and I was on the
decline, getting towards my middle-30s, and he played some fantastic
knocks against some of the world's quickest bowlers.

....Viv used to swagger. He used to do it on purpose. It was all that
body language on the field working for him. When I think of Viv
Richards, I think of arrogance at the crease. That was his way of
dominating the bowler. His confrontations with Lillee during WSC were
fantastic. Both used to bristle with belief in their own ability. It
was a great contest. Very fascinating.

On modern cricket

....All you have to do on a lot of surfaces [these days] is hit through
the line. I mean, on some of the pitches you have to be a blind man to
miss the ball. You very rarely see the ball seaming; you very seldom
see it swinging. The only time you see severe swing nowadays is
reverse swing, though that could be because of the ball manufacturers.

I really don't mind seeing a low-scoring game once in a while – a 110-
or 120-game – if there is quality bowling on view. I fear for the
general status of bowlers. You've got half-a-dozen quality bowlers at
the moment, but if you took them out of world cricket there wouldn't
be much left.

What also worries me is the increased weightage to stats and figures
nowadays. They don't tell the full story. Adam Gilchrist, for example,
doesn't get the kudos as a batsman that some of the others do, and yet
to me he has got an entertainment value and that's what's counts. How
do you laud a chap like Gilchrist who encourages so many kids to play
the game, so many people to be interested in the game, but his
[one-day] average is only 34? On the other hand, you get somebody
who's bored the pants off the people, driven them away from grounds,
little kids wouldn't go near him and he's averaging much higher.

....I don't really know how players wield the heavy bats they use these
days. And it makes you think about the slowness of the tracks. I just
couldn't think of anybody, even Viv, hooking Lillee and [Jeff] Thomson
with a three-pound bat. I used a two-seven. I suppose someone like
Sachin, since he is short and he holds it right near the bottom, has
more ability to manipulate it. I'm sure Gilchrist couldn't use a
three-pounder with his grip, high on the handle. I think the trend
started because of the wickets in the subcontinent, which are not
quick enough; the batsman needs to generate the pace on the ball
himself. It's also because the guys train more nowadays and are
stronger.

....You also don't see too many horizontals [horizontal bat shots],
which is a pity because it's a very exciting part of the game.

phil latio

A bit rich coming from the most boring cricket pundit ever to grace a
commentary box.

david lewis

Then again, maybe not, coming from one of the most sublime batsmen to grace
our screens

Cheers

David

mildenis

Touche!!

mildenis

And, furthermore, picked by Bradman, as one of his two openers for his personal
best ever XI

megapode

Take it from whence it comes. Not so much from Barry Richards but from
an ex-player now making his money from commentary and newspaper
columns.

He's cutting his suit according to the cloth. He goes to the Caribbean
and he says "Lara da man". He speaks to an Indian publication and he
says "Sachin da man".

Plus, of course, he's got to come up with something interesting, even
if it might lack a little substance or contradict something he said
somewhere else this time last week.

FWIW I think SRT is the most complete player on the planet. I've
enjoyed watching him the last couple of years. His technique, the
subtleties of what he does are so good. Plus, as is often the case
with Indian players, there's a lot of wrist in his playing (ooops!
onanism again) and that always gets me weak at the knees (I'm really
asking for it now). I enjoyed Azharuddin's batting for the same
reason.

But I must say that I think Lara the most destructive batsman around
when he really gets going. I don't even see Gilchrist in the same
class. But "when he really gets going".... Lara can really take an
attack to pieces when the mood is upon him.


I think he's a POTENTIAL ATG. At one time I thought he was going to be
another Lawrence Rowe. Rowe started his career in spectacular fashion,
but now you wouldn't call him an ATG. However I think there is still
time for Lara to rehabilitate his game and head for the portals of
true greatness, and I think there are indications that that could indeed happen.

Yep. His next away series is going to have to be a good one if he's
losing sleep about his place in my own personal ranking system :-)

cicero

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...news.dfncis.de

FWIW I agree with Raghu. Despite his scores, I can't consider Lara a great
batsman, and I think it is because everything has to be played on his terms.
His highest (Test) score was made on a batter friendly pitch against (gasp)
a very ordinary England side.

Tendulkar.