Print

[The 22nd Yard]

What are your opinions on this age old debate?

http://wp.me/p380Xy-aB

[Leddster138]

Most Aussies I've spoken too would have preferred to watch Mark Waugh bat but would rather have Steve Waugh in the team. I think substance wins hands down every time. Bell had a better technique than most Aussies when he came on the scene but it didn't amount to much.

I always felt Langer (cross batted cover drive), Hayden (blungeon over the top) and Gilchrist (see langer) had horrible techniques but my word..what players!

[fros23]

Good topic! 

There is nothing more frustrating than being in the field and watching an oppo batsman with an 'unconvential technique' hacking the ball over midwicket and chopping down to third man.  The sort of batsman that you think will be not up to much after the first few balls and it's only a matter of time before you clean him up yet 20 overs later he is still going.  This bloke could score a fifty yet your teammates deride him as useless yet your top order bat with the textbook technique gets out for under 20 again.

I think at all levels substance is more important than style but you feel a hell of a lot better in the field if the oppo score a pretty fifty rather than an ugly one.

If a batsman struggles with temperament and is stuck in the forties, it is a mental problem, something that with more innings and longer net sessions could be sorted within months, possibly even weeks.

This quote interested me, I can't quite figure out who you are talking about though!? 

[Banksy]

Personally I think it depends on the format of the game. Substance isn't for test cricket in my opinion, but still has its place dependant on the position of the game!

I'd like to think that most batsmen should be able to do both. But if I had to choose, I'd choose substance. You don't write down how it got to the boundary in the book.