Stop complaining about sloggers

Remove this Banner Ad

ShriekingShack

ShriekingShack

Senior List
Jun 9, 2017
238
840
AFL Club
West Coast
I see so many people on this board complaining that the Australian team is full of sloggers and that the only way to craft a test match innings is through a slow but steady approach.

Boy do I have news for you. You are wrong. Oh so very wrong.

Some of the greatest batsmen of all time have been "sloggers" and make many on here look foolish when they whinge our batsmen are too impatient or are sloggers. Let me teach you a little bit of cricket.

Adam Gilchrist: Belted the ball rain hail or shine. One of the greatest batsmen in our history

Michael Bevan: Incredible finisher. One of the great batsmen who gave it a whack.

Sehwag: The Indian Gilchrist, but not as good. Again, scored at a ridiculous rate.

David Warner: Aggressive batsman with a very impressive record. Another slogger.

Chris Gayle: Destructive batsman who blasted a triple century. One of the greatest innings of all time.

Mark Boucher: The South African Gilchrist

Some of the greatest batsmen of all time were sloggers. The proof is above.

Now shut up and please stop whining about it. It is not an issue and never has been.
 
Disagree. Gilchrist had a wonderful technique. His 'slogging' was just an extension of that. I'm assuming you are referring to the limited overs sides - I wouldn't put the likes of Maxwell, Lynn etc. in that same category of technique. When Maxwell does bat in that ilk he's very good. It doesn't happen often, though. Big difference between Gilly, Sehwag etc. and mindless sloggers.

The main complaint is about team composition too, so you've completely missed the point. Sloggers can work in a side when paired with accumulators and more traditional batsmen. The ratio is clearly off in the current side.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Carbine Chaos said:
The South African Gilchrist though? No.
Click to expand...
Tests
Adam Gilchrist: Avg of 47.6, SR of 82
Mark Boucher: Avg of 30.3, SR of 50.1

ODI
Adam Gilchrist: Avg of 35.9, SR of 96.94
Mark Boucher: Avg of 28.6, SR of 84.76



Basically the same thing :drunk:
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
Van_Dyke said:
Tests
Adam Gilchrist: Avg of 47.6, SR of 82
Mark Boucher: Avg of 30.3, SR of 50.1

ODI
Adam Gilchrist: Avg of 35.9, SR of 96.94
Mark Boucher: Avg of 28.6, SR of 84.76



Basically the same thing :drunk:
Click to expand...
I was simply using him as another example of a successful aggressive batsman, aka a slogger. Maybe the Gilchrist comparison was too far.

My point is he succeeded by belting bowlers.
 
ShriekingShack said:
I was simply using him as another example of a successful aggressive batsman, aka a slogger. Maybe the Gilchrist comparison was too far.

My point is he succeeded by belting bowlers.
Click to expand...

You struggle to differentiate from aggressive batsman and slogger, they aren't the same thing.
 
Bevan was toilet. He was a poor test batsman who couldn’t handle consistent short pitched bowling. He succeeded in one day cricket using impeccable running and gap-finding, and by holding his nerve.

Gayle has been a successful test cricketer because he is a very good judge of his off stump and his technique while far from textbook, is sound.

Sehwag played normal cricket shots. Adam Gilchrist played normal cricket shots. David Warner usually plays normal cricket shots and it is when he tries to slog balls that should be defended that he gets himself out.

I don’t think you understand the difference between being aggressive and slogging.
 
ShriekingShack said:
I see so many people on this board complaining that the Australian team is full of sloggers and that the only way to craft a test match innings is through a slow but steady approach.
Click to expand...
Not the only way, but any batsman who cant adjust to conditions is not going to be a rounded Test player. The players you listed could do the hard yards and pull their stroke-making in when conditions required, with the exception of Gayle for most of his career; and often Warner thanks to having a Dutton-brain. That is the complaint with "sloggers", they are often nothing more; without at least one of technique or awareness to change their game when required.
PhatBoy said:
Bevan was toilet. He was a poor test batsman who couldn’t handle consistent short pitched bowling. He succeeded in one day cricket using impeccable running and gap-finding, and by holding his nerve.
Click to expand...
Bevan was a strange one. He could play the short ball at Shield level, when the bowling was just as fast and good as most Test sides. The short ball thing was real, but seemed to be a mental block. Certainly doesn't belong in the OP argument about successfully building Test innings.
And yet in ODIs I think his reputation as a "finisher" overstates his actual worth. The miracle finish was sometimes required because he got bogged down in the middle overs and turned what had looked like easy wins into tight ones. He did stay around and do the job in the end, so it was rarely costly. Someone like Hussey was almost as strong in tight finishes, but also managed to take care of the easy ones without them becoming tight. Less dramatic, but more effective IMO.
 
PhatBoy said:
Bevan was toilet. He was a poor test batsman who couldn’t handle consistent short pitched bowling. He succeeded in one day cricket using impeccable running and gap-finding, and by holding his nerve.
Click to expand...
The bloke also loved to play for the red ink.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

In all seriousness, give me a good test batsman who can see off the new ball over all of them bar gilly.

Having a wiki who can go the tonk gives the middle order a bit of spark, but I actually hate seeing a player like Warner in india or England on tough batting decks
 
Dez! said:
Which is different from an aggressive batsman.
Click to expand...
How so? I thought they were two different ways of saying the same thing.

Aggressive batsmen go after the bowlers

Sloggers go after the bowlers.
 
I think it depends on how you define slogger, if you define it as batting with all-out aggression trying to maximize scoring opportunities then yeah the OP makes sense, but if you define it as I think most would; trying to score boundaries off every ball while neglecting rotation of the strike, it does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
If England cared about the spirit of cricket, why didn't they retire Ben Duckett?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
ioppolo
ioppolo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top