Remove this Banner Ad

Steve Smith

  • Thread starter Thread starter outabounds
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

King Elvis said:
I'm of the belief that his technique, which had worked to the point he dominated every single level of Cricket he played, while unorthodox, worked for him.

We've argued this before, so let's just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Sorry but don't agree. Loads of players have scored loads of runs in the first class scene, play internationals and get found out when there are more video scrutiny on their techniques and everyone analyse their weaknesses to the death, then fail to make runs afterwards

It was just like how Gilly smashed bowlers all around the park, then Flintoff starts going around the wicket and messed him up. Then all other bowlers started doing it and Gilly stopped scoring runs. Incidently, the Saffers did the same thing back in 99 World Cup and messed Gilly up, too, but for some reason they stopped doing it ever since then

Hughes is a fisher outside off and his back foot backs away when he plays shots. That's why he's been nicking loads of deliveries. What's more, he clearly has the Michael Bevan itchy pants when it comes to the short ball. No one except Tendulkar has a perfect technique, but his weaknesses are way too glaring and needs to be fixed
 
Cooldude said:
Hughes is a fisher outside off and his back foot backs away when he plays shots. That's why he's been nicking loads of deliveries. What's more, he clearly has the Michael Bevan itchy pants when it comes to the short ball. No one except Tendulkar has a perfect technique, but his weaknesses are way too glaring and needs to be fixed
Click to expand...

Dude, Tendulkar does NOT have a perfect technique. He's actually got one of the worse techniques in world cricket. He's a phenomenal player, but his technique is loose, and it makes him vulnerable early in his innings.
 
Steve Smith falls away to the offside when he bowls with his left arm. Until this gets fixed he is going to be too short too often and outside off stump too frequently. Through this the amount of dangerous wicket taking balls is diminished and his capacity to break partnerships follows.

Hughes has an awful technique and when he is not in good touch it does and continue to look plain awful and amateur. Whether he can counteract this by scoring heavily when in touch remains to be seen. If I was an international player I would be happy seeing Hughes in oppositions top order than not. He gives you chances consistently through poor footwork, body position and shot selection.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

bloodstainedangel5 said:
Dude, Tendulkar does NOT have a perfect technique. He's actually got one of the worse techniques in world cricket. He's a phenomenal player, but his technique is loose, and it makes him vulnerable early in his innings.
Click to expand...

Plays perfectly straight, has perfect balance, technically perfect when playing every shot in the book, a coaching manual's dream. I dunno what rubbish you're talking

I think you confused Tendulkar with Sehwag

Yeah so vulnerable early in his innings that he has dominated for 20 odd years. I dunno which Tendulkar you watch but certainly not the same one I know
 
bloodstainedangel5 said:
Dude, Tendulkar does NOT have a perfect technique. He's actually got one of the worse techniques in world cricket. He's a phenomenal player, but his technique is loose, and it makes him vulnerable early in his innings.
Click to expand...

Are we watching the same Tendulkar?

I'm of a similar belief to King Elvis. People don't realise how talented a prospect Smith was whilst coming through the ranks. I was fortunate (or perhaps unfortunate) enough to play against him and he brutalised us. His technique is very unorthodox, but like the Sehwag's and Gayle's of the world, has a fantastic eye. Once he gets used to the pace of international cricket, his eye will adapt accordingly and he will star.
 
Smith is a very good bat, sure his technique isn't perfect but whose is??? Smith still makes plenty of runs with his technique so I don't see a problem. Hughes has a bad technique but it is his temperament that will see him score thousands of runs for Australia. Sure he will get out early on occasions but what operner hasn't??
 
Those of you saying Tendulkar's technique is great, just have a look at him closely. It's far from textbook. Don't get me wrong, it's effective, especially when he has his eye in, and it's certainly better than a Sehwag or a Hughes, but his footwork is minimal, especially off the back foot. He plays away from his body quite often, and relies on his eye.

It's great to watch, it isn't jerky or unconvincing-looking like Hughes', but it does make him vulnerable early on in his innings. And yes, he is vulnerable as a result. He's quite a boom or bust player, not to the extent of North, and he's a much better player than North (he's the best batsman in the world FFS!) so he's worth waiting for, but you're always a chance of nabbing Tendulkar early on. That's why he can have 49 Test centuries and 58 Test centuries, streets ahead of his competition, while averaging under 57 overall. If he gets his eye in, gets 20 or so, he's pretty much guaranteed a 50, and from that, is a good chance of making a hundred. However, he gets out a lot for under 20, which pulls his average back to the pack, and this is because he has a loose technique which is exposed when he doesn't have his eye in.
 
I just wanted to stop in to say this guy is the improved Cameron White - hard hitting batsman, who bowls a bit of so so leg spin, and who has class in the field.

I just hope they don't make the dame mistake with him as they did with White.

Give him his head now.
 
Former Australia captain Richie Benaud, whose spin bowling captured 248 wickets in 63 Tests, said developing great practitioners of the art took time.

The octogenarian broadcaster recalled Bill "Tiger" O'Reilly, another of Australia's great spinners, taking him to dinner soon after he made his Test debut in 1952 and explaining what he had to do -- before adding that it would take four years to achieve.

"Shane Warne asked me what advice I had for him and I told him what O'Reilly had told me," Benaud recalled in the Member's Pavilion at the SCG this week.

"I gave him the four-year bit but he was so good he did it in two. But it did take him two years to do it.

Read more: Australia still in a spin about how to replace Warne - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...e-Warne/articleshow/6953883.cms#ixzz15lYAOZB1
Click to expand...

Pretty similar to what Terry Jenner said about Smith and I'm sure Warne gave him the same advise.
 
I genuinely believe in two years Steve Smith could be a legitimate leg spinner good enough to be our only spinner.

The thing I'm worried about, is there's so much cricket around he's not going to get the opportunity to bowl enough to get good. He'll be playing T20, ODIs, IPL, etc.

Cricket Australia really need to make sure they don't just drag him around on tours for no reason. But we all know that's going to happen because Cricket Australia is ridiculous.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

bloodstainedangel5 said:
Those of you saying Tendulkar's technique is great, just have a look at him closely. It's far from textbook. Don't get me wrong, it's effective, especially when he has his eye in, and it's certainly better than a Sehwag or a Hughes, but his footwork is minimal, especially off the back foot. He plays away from his body quite often, and relies on his eye.

It's great to watch, it isn't jerky or unconvincing-looking like Hughes', but it does make him vulnerable early on in his innings. And yes, he is vulnerable as a result. He's quite a boom or bust player, not to the extent of North, and he's a much better player than North (he's the best batsman in the world FFS!) so he's worth waiting for, but you're always a chance of nabbing Tendulkar early on. That's why he can have 49 Test centuries and 58 Test centuries, streets ahead of his competition, while averaging under 57 overall. If he gets his eye in, gets 20 or so, he's pretty much guaranteed a 50, and from that, is a good chance of making a hundred. However, he gets out a lot for under 20, which pulls his average back to the pack, and this is because he has a loose technique which is exposed when he doesn't have his eye in.
Click to expand...

:D

That's as funny a post as I've read for a long time

Comparing Marcus North who has 5 Test centuries in 19 Tests yet averages 38 (Genuine ton or nothing player), to Tendulkar, who apart from the odd season, averages at least mid 50s year in year out and is one of the most consistent run scorers in the game?

And I'm sorry, big footwork isn't what makes a good technique. It's all about balance and alignment when you hit a shot. Tendulkar himself even said that it's impossible to always get to the pitch of deliveries, particularly with the speed of some of the quicks at international level, but it's all about having a straight back lift so your bat comes down straight, and perfect balance when you play a shot.

Tendulkar is the best straight player I've ever seen, he plays straight lines better than anyone, and playing straight is far more important than having massive footwork. And fyi, Tendulkar's footwork is also beautiful to watch, always gets himself into the best position with minimal fuss

So basically you're saying if any batsman is vulnerable early but he'll make runs once he gets in. Thank you, captain obvious? Whoever doesn't that apply to? Tendulkar just does it a heck lot better than others, and a nigh on perfect technique helps
 
bloodstainedangel5 said:
Those of you saying Tendulkar's technique is great, just have a look at him closely. It's far from textbook. Don't get me wrong, it's effective, especially when he has his eye in, and it's certainly better than a Sehwag or a Hughes, but his footwork is minimal, especially off the back foot. He plays away from his body quite often, and relies on his eye.

It's great to watch, it isn't jerky or unconvincing-looking like Hughes', but it does make him vulnerable early on in his innings. And yes, he is vulnerable as a result. He's quite a boom or bust player, not to the extent of North, and he's a much better player than North (he's the best batsman in the world FFS!) so he's worth waiting for, but you're always a chance of nabbing Tendulkar early on. That's why he can have 49 Test centuries and 58 Test centuries, streets ahead of his competition, while averaging under 57 overall. If he gets his eye in, gets 20 or so, he's pretty much guaranteed a 50, and from that, is a good chance of making a hundred. However, he gets out a lot for under 20, which pulls his average back to the pack, and this is because he has a loose technique which is exposed when he doesn't have his eye in.
Click to expand...
Are you high.
Tendulkar's technique is textbook perfect
 
tendulkar is the great batsman of the modern era for consistency, skill, concentration, discipline and sheer flair.

Punter, is possibly the second best of the modern era.

North isn't in the same league as either of these and is lucky to be playing test cricket let alone likened to slashin'
 
Coughlan said:
Are you high.
Tendulkar's technique is textbook perfect
Click to expand...

Not sure about textbook perfect but it's closer than most other batsmen. Bradman actually said that Tendulkar reminded him most of himself so his technique can't be too bad.

You don't score as many runs as Tendulkar either without having a pretty solid technique. Great batsmen to watch when he is in full flow.
 
bloodstainedangel5 said:
Those of you saying Tendulkar's technique is great, just have a look at him closely. It's far from textbook. Don't get me wrong, it's effective, especially when he has his eye in, and it's certainly better than a Sehwag or a Hughes, but his footwork is minimal, especially off the back foot. He plays away from his body quite often, and relies on his eye.

It's great to watch, it isn't jerky or unconvincing-looking like Hughes', but it does make him vulnerable early on in his innings. And yes, he is vulnerable as a result. He's quite a boom or bust player, not to the extent of North, and he's a much better player than North (he's the best batsman in the world FFS!) so he's worth waiting for, but you're always a chance of nabbing Tendulkar early on. That's why he can have 49 Test centuries and 58 Test centuries, streets ahead of his competition, while averaging under 57 overall. If he gets his eye in, gets 20 or so, he's pretty much guaranteed a 50, and from that, is a good chance of making a hundred. However, he gets out a lot for under 20, which pulls his average back to the pack, and this is because he has a loose technique which is exposed when he doesn't have his eye in.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between Tendulkar having some deficiencies and saying he has one of the worst techniques in world cricket, which he doesn't.
 
dan warna said:
tendulkar is the great batsman of the modern era for consistency, skill, concentration, discipline and sheer flair.

Punter, is possibly the second best of the modern era.

North isn't in the same league as either of these and is lucky to be playing test cricket let alone likened to slashin'
Click to expand...

I didn't say he was in the same league. Two players can be similar in certain respects without being anywhere near each other in overall performance. North and Tendulkar both have a large number of big scores, and a large number of small scores, and few in between, within the context of their overall performances. That doesn't change the fact that Tendulkar's overall performances have been much, much better.

placebo said:
There's a big difference between Tendulkar having some deficiencies and saying he has one of the worst techniques in world cricket, which he doesn't.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he had one of the "worst", I said he has one of the "worse" techniques. As in, worse than the average Test batsman, bottom half. Notably deficient in certain areas, but not ludicrously so.

Tendulkar is loose and "fishy" outside off, especially short. He has a fantastic eye and fantastic balance so he can generally get away with it, it doesn't stop him from playing very straight to straight deliveries, and it's beautiful to watch in any case, but it does open up some particular vulnerabilities early on. Once he gets past it and gets his eye in, it's negated and he can go on and make big scores.

Plugger35 said:
Not sure about textbook perfect but it's closer than most other batsmen. Bradman actually said that Tendulkar reminded him most of himself so his technique can't be too bad.

You don't score as many runs as Tendulkar either without having a pretty solid technique. Great batsmen to watch when he is in full flow.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen of Bradman, he had a very unusual technique. And quite similar to Tendulkar's as well. Plays very straight, but some weird foot work.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Punter>Lara.

Lara underachieved a little bit IMO. But this debate could go on for a while
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

PhatBoy
    • Like
    • Sad
RIP ‘The Judge’ Robin Smith.
2
Replies
29
Views
975
Plugger35
Plugger35
C
Smith and the 2028 Olympics
Replies
4
Views
672
cricketnut14
C

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom