Stop complaining about sloggers

[PhatBoy]

I don't think you can compare anyone to Gilchrist, bloke was a freak.

Up until his recent struggles de kock was nearly as good. He’s got time on his side to rectify it, though I doubt he will finish with the record of gilchrist

 

[PhatBoy]

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.

A slogger tries to thrash basically everything to the same part of the ground irrespective of the specifics of the ball he’s facing and without applying a skerrick of logic to that approach.

The batsmen mentioned in the initial post did not play that way.

Ironically one of the few ‘great’ batsmen who would be considered a slogger was so good at it that it didn’t matter - Viv Richards. His penchant for dragging balls to the onside that shouldn’t have been was the very definition of slogging. But his power and eye rendered it immaterial

 

[ShriekingShack]

Ironically one of the few ‘great’ batsmen who would be considered a slogger was so good at it that it didn’t matter - Viv Richards. His penchant for dragging balls to the onside that shouldn’t have been was the very definition of slogging. But his power and eye rendered it immaterial

So my point is still proven. A slogger can be a successful batsman, or in the case if Vivian Richards one of the greats.

Which means all of the whining on here is ill informed. Just look at Viv Richards.

 

[Kram]

This has to be troll thread.

 

[ShriekingShack]

This has to be troll thread.

I've given reasons for my argument. I've provided examples and am having a discussion.

As Phatboy highlighted, one of the great batsmen was an out and out slogger.

This is evidence that it can be effective at test level, which has been my argument all along. I am tired of people complaining about aggressive batting from our test players, calling them sloggers as if it's a bad thing.

Slogging is not the issue.Viv Richards proved it is a viable approach. The issue is they're just not very good batsmen, regardless of which technique they employ.

 

[Kram]

Being aggressive/attacking can be quite different to 'slogging', I'm sure this has already been pointed out.

 

[Dez!]

So my point is still proven. A slogger can be a successful batsman, or in the case if Vivian Richards one of the greats.

Which means all of the whining on here is ill informed. Just look at Viv Richards.

The only thing you've proven is that you really have no idea.

 

[PhatBoy]

So my point is still proven. A slogger can be a successful batsman, or in the case if Vivian Richards one of the greats.

Which means all of the whining on here is ill informed. Just look at Viv Richards.

That’s like saying Bradman is proof that anyone can be good by training with a cricket stump and a golf ball.

Your initial post essentially claimed ‘there are dozens upon dozens of examples of sloggers being successful.’

A) hardly any of the players you mentioned were sloggers
B) some of them weren’t successfu

I’ve had to cite one of only three batsmen named as Wisden cricketers of the 20th century to find a slogger that can be successful.

 

[Lensen]

jason gillespie scored three fifties, and an overseas double century

ergo it is prudent and wise to have a player of jason gillespie's ability bat in the top six

#logicofthisfred

 

[Tigerssaints]

It came from Darren Lehman game plan ( lack Off ) regardless of conditions to dominate the bowlers
he forgot that tests go for 5 daysssssssss
thats why he was boff mateyy
My good mate Hodgey never took any risks

 

[ioppolo]

Viv Richards a slogger. I learnt something new

 

[Marcus_Antonius]

I've given reasons for my argument. I've provided examples and am having a discussion.

As Phatboy highlighted, one of the great batsmen was an out and out slogger.

This is evidence that it can be effective at test level, which has been my argument all along. I am tired of people complaining about aggressive batting from our test players, calling them sloggers as if it's a bad thing.

Slogging is not the issue.Viv Richards proved it is a viable approach. The issue is they're just not very good batsmen, regardless of which technique they employ.

I think the argument you are having stems from media comments about the one day team being too one paced with not enough players who can rotate the strike - which is a legitimate problem. But as for aggressive batsmen, of course it can work, if they're good enough. However, you can't have the entire top 6 (or top 7 if we are including wicket keeper/batsmen as well) as aggressive batters or sloggers (especially the later). Test cricket is all about having gears to your batting as well as your batting line up. On Sehwag for example; pretty good tactic to have an aggressive batter opening when you have two of the greatest middle order batters to ever play the game coming in at 3 and 4 - especially when the bloke at first drop was nicknamed 'The Wall'.

 

[PhatBoy]

Viv Richards a slogger. I learnt something new

Probably tough on him to actually brand him a slogger as such but there’s about a thousand hours of YouTube videos showing that he was pretty prodigious at what is essentially the textbook definition of a pure slog. It’s not a knock on him, we was awesome at it. But plonking your front foot on middle/off and dragging a ball a foot wide of you over to the mid wicket fence is a slog. It just so happened that he was gifted enough to be able to play a multitude of other shots that made him a supreme batsman.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Some players bat the same way regardless of the situation

Atherton, Tavare, Rogers, Dravid - protect wicket at all costs, dogged, determined.

Gilchrist, Sehwag, Warner, - they bat the same way no matter what, in any situation. See ball, hit ball.

Others are 'situational' batsmen and can adjust their game according to the match situation, the bowler, the pitch conditions etc.

Players from all categories can be valuable (though there is perhaps a discussion to be had about match winners vs match savers) and perhaps a balance of the three is needed in an ideal batting order.

Players from the latter category are the most skilled IMO and are what we lack at the moment. Eg when the ball starts nibbling around we struggle to reel our game in - leave more, soft hands, grind it out. Fight our way into the next session when it will get easier. We tend to just play Formula 1 batting and nick off.

Overcompensate by picking a team of grafters with fight though and you perhaps lack players who can deliver when the game is there to be won - who can grab the game by the scruff of the neck and dominate.

 

[eth-dog]

Okay, I'll explain it.

A slogger is someone who doesn't play normal cricket shots, just clears the front leg, swings and hopes for the best.
An aggressive batsman is someone who uses traditional shots in an extension.

 

[The Swans Blog]

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.

Shit post that only applies to the T20/ODI side. Does not apply to the test team.

Warner is a chump overseas, averaging far less than his Australian average. The best batters in the world have been proven time and again to be those with rock-solid foundations, great technique, and above all else, patience.

Most of the best batsmen in the history of the game have not been sloggers. Just because Gilchrist went ham against opposition and belted centuries off less than 80 balls, doesn't mean he wasn't capable of holding down the fort when necessary. Justin Langer and Matthew Hayden are two of Australia's most prolific openers in test history, yet they did it with craft, technique and absurdly good timing. Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh, Alan Border, Don Bradman and Steve Smith (at his best) were indomitable. Opposing bowlers couldn't get near them because of their technique and ability to alter their shot during the delivery.

Warner - constantly caught out behind, he's got to the be one of the worst - or at least most consistent batsman - to be caught in the slips at test level. Hit out or get out should be his motto, such is the risk of his stroke play.

 

[Ok Boomer]

Sloggers are your Johnson Charles types, no technique, favourite shot is the mow over cow corner.

None of the players mentioned in OP are sloggers. They all had success in test cricket except for Bevan, who was probably the furthest thing from a slogger.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Most people have complained the test side lacks the pre-requisite foundations to properly craft innings. It doesn't help when you have an ultra-aggressive batsman at the top of the side who normally hits out, paired with a typically defensive batsman that struggles to rotate strike.

The test side seriously lacks not just talent depth and consistency, but balance most of all.

This is likely to be the team that faces India in Adelaide:

AJ Finch - Ultra attacking, slogger
MS Harris - Debut, inconsistent, unknown quality
UT Khawaja - Ultra defensive, gets bogged down
SE Marsh - Defensive, inconsistent
MR Marsh - Attacking, inconsistent
TM Head - Ordinary, inconsistent
TD Paine - Ordinary, inconsistent
NM Lyon - Ultra defensive
PJ Cummins - Attacking, slogger
MA Starc - Attacking, slogger
JR Hazlewood - Attacking

 

[frankrizzo]

How is Khawaja ultra defensive?

he averages mid 40's with a strike rate of 51.5, thats basically the same strike rate as mark waugh(52).

 

[The Swans Blog]

How is Khawaja ultra defensive?

he averages mid 40's with a strike rate of 51.5, thats basically the same strike rate as mark waugh(52).

Last 27 innings:
- 3 centuries
- 7 50s
- 9 times >=50% SR
- 5 times >= 50% SR when score is > 20 runs

His average SR is good once he gets going, the biggest problem is getting going. There's been innings when his SR is as low as 20 after 60~70 balls. Averages 40.8, which is pretty good, but has 16 innings of 20 or less.

 

[Kram]

How is Khawaja ultra defensive?

he averages mid 40's with a strike rate of 51.5, thats basically the same strike rate as mark waugh(52).

This is why stats are often misleading, watching Usman over the years he definitely has a notable tendency to get really bogged down against elite bowling.

 

[frankrizzo]

Him being slow to start might be a major issue if he averaged 30-35 with the bat but he averages mid 40s and is our only world class batsmen right now so his approach clearly works at this level.

I assume this is mostly talking about ussie outside asia as well?

His stats must be bad in asia as he pretty much just blocked till he got out and even his one great innings in the uae was a very slow scoring knock that wouldn't show up as a positive in the strike rate stats.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Him being slow to start might be a major issue if he averaged 30-35 with the bat but he averages mid 40s and is our only world class batsmen right now so his approach clearly works at this level.

I assume this is mostly talking about ussie outside asia as well?

His stats must be bad in asia as he pretty much just blocked till he got out and even his one great innings in the uae was a very slow scoring knock that wouldn't show up as a positive in the strike rate stats.

Averages mid 40, huh? 43.8 is not mid 40s and his average in the last two years is barely 40.

All of his big innings except the last one against Pakistan in Dubai have been on Australian soil. There's a good chance he'll have a good summer, although he has never faced India before and has traditionally struggled vs bowlers that move the ball around.

 

[frankrizzo]

Your original post was about the side that will play this home series and the balance issues they may have in this series, usman has until recently struggled away but his home record speaks for itself and his approach clearly works just fine on our decks.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Your original post was about the side that will play this home series and the balance issues they may have in this series, usman has until recently struggled away but his home record speaks for itself and his approach clearly works just fine on our decks.

Again, as pointed out, you're looking purely at numbers and not his performances. Typically he is slow to start, but gets rolling a few hours into an innings. The problem is that bowling teams can mount significant pressure when he's not rotating the strike, leading to twits playing rash shots, or the RR completely drying up. He's normally at his best when he's up against it.