Batting Elegance Does Not Equal Batting Talent

zacaroni · 01-05-2018, 01:55 PM · 1 person reading this discussion

#1
Quote:Some of my favourite moments of the 2017-2018 Ashes series have involved the batting of James Vince. Laying eyes on him for the first time I was enthralled by the beauty of his strokeplay. Despite a very patchy record, it is a delight to watch him bat.

Yet it is often exasperating as well. Players, like Vince, who appear to be so much at ease at the crease, are always thought to be gifted with loads talent. We, therefore, expect them to do special things on the field and it is especially disappointing when they don’t.

He has been around for a while. He is 26 and made his first-class debut in 2009. His first-class average is just over 38 and in 11 Tests prior to Sydney he averages 22.83. Should you ask around, the consensus would be, that given his immense gifts, he has so far underachieved in his career.

If Vince batted like Steve Smith there is no way he’d have played for England. But attractive batting hides many ills, or it goads selectors into ignoring them. This is because we sometimes mistake elegance for aptitude when one really has nothing to do with the other. The gritty player, a Chanderpaul, say, could well be more gifted than a player as elegant as Carl Hooper. Yet ask any expert and it is overwhelmingly likely they’d pick Hooper as the more talented.


Cricket Soccer

#2
zacaroni post=357127 Wrote:The gritty player, a Chanderpaul, say, could well be more gifted than a player
as elegant as Carl Hooper. Yet ask any expert and it is overwhelmingly likely they’d pick Hooper
as the more talented.
Shiv himself was once elegant BUT game situations forced a change in :
"Posing for the Camera" Smile

From The Archives

Older threads about similar topics


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)