|
|
The Round Table
'Don't discourage unorthodoxy'
July 18, 2008
"People looking to change youngsters, shouldn't be doing that. They should be trying to get the best out of them for what they have got." Ian Chappell, Michael Holding and Tony Greig examine the development of unorthodox cricketers, analyse their learning environment and discuss some unorthodox cricketers who have enjoyed success at the highest level
Download (11473k)
|
Listen (32:38:00)
| Read
| Podcast
| iTunes
 Read Comments (13)
|
|
Comments have now been closed for this article
|
|
Yeah the carrom ball that mendis balls is the one that is followed in India which people call it as soduku but the practice is done only with soft balls. I have not seen people use that technique in north india this is mainly in use in south and the ball is very hard to hit because the ball comes quicker through the air it stops on you and suddenly spins away..... I'm just wondering why not a single unorthodox indian player has not been able to make it to international level,,,,, mostly people have unorthodox actions or technique is ignored in India and people who doesn't have enough money to spend in India cant' make to the indian team,,,,,it is so corrupted that you have to give money to lot of people at various levels to play for any recognized league.
Posted by Harryharan on July 19 2008, 08:43 AM GMT
|
|
Yeah the carrom ball that mendis balls is the one that is followed in India which people call it as soduku but the practice is done only with soft balls. I have not seen people use that technique in north india this is mainly in use in south and the ball is very hard to hit because the ball comes quicker through the air it stops on you and suddenly spins away..... I'm just wondering why not a single unorthodox indian player has not been able to make it to international level,,,,, mostly people have unorthodox actions or technique is ignored in India and people who doesn't have enough money to spend in India cant' make to the indian team,,,,,it is so corrupted that you have to give money to lot of people at various levels to play for any recognized league.
Posted by Harryharan on July 19 2008, 08:41 AM GMT
|
|
Hey some of you guys are deaf or what? Sohail Tanvir received extensive mention from Chappell and all of it very positive. And what if a player was not mentioned?? This is a time-bound program and an acedemic discussion - the panelists are not insulting a player just because he wasn't talked about.
Posted by shankarmazumdar on July 18 2008, 18:42 PM GMT
|
|
The debate was very insightful. However there was no mention on the West Indian Legend Brian Lara, and his unorthodox high backlift and ultrafast foot work. Also, the most famous slingers of them all, Waqar Younis, got a no mention and Ajantha mendis, is bowling a carrom ball which is actually a type of bowling done in India, Pakistan and Srilanka with soft balls. We call it Soduku(Knuckle-in English), also we had Paul Adams who made a name for himself with that mysterious action. If he had that stock ball which came back into the right hander, He'd have been in the list of all time greats. How about Ricardo Powell? Sanath Jayasuriya and Vinod Kambli. Also the panel avoided Marcus Trescothick, who was no technician but was notably successful and elegant. More researching needed in this topic. The discussion gives just a bird's eye view.
Posted by theindiancobra on July 18 2008, 16:14 PM GMT
|
|
I thought Akram was pretty unorthodox in the early 90s, he would use the new ball and go round the wicket to right handers straight away, his round the wicket bowling and moving it both ways made it tough for right handers to deal with.
Posted by mustufa on July 18 2008, 14:52 PM GMT
|
|
I guess you did not talk of wierd wicket keeping stance. Jack Russell is a perfect anomaly in that front. Keeping sideways to batsmen.And speaking of unorthodox batting stance, Klusner and Ijaz Ahmed were two successful batsmen who had far from conventional stances.
Posted by Underdogs11 on July 18 2008, 14:48 PM GMT
|
|
Would the users complaining about the lack of mention for players who they think are unorthodox to stop the whinging because the talk show is restricted to time. These men are very busy and we are privelidged to even have them giving their views in the first place. If they think that discussing for example Tanvir is important than they would have done so. These men have also a wealth of experience and knowledge in the game, from the top international level something I doubt any of us internet users have. Mr Chappel for example is highly regarded as one of the most knowledgable and insightful cricket 'commentators' of the game. By this I mean commenting, writing and sharing his opinion. Well done gentlemen and a very interesting discussion.
Posted by Radomir on July 18 2008, 12:35 PM GMT
|
|
Ian's views on Iverson and unorthodox people with non-cricketing backgrouns are pretty interesting. Well-deservedly, he was voted the most-insightful commentator in Cricinfo Poll. It would be good to have a panel discussion by the winners of the cricinfo poll on what they probably think led to their victory.
Posted by YGuru on July 18 2008, 11:14 AM GMT
|
|
This is a hopelessly sloppy discussion and like most CI round-tables has three people who just agree on everything. Its a sham!!
A talk about unorthodox players and two of the most successful ones in the current game, Tanvir and Dhoni, don't even get a mention. Kumble just gets a passing refernce. And a couple of others in Malinga and Tait, are not even in the scene today due to injury, exhaustion, or whatever, are given more hype than they deserve. If they had to talk about slingers Waqar is the ultimate example of one.
Posted by SachinIsTheGreatest on July 18 2008, 10:06 AM GMT
|
|
I think the term 'unorthodox' itself may need to be redefined. Does it mean/include 'outside the rules of cricket' or even 'improvement'? Especially including bowlers like Murali (who has been subject to some ridiculous examination so many times) in the category of 'unorthodox' bowlers is 'open' for debate. Also now with 20-20, it also opens up questions on different forms of game. Douglas Marillier of Zimbabwe may do well with 'unorthodox' cricket in one-day cricket, but that brand of cricket could be a disaster in Test cricket. 'Unorthodox' also is time/period dependent. There was once a time when test cricket was found to be very dull/slow. Mark Taylor or the Australian team led the way for 'quick scoring' and that would have been viewed as 'unorthodox' in those days. Similarly in fielding, 'relay' throwing that we see today can be seen as 'unorthodox'. Restricting 'unorthodox' only to 'action' of bowling/batting is a bit simplistic and even 'digressing'.
Posted by RaghuramanR on July 18 2008, 09:52 AM GMT
|
|
|
Read all 13 Comments  |
| Top ^ |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
