Hashim Amla

[Mantis]

Re: Hashim Amla

Mckenzies problem has always been with his head. Technique is fine, good concentration he just doesnt believe he's up to it.

Your head would be screwed up to if your sister looked like his.

[azabob]

Re: Hashim Amla

Mckenzies problem has always been with his head. Technique is fine, good concentration he just doesnt believe he's up to it.

His super model wife must not be attending the 3rd test, so no point keeping him around if she's not there to look at

[Sedat]

Re: Hashim Amla

Albie Morkel bowls ordinary medium pace that won't ever trouble a test batsman and is just a tonker with the bat. The typical 'can't bat well enough, can't bowl well enough, lets call him an all-rounder'.

That sounds just like Symonds, and save for a good (and extremely fortuitous) 12 month patch, he proved to be just as useless in the long form of the game.

I agree with you on A Morkel - he reeks of being a ODI and T20 specialist

[Topdog]

Re: Hashim Amla

Imran Khan 'make love to you like a tiger'

Love it Ernie

[LostDoggy]

Re: Hashim Amla

Your easily pleased then. Dont confuse style and elegance with technique. He looks fantastic when he bats but IMO the only thing holding him back is a couple of flaws in the way he goes about it (technique).

He is in the same mould as Martyn, Waugh, Hodge, Laxman, Gibbs and Peterson not in style but in the fact that they are all eye and do not rely heavily on footwork or positioning when they strike a ball. They all stay pretty still and have minimal movement but have a tremendous ability to find the middle of the bat. These guys are always brilliant to watch and can turn a game but you always feel a chance to get them out as well. He looks very stylish but IMO a good technique is something that takes as much risk as possible out of every shot, even scoring shots. Amla does the opposite of this at the moment and thats why he keeps getting out.

I think if you are that style batsmen then you need to know your own game very well and hit in areas that are of less danger to you. Amla needs to play straighter for longer. He might feel that he can hit the ball to areas that are less protected but he is better off making 100 off 230 balls than a 60 off 100 balls. He looks pretty comfortable at the crease and has generally got himself out so I dont think he will have trouble occupying the crease for long enough.

Fair call dogtown- I think you're right in drawing a distinction between style and technique. Also think your analysis of Waugh and Hodge in particular are a little astray. Temperament, style and technique are all combined to make individual and not generic cricketers. Analyses relating to player typologies are fun,but not so reliable really?
I still think my comments on SA's " glass ceiling" are on the money however ( and relevent to Amla as a number 3)
The question of technique raises some interesting questions re Phil Hughes. How good is the guy in all reality, and is it poss that bowlers will work him out in a technical sense?- I mean effectively, as per the guy barely gets a run from here on in?
I suspect not- but could be another thread I guess.

[Axe Man]

Re: Hashim Amla

SA squad: Ashwell Prince (capt), Imraan Khan, Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis, AB de Villiers, JP Duminy, Mark Boucher (wk), Paul Harris, Albie Morkel, Dale Steyn, Makhaya Ntini, Wayne Parnell.

Some big ommisions Mckenzie was expected but I though they might persist a bit more with Morkel, he bowls some cracking balls but doesn't follow it up and releases the pressure too often. Interesting they went with Parnell over Tsotsobe, if Tsotsobe can get an extended run at international cricket he could be very successful but they obviously liked the extra batting and fielding ability Parnell offers. SA had a very long tail and had obviously lost faith in Morkels batting when Harris came in above him. All three of Steyn, Harris and Ntini wouldnt look out of place at number 11. Cant really see Albie playing, dont think his bowling is good enough to justify batting him at 8.
My SA XI would be:
AB Devilliers
Imran Khan
Amla
Kallis
Prince
Duminy
Boucher
Parnell
Harris
Steyn
Ntini

Geez just reading over that XI, their gonna struggle to take 15 wickets. Harris and Kallis are pedestrian. IMO Ntini is past it and Parnell didnt look fantastic in the 20 20 and One dayer he played over here, we also have to remember he only has 26 first class wickets in 10 matches. Tsotsobe should've been picked

Tsotsobe is injured, he had knee surgery last week.

[Axe Man]

Re: Hashim Amla

Imran Khan 'make love to you like a tiger'

I have the DVD

[Remi Moses]

Re: Hashim Amla

He's a long way behind Zaheer Abbas at this stage.

he reminds me of Abbas. Long way to go I agree.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Hashim Amla

Fair call dogtown- I think you're right in drawing a distinction between style and technique. Also think your analysis of Waugh and Hodge in particular are a little astray. Temperament, style and technique are all combined to make individual and not generic cricketers. Analyses relating to player typologies are fun,but not so reliable really?
I still think my comments on SA's " glass ceiling" are on the money however ( and relevent to Amla as a number 3)
The question of technique raises some interesting questions re Phil Hughes. How good is the guy in all reality, and is it poss that bowlers will work him out in a technical sense?- I mean effectively, as per the guy barely gets a run from here on in?
I suspect not- but could be another thread I guess.

Like that dud Viv Richards? Always hitting across the line. They should bowl straighter to him and pick him up LBW.

[dog town]

Re: Hashim Amla

. Temperament, style and technique are all combined to make individual and not generic cricketers.

I agree that you cant just pidgeon hole them all like that. It was just for the purpose of an example. What part of the Waugh and Hodge comment did you not agree with?

[dog town]

Re: Hashim Amla

Like that dud Viv Richards? Always hitting across the line. They should bowl straighter to him and pick him up LBW.

A solid technique can be overrated. Brian Lara was a disgrace with some of the things he did. Stil one of the most destructive bats I have seen though. When you look at it most of the best players had some gaping holes in terms of technique but overcame them. Shows how much of the game is mental.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Hashim Amla

A solid technique can be overrated. Brian Lara was a disgrace with some of the things he did. Stil one of the most destructive bats I have seen though. When you look at it most of the best players had some gaping holes in terms of technique but overcame them. Shows how much of the game is mental.

Or how much of supposed 'correct technique' is just slavish adherence to doing things the 'supposed right way because that's the way they've always been taught', and may not be applicable to many or even most humans?

We've seen so much traditional 'technique' be debunked by modern biomechanical/physics analysis in sports like atheletics, tennis, golf, football etc. etc.,and much of the theory behind cricket's traditional 'technique' principles can be traced back to the early 20th century, and refined in technique books like 'The Art of Cricket', and are not necessarily backed up by contemporary understanding of the human body (thus the comparative advantage the Australian team has gotten in the last decade from having a fielding coach from baseball, which has a tradition of being far more statistically and biomechanically rigorous in a theoretical sense).

I'm not saying that traditional technique is of no value -- the principles were obviously developed from detailed observation and practice, and had sound application in most situations, but its widespread acceptance has led some purists to somehow assume that there is only one 'right' way to play the game.

--

(the obvious example in cricket is the left-hand/right-hand phenomenon of the last 15 years, where there seems now to be a complete turnaround of the understanding in the correct 'way' to stand -- ie the growing realisation that most right handers are standing the "wrong way round" because their less dominant eye (left) is the primary eye in that stance. Thus the vast number of world class batsmen who bat left-handed who are actually right handed in everyday life (and vice versa). So the question must be asked - have we been batting the wrong way round - the most fundamental aspect of batting, which hand to use - for over 200 years?!)

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Hashim Amla

--

(the obvious example in cricket is the left-hand/right-hand phenomenon of the last 15 years, where there seems now to be a complete turnaround of the understanding in the correct 'way' to stand -- ie the growing realisation that most right handers are standing the "wrong way round" because their less dominant eye (left) is the primary eye in that stance. Thus the vast number of world class batsmen who bat left-handed who are actually right handed in everyday life (and vice versa). So the question must be asked - have we been batting the wrong way round - the most fundamental aspect of batting, which hand to use - for over 200 years?!)

All I have to do is pick up a bat and stand on the other side of it for me to realise there's only one way I can hold a bat.

[Missing Dog]

Re: Hashim Amla

I guess it depends, they say Glen McGrath could bat better left handed. I should be a left footer but i was told to kick with my right foot. But i can change i'm only young

I think in the end you eventually work it out