View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 31-10-2005, 10:46 AM in reply to Rachael's post starting "No captain NEEDS an all-rounder. What..."
flanflinger's Avatar
flanflinger flanflinger is offline
WAT England A Selector-2005
WAT Journalist  Read my Articles
(AUS-captain) Passed Kim Hughes' 4415 Test runs
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bristol
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Surrey and the Mighty Mighty Quinns
Posts: 4,450
Rachael,

You say you don't need an all-rounder and then point out that with Gilchrsit batted at 7... well in many ways Gilchrist is the all-rounder. Not in the traditonal sense, but in the sense that he covers two bases.

IMO Gilchrist is an all-rounder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael
and you pick your best bowlers and best gloveman and teach them all to bat better. .
You can teach yourself to bat better, but you cannot make a batsman who does not have the natural talent.

Ponting, for example, plays the ball just that bit earlier than most people. His natural hand-eye co-ordination means he reads length much quicker and gets into a much better postion to play it. This cannot be taught, it cannot be learnt.

Last edited by flanflinger : 31-10-2005 at 10:52 AM.