Tarisai Musakanda in T20Is

[foreignfield]

It’s a real shame we never saw the best of Sibanda.

@ encore, would you agree he was one of Zimbabwe’s most naturally talented batsmen who didn’t have the mental strength to consistently succeed? For me he had the best technique in the country and probably still does, after Ervine.

For me "best technique" would have to include his defensive technique and for that I seem to recall too many plumb LBWs against straight balls.

But easily the most aesthetically pleasing batsman Zim has ever produced.

[encore]

It’s a real shame we never saw the best of Sibanda.

@ encore, would you agree he was one of Zimbabwe’s most naturally talented batsmen who didn’t have the mental strength to consistently succeed? For me he had the best technique in the country and probably still does, after Ervine.

It's not a new topic that's for sure. Natural talent. That's a tough one.

Because I'm a Mat'land guy, and he's one of the batsmen that I got to see when still quite young and could do quite a bit, even when up against seniors in domestic at the time (eg AC, Andy, Grant etc), I'd have to go with Charles Coventry.

ZIM has developed a lot of orthodox bastmen who are glorious to watch. I think Matsi just shades all of them, followed by Dion Ebrahim. What makes Vusi Sibanda so attractive is that just as Elton could smash the very best bowlers in the world, Vusi could be dominant as well, but in a more classical fashion, not slogging. But Madondo, Matsi, Vusi, Hami and Ebrahim are 'trained' and technically correct so to speak, not so much natural. Regis. Tari the same and we saw a bit of that in Munyonga too. Still, you have to have the raw talent to be coachable, and one would have to say a Matsi had it, but a lot of the guys are coached products. Kasuza is probably the most naturally talented of the Black ZIM batsmen I've seen.

What I find strange is that while most cricket nations have got plenty textbook white batsmen, ZIM have only had Grant and Vermeulen as far as I can remember - that's worse than Bangladesh (I'm not sure about Welch, but Byrom and Ballance certainly aren't textbook). And I remarked the other day that if Mark could play off the backfoot, he would've been a 40+ avg Test & ODI batsman.

I think part of the reason is because the more naturally skillful guys turn to rugby and hockey I think, just like Sean Williams. Funny enough Sean is related to another one Mike McKillop. I think he played cricket. There's another guys I can't remember his name. It's been decades. I'll tell you once I recall.

I don't think Craig Ervine would feature in terms of technique, but he does have a lot of raw talent. Although quite some way behind Coventry, Kasuza and Sean in my book.

Going back to what you said, I'm still adamant that Vusi would have had more productivity if he batted lower. Not too much but he would have averaged 35+ in Tests and ODIs, more than Hami and Matsi. So I don't think it's necessarily lack of mental strength. It's actually mental strength. Vusi is arguably the only batsman who tried to develop his backfoot game. He was forced to open where he was contronted with fast guys bowling short at him, and he tried to adapt. Likewise, many wouldn't say Goodwin had lack of mental strength, but in all honesty he flopped for ZIM many times in key matches and moments. He fell cheaply. And that's partly because he tried to change his game too much. ZIM didn't have many fast guys, and rarely played matches then too. So Goodwin often found himself playing off the front footin domestic. But when ZIM had internationals, the adjustment became hard at first drop.

This is why natural talent is important. It's easier to make transitions. Recently, think AB, Michael Clarke and Rohit Sharma. You know both would have struggled opening in Tests, but eventually they would've gotten it right. I don't have the same confidence in Kohli and even Sachin opening in Tests.

So don't argue with me when I say Sean and Craig should have opened for ZIM, and someone responds yeah but Hami and Vusi had better techniques. You guys have it the wrong way round. Jayasuriya, Hayden, Sehwag, Gibbs, Cook, Elgar Kirsten, are all either dazzling or dull natural talent. None technically correctly.

[encore]

It’s a real shame we never saw the best of Sibanda.

@ encore, would you agree he was one of Zimbabwe’s most naturally talented batsmen who didn’t have the mental strength to consistently succeed? For me he had the best technique in the country and probably still does, after Ervine.

For me "best technique" would have to include his defensive technique and for that I seem to recall too many plumb LBWs against straight balls.

But easily the most aesthetically pleasing batsman Zim has ever produced.

Beat me to it, but I agree with that bold part on Craig.

Aesthetically pleasing I'm sticking to Vusi, Matsi and Ebrahim.

[zimbos_05]

What I find strange is that while most cricket nations have got plenty textbook white batsmen, ZIM have only had Grant and Vermeulen as far as I can remember

and someone responds yeah but Hami and Vusi

That first part could have something to do with the way demographics works. Other nations being majority white populations. You learn about it in geography. In saying that, you are being very unkind to Andy Flower and Neil Johnson. They were extremely sound. Andy had such good control as a batsman. Wasim Akram said his technique was perfect and nullified his bouncer. Made him bowl the ball where he wanted to so he could hit it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqZVAjr9y_8

The part about Hami and Vusi is because they are openers and wanted to open. Had nothing to do with technique. Hami did not have the best technique for an opener, but he preferred the role.

[chesterton]

It’s a real shame we never saw the best of Sibanda.

@ encore, would you agree he was one of Zimbabwe’s most naturally talented batsmen who didn’t have the mental strength to consistently succeed? For me he had the best technique in the country and probably still does, after Ervine.

It's not a new topic that's for sure. Natural talent. That's a tough one.

Because I'm a Mat'land guy, and he's one of the batsmen that I got to see when still quite young and could do quite a bit, even when up against seniors in domestic at the time (eg AC, Andy, Grant etc), I'd have to go with Charles Coventry.

ZIM has developed a lot of orthodox bastmen who are glorious to watch. I think Matsi just shades all of them, followed by Dion Ebrahim. What makes Vusi Sibanda so attractive is that just as Elton could smash the very best bowlers in the world, Vusi could be dominant as well, but in a more classical fashion, not slogging. But Madondo, Matsi, Vusi, Hami and Ebrahim are 'trained' and technically correct so to speak, not so much natural. Regis. Tari the same and we saw a bit of that in Munyonga too. Still, you have to have the raw talent to be coachable, and one would have to say a Matsi had it, but a lot of the guys are coached products. Kasuza is probably the most naturally talented of the Black ZIM batsmen I've seen.

What I find strange is that while most cricket nations have got plenty textbook white batsmen, ZIM have only had Grant and Vermeulen as far as I can remember - that's worse than Bangladesh (I'm not sure about Welch, but Byrom and Ballance certainly aren't textbook). And I remarked the other day that if Mark could play off the backfoot, he would've been a 40+ avg Test & ODI batsman.

I think part of the reason is because the more naturally skillful guys turn to rugby and hockey I think, just like Sean Williams. Funny enough Sean is related to another one Mike McKillop. I think he played cricket. There's another guys I can't remember his name. It's been decades. I'll tell you once I recall.

I don't think Craig Ervine would feature in terms of technique, but he does have a lot of raw talent. Although quite some way behind Coventry, Kasuza and Sean in my book.

Going back to what you said, I'm still adamant that Vusi would have had more productivity if he batted lower. Not too much but he would have averaged 35+ in Tests and ODIs, more than Hami and Matsi. So I don't think it's necessarily lack of mental strength. It's actually mental strength. Vusi is arguably the only batsman who tried to develop his backfoot game. He was forced to open where he was contronted with fast guys bowling short at him, and he tried to adapt. Likewise, many wouldn't say Goodwin had lack of mental strength, but in all honesty he flopped for ZIM many times in key matches and moments. He fell cheaply. And that's partly because he tried to change his game too much. ZIM didn't have many fast guys, and rarely played matches then too. So Goodwin often found himself playing off the front footin domestic. But when ZIM had internationals, the adjustment became hard at first drop.

This is why natural talent is important. It's easier to make transitions. Recently, think AB, Michael Clarke and Rohit Sharma. You know both would have struggled opening in Tests, but eventually they would've gotten it right. I don't have the same confidence in Kohli and even Sachin opening in Tests.

So don't argue with me when I say Sean and Craig should have opened for ZIM, and someone responds yeah but Hami and Vusi had better techniques. You guys have it the wrong way round. Jayasuriya, Hayden, Sehwag, Gibbs, Cook, Elgar Kirsten, are all either dazzling or dull natural talent. None technically correctly.

Two colleagues talking to each other.

[sloandog]

How do you like our strategy? You think it’s coming along well?

[chesterton]

I’m actually thinking now that T20 cricket is the form of cricket that requires the most talent of the 3.

In tests, you just sit there and wait for the ball you want to hit. If it swings too much or not in your zone you leave it and I’d you want to hit the ball you can hit the ball.

In T20s, you need to battle balls that are swinging, dipping, changing paces, and you need to make things happen now! Can’t wait for your moment.

Test matches are like the ZC of the cricket world. Just latch onto others hard work, but T20 requires ingenuity, a creative mind and entrepreneurship.

If cricket was invented today we would only have T20s and players like Smith and Cook would be relegated to park cricket only.

[Googly]

Encore, I can’t keep correcting you, you’re making my batteries flat, battering me with bullshit, so to speak.
Possibly Vermeulen’s best shot was a back foot cover drive, he was renowned for it.
Admitting you’re a Battered Mealie explains a lot

[encore]

Encore, I can’t keep correcting you, you’re making my batteries flat, battering me with bullshit, so to speak.
Possibly Vermeulen’s best shot was a back foot cover drive, he was renowned for it.
Admitting you’re a Battered Mealie explains a lot

I couldn't agree with you more. He was a right-handed Allan Border or Adam Gilchrist in the flesh!

People who write player profiles do get it very wrong, especially about ZIM players.

Answer this, was Michael Clarke a back-foot player because he could hit a gorgeous back foot cover drive?

[sloandog]

Vermuelan was a back foot player, though... All his weight went onto his back right foot when playing shots and he had very little footwork.
Mark pro'd at our club, and in the LCL some years back. Lovely fella' (also strange) but his deficiencies were evidently on the front foot. Give him the opportunity to pull or cut and he crucified the ball.

Profile writers are there for a reason. Vermuelans profile was consulted by John Ward (fact) who knows more about Zimbabwean Cricket than me or you.

'Vermeulen was a back-foot player by inclination, particularly strong on the cut, pull and hook shots, although he was also a sweet timer of the ball through the covers.' Cricinfo, corroborated by John Ward and written by Miller.