Random Aussie said:
FFS stop it with the Afridi rubbish. You guys are ridiculous. Makes this board tiresome to read.
Long post warning.
It now seems to me that Afridi fans start with the assumption that he is Afridi, and then work backwards to justify his cricketing merit.
Random Aussie said:
On the YUVI, I think there is an element of IPL in all this. He doesn't NEED to be Test player, he would have to work hard to be a test player, he doesn't NEED to work hard to make a lot of money and be a celeb.
Yuvraj was soft before the IPL. It was clear from looking at his game.*
Just rehashing my old theory; success in Test cricket is to me like trying to set up a three legged stool or tripod. You need talent, opportunity and pure bloody minded
will to make it.
Without any of the three legs, you will just see that tripod wobble, fail and fall repeatedly, no matter how talented you are. In fact if I had my way, I'd have all players somehow tested for that third quality,
will (defined as grit, application, concentration, mental stamina and focus), before they played a Test.
Of course you cannot do it, but Australia gets as close to it as anyone. The number of years spent in the immensely competitive grindhouse of FC cricket means that anyone who steps into the Test arena wearing the Aussie colours almost always has
will in spades.
The mental aspect of the game, so often spoken about is also so often so easily dismissed when people discuss cricketers, especially their favourite cricketers.
For, this is Test cricket, where you have to be good over five days; five days of application when ten seconds could irretrievably change the game. How many times have we seen in the past that outrageously talented cricketers fail outrageously, with how many players?
Vinod Kambli is a classic example; had immense, SRT like talent; had opportunity, but was sadly lacking in
will. Sadanand Viswanath, same problem.
Is it a surprise that both players had near similar celebrity lifestyles (Vishy had a drinking problem) even though they were from different cricketing generations, the same exaggerated talents but the same dismal outcomes? Yuvraj Singh seems to be just that type of personality.
On the other hand, people rightly idolize geniuses such as SRT, but see on the outrageous talent, and often miss the third leg of the tripod, SRT's
will to do well, the hard mental yards he puts in the game. Gavaskar was exactly the same.
To me Miandad of Pakistan was the embodiment of
will. The man just had no give in him.
In real life, in India and Pakistan, we often call people of this type
keedas (insects). People who wear you down, bore you to death, because of their persistence. But, ironically, the quality that is shunned in real life is fundamental to success in cricket. From his demeanor, I would not be caught dead in a bar with Simon Katich; but I would back him to play a game of Test cricket. Similarly, but not exactly alike, Paul Collingwood,
Success in Test cricket is a lot like long term success in real life, except that Test cricket is fairer than real life. The charlatans, the merely lucky and the weak
willed are exposed in short order, whereas in real life that often does not happen.
When I see younger fans idolizing cricketers, I see them making the same (in my very humble opinion) errors of judgment I did a long time ago with new players, i.e. giving talent more importance than the attribute they cannot see, and is difficult if not impossible to judge from afar, but should try to -
will.
Of course I am neither seer not oracle. I get it wrong as many times as I get it right. But, based on my experience, some players just stand out. I backed Gambhir before he cemented his spot in India's Test team because it seemed to me that he had
will.
I thought Tamim Iqbal had it, from the moment he stepped out to hit Zaheer over his head in that WC ODI years ago. Not his obvious talent; but something about the way he carried himself.
I would be interested to see how Umar Akmal and Rohit Sharma pan out. Both have had problems of discipline (Sharma fitness is an issue that reflects very badly on him), but both have also shown, to me (Sharma recently) some signs that they have the
will.
Shahid Afridi does not have the will; he has never had it, not matter his obvious talent. I base that judgment on many things he has said and done in his career. One remark of his sticks in my mind; paraphrasing him, Afridi said something to the effect that 'he tries to be focused but when he goes to bat the expectations of the crowd gets to him and he starts to try and hit sixes'. This was said, IIRC, when he had been playing in Pakistani colours for a decade!
That was when it was obvious to me; Afridi did not have the
will. You cannot survive in Test cricket without talent, obviously. But all things being equal,
will is going to get you more games than any talent you may have.
*Test cricket, the only form of the game that really matters.
)
.....he wasnt fat...??was he??/ or fat and deadly?
