Not Another 'Ash' Thread

[Rubu]

Well, I'm getting kinda bored with all the ash talks, as it seems thats all we have been talking about for ages.

On the other hand, we have talked about what is "form" and what is "technique". I'm interested to know you guys' view about 'talent'. What is talent? Is it same as technique? if yes what way, and if not what way? how is it related to form?

express your view (bring in 'ash' only if you MUST, not otherwise)

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Rubu
Well, I'm getting kinda bored with all the ash talks, as it seems thats all we have been talking about for ages.

On the other hand, we have talked about what is "form" and what is "technique". I'm interested to know you guys' view about 'talent'. What is talent? Is it same as technique? if yes what way, and if not what way? how is it related to form?

express your view (bring in 'ash' only if you MUST, not otherwise)

well, looking at the Ashes series so far, as well as the way India have crashed in back to back games in South Africa, it is quite apparent that one team is quite a bit more talented than the other. so we know that talent is a real entity in cricket.

when aftab smashes a drive between cover and point, you know the kid has talent. similarily, when anwar bowls his usual trash, its apparent to everyone and their ashy grandma, that he is wading at the shallow end of the talent pool.

i would say this though...form is a situational, day to day thing. kind of like hunger: you don't always have it, and it can dissappear as soon as it appears. also, form and talent have little correlation between them, and no absolute relationship. i.e. a player with no talent could be in great form, and a player in terrible form could be a great talent (reminds me of a certain player who is talked about on BC more than all others combined, but ironically, i just can't remember his name). the relation between technique and talent is more complex.

you have to have some amount of technique to have talent, but one could have great technique with less talent. but then wouldn't that be a talent in and of itself? i would say yes.

in the end i would rashly define talent as some quality one has which is rare. everyone can paint, even children with Down's Syndrome. but not everyone is a Leonardo, or a Michaelangelo. their talent, is that they had something rare. you cannot measure it with a device, but you can see it at work.

in this sense, many of our players are highly talented (just as talented as any other international great). but they don't have the resources available, the senior players to mentor them, or that all-consuming desire to be great. they must not just be satisfied to be a national team core player. they shouldn't even be interested in success. they must be obsessed with it. driven by it. it should be the reason they wake up in morning. they should feel that without success, they are zeroes.

sorry, rubu bhai, as much as i tried, ash came up several times. he's just so damn pervasive...

[Hatebreed]

Talent is your natural abilities and qualities. A talented individual is instinctively good at things, i.e. a talented player is a natural performer. It’s constant and lasting, something you’re born with. It can be discovered and utilised, but can’t be developed or learned as opposed to knowledge or skills.