Gautam Gambhir or Phil Hughes?

[pcfan123]

Because Hughes is not Indian :sarcasm

 

[Dare]

Because Hughes is not Indian :sarcasm

was thinking the same.

 

[SaiSrini]

How do you know that if Hughes played as many matches as Gambhir that he wouldn't have a better record and be a batter batsman?

I have heard that Hughes does not have a very good technique (although I havent watched him), whereas Gambhir's technique is very good (he has rectified his initial flaw of going far too across the wicket to get LBW often).

saisrini80 added 1 Minutes and 10 Seconds later...

was thinking the same.

Forecasters, eh?:sarcasm

 

[pcfan123]

Chanderpaul, KP and countless others dont have text book technique either.

 

[Dare]

I have heard that Hughes does not have a very good technique (although I havent watched him), whereas Gambhir's technique is very good (he has rectified his initial flaw of going far too across the wicket to get LBW often).

well you would have to see Hughes then and make up your mind then.
Yea he had flaws and still does but he worked some of them out and continues to work on them.
Just like Gambhir he can work out his flaws and become a solid opener for the Aussies.

Forecasters, eh?:sarcasm

na just too much common sense.

 

[SaiSrini]

Chanderpaul, KP and countless others dont have text book technique either.

I could only use technique when predicting about a batsman's future. I know many batsmen with average techniques have proved people wrong (especially one Mr. Saurav Ganguly), but when predicting, its a major thing that is used to predict.

Hughes has been impressive but not as good as Gambhir has been (and I am not saying it just because am an Indian).

 

[Dare]

Well Gambhirs career started average I would say with only one good score against a quality side. But he worked on his game in domestic cricket like Hughes is being told to now and now Gambhir is one of the best batsman in cricket with I think 4 consecutive hundreds.

 

[Howsie]

I'll have to think about this one, Gambhir.

 

[pcfan123]

:sarcasmGambhir had 1 century in his 1st 3 years, averaging in the low 30s/high 20s. Its only the last 2 years that he has arrived as a batsman. But I guess Sarininini would have predicted Gambhirs succes in his 1st 2 torrid years.

 

[SaiSrini]

:sarcasmGambhir had 1 century in his 1st 3 years, averaging in the low 30s/high 20s. Its only the last 2 years that he has arrived as a batsman. But I guess Sarininini would have predicted Gambhirs succes in his 1st 2 torrid years.

Who is that?? Just went through the Members section and didnt find anyone by that name. Havent you made a mistake with my name even before? Seems like its on purpose (which is a cheap way to show your sarcasm).

Yes, I never thought Gambhir would convert his domestic consistency into international cricket. He was incredibly consistent in domestic cricket and he scored big hundreds there too, but now he has brought that into intl cricket too and has corrected his technique.

 

[jkartik]

pfft. the answer is obvious!

 

[Cricketdude]

pfft. the answer is obvious!

Gambhir is hopeless?

That was pretty bad.

 

[Dare]

Gambhir is hopeless?

more like Gambhir is miles ahead at this moment. Better comparison would be Smith, Strauss, Gambhir

 

[jkartik]

Gambhir is hopeless?

wait.....what ??

 

[Cricketdude]

The reason I made this poll is because they both have similiar records, meaning their tests are way ahead of their OD.