Udal looking forwards

[Richard]

We're working in a pretty short timeframe, aren't we? It usually takes more than a few months to be proven wrong on a prediction as broad as a player's whole career and ability as a cricketer. Given that you rubbish everyone though, I'd imagine you'll be wrong eventually.

Asif is a name that springs to mind of a guy who's bowled brilliantly recently that I seem to recall you trashing in the past. Flintoff obviously you blasted for a long time, and I can't imagine you liked Simon Jones much given his first class average.

No, I didn't. I've only "liked" Jones since last summer. Before then he was decidedly average (and who knows - he might become so again). Clearly, though, since 2001\02 (the first time his unusual ability with reverse-swing was revealed) it's been clear to most people that he had potential.
I changed tack on Flintoff the moment he started bowling well, you may notice.
I certainly haven't "rubbished everyone" - see, for a recent example, Munaf Patel. I said immidiately that he bowled well on his Test debut, and I thought he looked likely to pretty much from his opening spell.
And don't get into "oh, he's got a good First-Class average - you're bound to like him" - yes, that's not something I've denied. I don't think someone who has a poor First-Class average is remotely likely to be a good Test player. And it's no coincidence that when players are brought in with poor First-Class records, they usually do poorly.
With Clarke, as another example, you'll notice I quietly pointed-out his 398-for-once-out, thereby hinting that I wondered whether he might, just maybe, have turned some corner or other.
First-Class records aren't as simple as just a whole career - any more than Tests are.
Generally, if someone comes into Test cricket and does poorly, I'll rubbish them. I rarely, if ever, though, say "he doesn't have potential", because that's a very dangerous thing indeed to say. It's so easy to be wrong if you say that.
I do, of course, say things like "fingerspinners will never be successful in Australia" and if any of Hauritz, Doherty, Cullen, whoever do that much I'll fully admit to being wrong on that score but... funny thing... I can't remember the last time Australia had a fingerspinner who amounted to much.
I've also said that quality wristspinners are rare, and as such I don't rate MacGill too highly and I don't think it's too likely that players like Bailey and Casson are going to do too much.
Australia, in the entire 20th (and very early 21st) century have had 4 - no more - great wristspinners. They've had a few average ones (Mailey, MacGill, Holland, Hohns, O'Keeffe, etc.) and doubtless plenty of others who've come nowhere near Test standard.
How many batsmen or seamers have I said "he'll never be successful in Test cricket" or even come close to saying it?

[Richard]

you've lost it.

How could you said Panesar did nothing & it was a waste or time picking him & England were better off picking Blackwell to get slogged , come on now.

You are sounding as if you didn't see a ball he bowled in India & you are making your arguement on stats. I cant tell you this for the majority he was very accurate hardly bowled bad spells, at this stage he doesn't have much variation & at times i felt the Indian batsmen got accustomed to his on dimensional bowling. But his contribution on the tour was far from useless

Was it? I see that he did little worthwhile. I think he'd have been much better served in West Indies.
I think people talked him up as if he'd bowled better than he did - just because of the fact that everyone's already decided that he's England's great hope for the next great spinner since Underwood.
The fact is, the days of fingerspinners being great bowlers in England have gone. And even a Sikh (yes, people DO generalise that Sikhs make better fingerspinners than anyone else) can't change that.

[FaaipDeOiad]

How many batsmen or seamers have I said "he'll never be successful in Test cricket" or even come close to saying it?

I'd say calling someone "rubbish" is a pretty close thing to saying they'll never be successful. For example, I think Jon Lewis at international level is "rubbish". Not that he needs time to improve or he needs to work on one aspect of his bowling or anything, I just think he's not good enough and shouldn't play at the highest level. I think, say, Fidel Edwards isn't a very good bowler at the moment, but he's got some potential and could become good, but I wouldn't bet on it. I think that Michael Clarke has a way to go at this time, but he has so much potential that I'd back him to have significant success in test cricket (obviously he's already there in ODIs).

When someone starts their career and you immediately come out and call them crap, you can hardly turn around 6 months later and say "well I didn't say they'd ALWAYS be crap". Potential is something that you notice aside from performance. Michael Clarke didn't have a great first class average, but most people could see he was a class act from the moment he arrived on the international scene. He had some flaws obviously, and some work to do, but the way he settled in to ODI cricket and the way he performed for Australia A and in his early tests just oozed class, and you can see exactly why he was picked from the very start. That's potential, and that's what say Shane Warne had, no matter how poorly he bowled in his first couple of games. That's why Allan Border insisted that he stay in the team at all costs, and why it's stupid to say someone isn't any good because they have a few bad games at the start of their career, which is what you seem to do all the time. You attacked Flintoff constantly while others defended his potential, and now that he is living up to it you can hardly claim you never suggested it wasn't going to happen.

Anyway, in terms of specific examples, I'd offer Shaun Tait, Michael Clarke and Steve Harmison - all guys who could be good that you've written off consistently for some time now.

[Richard]

As I say, I certainly haven't written-off Clarke. I said for some time that he was nowhere near as good as some people made-out, and I was proven right on that as far as I'm concerned. From his 6th Test onwards he's been pretty dreadful, and I think I was justified in saying he was picked prematurely, when he did not merit a place. I have now said I find it interesting to note he's made 398-for-once-out - thereby hinting at something like an improvement.
I will indeed be astonished if Harmison ever makes anything as a Test bowler (of course, some would claim he already has, and that's a problem in itself) and I wouldn't be remotely surprised, given what I've seen of Tait, if he doesn't either.
You'd be interested to know, though, that I've thought Harmison had potential from the first time I saw him, as a 20-year-old in 1999. But bowling like he's bowling at present (and has always done) he's never going to be a success.
Fact is, I'm always pretty careful what I say. Just because you might like to say "ha! you said he was rubbish and now as you can see he's not!" doesn't mean there's any justification in saying so.
As I say - it's quite deliberate on my part never to completely write-off ANYONE. It is, though, very common on my part to say someone's rubbish early on in their Test career - because very often people are. Some (like Mohammad Kaif and Michael Atherton) are picked too early and I say something like "he's never going to be a success at just 19 \ when only a month out of Uni". I don't say "he's rubbish" in cases like those. I do if someone's been picked after a few seasons doing not much, or if they've had half a good season and happend to perform on a couple of televised matches (Blackwell).
I also say that some players (eg fingerspinners in Australia) are very unlikely to be successes because there are some general rules of cricketdom which seldom if ever are defied.
I'd say it's quite justified to call people like Fidel Edwards and Jermaine Lawson "rubbish" because they are - simple as. At the moment. Someone like Tino Best I've said time and again that he'll almost certainly never amount to anything because of his poor attitude. I've said the same about Runako Morton - but Liam informs me Trinidad has made him a changed person. For me, there's some mud that... almost... never comes off. I'll still be somewhat surprised if Morton has a successful career, at any professional, never mind international, level.
I use "is rubbish" in a different way to most people. I only very rarely stick my neck on the block and say "I reckon he's gonna be good, even though he's rubbish now". People who did that with Flintoff have been rewarded; I was more doubtful and have had to change my views.
But if I say "he's rubbish", there's NEVER any perminance to it, because you can never say never in cricket.

[marc71178]

Asif is a name that springs to mind of a guy who's bowled brilliantly recently that I seem to recall you trashing in the past. Flintoff obviously you blasted for a long time, and I can't imagine you liked Simon Jones much given his first class average.

He didn't.

[marc71178]

I changed tack on Flintoff the moment he started bowling well, you may notice.

No you didn't.

You changed tack about 2 years afterwards.

[marc71178]

And don't get into "oh, he's got a good First-Class average - you're bound to like him" - yes, that's not something I've denied. I don't think someone who has a poor First-Class average is remotely likely to be a good Test player.

Trescothick, Vaughan, S Jones, Flintoff.

Just 4 examples before you even look at other sides.

[aussie]

I'd say it's quite justified to call people like Fidel Edwards and Jermaine Lawson "rubbish" because they are - simple as.

No its not because neither especially edwards is rubbish, they both have potential to be good fast bowlers they just need the right motivation or whatever else. Edwards was seemingly very impressive in NZ in both the test & ODI's in NZ are from what i've seen of him in test he can become a successful test bowler for WI.

Lawson 7/78 showed that he can do it, but he didn't seem like that down in Australia last november so may be he has lost something.

[aussie]

Was it? I see that he did little worthwhile. I think he'd have been much better served in West Indies.
I think people talked him up as if he'd bowled better than he did - just because of the fact that everyone's already decided that he's England's great hope for the next great spinner since Underwood.
The fact is, the days of fingerspinners being great bowlers in England have gone. And even a Sikh (yes, people DO generalise that Sikhs make better fingerspinners than anyone else) can't change that.

lets just wait & see how he goes in the coming years before we judge him fully.

[Richard]

No you didn't.

You changed tack about 2 years afterwards.

No, I didn't.
Flintoff didn't start bowling remotely well until summer 2004 (regardless of his figures in Sri Lanka and West Indies), and didn't start bowling especially well until summer 2005.

[Richard]

Trescothick, Vaughan, S Jones, Flintoff.

Just 4 examples before you even look at other sides.

Vaughan doesn't have a poor First-Class average - since being picked for England he's averaged in the 50s.
Trescothick has only been anything resembling a Test success due to luck.
Simon Jones is still far from a good Test bowler yet, he's had 1 good series.
Flintoff, last I looked, has barely played any non-Test First-Class cricket since 2003.

[Richard]

No its not because neither especially edwards is rubbish, they both have potential to be good fast bowlers they just need the right motivation or whatever else. Edwards was seemingly very impressive in NZ in both the test & ODI's in NZ are from what i've seen of him in test he can become a successful test bowler for WI.

Lawson 7/78 showed that he can do it, but he didn't seem like that down in Australia last november so may be he has lost something.

To say "lack motivation" is something of a copout - same way it is when people try to use it as an excuse for Harmison.
Quite simply, at the current time they lack ability. Whether they may have it in them to gain that ability is not something I or anyone else can accurately guess. They may - they may not. I'd guess it's less likely than more.

[Richard]

lets just wait & see how he goes in the coming years before we judge him fully.

Might it have been an idea to wait before even selecting him internationally, when he's played a whole 1 full season domestically?
Might it, in fact, have been better to send him on an "A" tour?

[marc71178]

No, I didn't.
Flintoff didn't start bowling remotely well until summer 2004 (regardless of his figures in Sri Lanka and West Indies), and didn't start bowling especially well until summer 2005.

Yes he did, but you refused to accept it.

[Richard]

No, you just refused to accept he wasn't.