Players Who Went Downhill After Excellent Starts To Their Test Careers

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

one of the finest padders of spin, more like....


don't get me wrong, he was very effective with his "technique", but the finest players of spin read the spinner's hand, bring into play their footwork and strokeplay, not just deliberately pad 5 balls and then sweep/slog-sweep the 6th one....

Did he get out to many spinners? Did he not score buckets against them? If you can resist quality spin and score runs whilst doing so, you're a top player of spin IMO. I don't care if you're attacking them or defending them, it's the same for my point in Test cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

in a big way
i was someone who thought he should have been in Australia's WC 2003 squad, but in tests he didnt cut it after an excellent start to his career, which was a shame, cause hes an excellent batsman...

2 hundreds in his first couple of Test no? A century on debut? Going on memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[SquidAU]

2 hundreds in his first couple of Test no? A century on debut? Going on memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Thats right. 112 in Adelaide against England in 1995 and then 114 (i think) in Perth in the next test. Got 67 (I think) in his next test in the tour to the Windies. Not much for a little while, got a few 99's, got a double (214) against South Africa in South Africa and faded from there. I think his last game in tests was against Pakistan in 1999/2000.

Don't think he played that many ODI's though.....

 

[Anil]

Did he get out to many spinners? Did he not score buckets against them? If you can resist quality spin and score runs whilst doing so, you're a top player of spin IMO. I don't care if you're attacking them or defending them, it's the same for my point in Test cricket.

i did say he was very effective against them, but imo, he was an average batsman who overperformed in those situations aided as you correctly pointed out, by a solid temperament...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

i did say he was very effective against them, but imo, he was an average batsman who overperformed in those situations aided as you correctly pointed out, by a solid temperament...

I think Jimmy Adams in his prime was above average. As stated above, he was shaken up by a serious injury and fell out of his prime younger than he probably would have, but he was a very good batsman before then.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Don't think he played that many ODI's though.....

Ah, but he played 32 of 'em.

551 runs @ 20.40 and 14 wickets @ 46.14 (5.17 econ) is distinctly unAustralian though.

 

[Tom Halsey]

2 hundreds in his first couple of Test no? A century on debut? Going on memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

He said that in his post...

 

[Anil]

I think Jimmy Adams in his prime was above average. As stated above, he was shaken up by a serious injury and fell out of his prime younger than he probably would have, but he was a very good batsman before then.

ok let's agree to disagree then...from what i saw of him when he was going great guns...he was a very limited batsman but with amazing temperament and an ability to battle it out under pressure....what i meant to say was that his resolve and determination were well above average, his skills were pretty average....that's what i meant by him overperforming...anyway....

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He said that in his post...

Er my post was before the post that mentioned that.

My post responded to " in a big way
i was someone who thought he should have been in Australia's WC 2003 squad, but in tests he didnt cut it after an excellent start to his career, which was a shame, cause hes an excellent batsman..."

Problems reading?

 

[Mister Wright]

Thats right. 112 in Adelaide against England in 1995 and then 114 (i think) in Perth in the next test. Got 67 (I think) in his next test in the tour to the Windies. Not much for a little while, got a few 99's, got a double (214) against South Africa in South Africa and faded from there. I think his last game in tests was against Pakistan in 1999/2000.

Don't think he played that many ODI's though.....

Blewett's last test was the 2nd test v New Zealand in 2000, he was replaced by Hayden for the 3rd test.

 

[mavric41]

Blewett's last test was the 2nd test v New Zealand in 2000, he was replaced by Hayden for the 3rd test.

And wasn't that an inspired decision.

 

[Mister Wright]

And wasn't that an inspired decision.

Indeed it was. The last memory I will have of Blewett is smashing the stumps after getting out.

 

[Richard]

And wasn't that an inspired decision.

Not until the next time they played New Zealand, no.
For a long while it looked like another false-Taylor, then came 2001\02 and flat wickets and dropped catches...

 

[Richard]

ok let's agree to disagree then...from what i saw of him when he was going great guns...he was a very limited batsman but with amazing temperament and an ability to battle it out under pressure....what i meant to say was that his resolve and determination were well above average, his skills were pretty average....that's what i meant by him overperforming...anyway....

Resolve and determination are both very important skills in batting - maybe he didn't have the biggest palette in The World but his shot-selection was fantastic - and that's what ultimately makes the difference: not how many shots you have, but how good you are at choosing the right one regularly.
Jimmy Adams was a fantastic player, whether defensive or aggressive, before an acute decline which Liam now informs me was probably casued by injury.

 

[Richard]

No one has time to read all your posts.

Hmm, they have the time if they make it.
Of course, plenty would prefer skim-read and not notice the number of things I actually get right.

Yasir and Rudolph anyone? Should their achievements be counted Richard?

Not those in their first 3 and 2 Tests respectively, no.
Rudolph has been pretty good of late; he had a terrible start, but has begun at least to turn it around.
IMO Pakistan's selectors are wholly stupid to attempt to turn Yasir into a Test-match opener when he's done pretty well at three; maybe in ODIs he can open, but not in Tests IMO.

 

[PAKMAN]

mohammad zahid ,ali naqwi,basit ali

 

[Top_Cat]

I think Jimmy Adams in his prime was above average. As stated above, he was shaken up by a serious injury and fell out of his prime younger than he probably would have, but he was a very good batsman before then.

Same thing happened to Phil Symmonds; he was decked in a English CC game by David Lawrence. Was never the same player again and he was highly rated before that happened.

Jimmy 'Paddams' was a superb player of spin in his early days. I believe he had a Test average of about 60 at one stage. I used to like watching him bat in the early days.

 

[Beleg]

Azhar Mahmood's fall is just stupendous, specially in the batting department.
Oh Jimmy Adams was a pretty clever batsman when it suited him.
There was one Indian Dude, Sadagopen Ramesh. I was really impressed by his game in 1999-00 but he seems to have vanished into thin air....
There was John Crowley for England, in the Jimmy Adams mould for me. Could be extremely competative and frustrating at all the wrong times. And there was that West-Indian, Phillo Wallace, seemed like a pretty capable dude when I last watched him in 2000.

But perhaps the biggest disappointment for me has been Saqlain Mushtaq.

 

[Scaly piscine]

John Crawley didn't really go downhill or have an excellent start, he was just a decent County batsman who inevitably got superseded at Test level.

 

[superkingdave]

John Crawley didn't really go downhill or have an excellent start, he was just a decent County batsman who inevitably got superseded at Test level.

Slightly more than a decent county batsman

His test career was also hardly a disaster, he was limited when he arrived on the scene but, without setting the world alight, he was unlucky not to play more test cricket than he did given the chances given to some of his peers.

But i agree he shouldn't be included in this topic