Biggest Under achievers XI (tests)

[Zinzan]

Those very talented current or past players who never reached their potential at test level though mental fraility,injury or any other reason. Players who had the ability to be much better than their test records suggest.

Test XI
AAMER SOHAIL- many thought as talented as Anwar
KEN RUTHERFORD - Great natural ability, Terrible test record
GRAEME HICK - does anything else need to be said of Hicks failure at test level
GREG RICHIE - fat cat oozed class, but always found lazy ways to get out
MARK RAMPRAKASH - Often looked class, record suggests differently
CARL HOOPER- was supposed to be the next Richards
ANDREW FLINTOFF - (up til 2003) - Is just starting to fulfill pontential
ADAM PARORE (wk) -Talent to be batsmen alone, still just averaged 25
CHRIS LEWIS - thought of as the next Botham in late 80s until he played test cricket
BRETT LEE - May have successful return to test cricket, but up til now has been poor
DEVON MALCOLM - could be devastating when he could be bothered concentrating

12th man : S. AKTAR - Didn't make starting line-up as he has bowled the odd match winning spell

I'll do my alltime under achievers One day side soon..

Have I missed anyone abvious??

 

[slugger]

Mathew Sinclair:
started his career with 2 double century's and a nice 150 against a strong sth African team. When NZ are having troubles he's the first dropped and strangely replaced by a bowler. Go figure.

 

[a massive zebra]

Daren Ganga has the technique to score runs against anyone, as he has shown in Australia, yet his record is embarrassing because he cannot overcome mental problems. Mohammad Ashraful, possibly the most talented young batsman in the world, only occasionally shows what he is capable of and averages just 25. Going back a long way, C.B.Fry averaged over 50 in first class cricket but really struggled at Test level. Michael Bevan, a great one day player, averages more than any current Australian in First class cricket but couldn't cut it in Tests.

 

[Zinzan]

Mathew Sinclair:
started his career with 2 double century's and a nice 150 against a strong sth African team. When NZ are having troubles he's the first dropped and strangely replaced by a bowler. Go figure.

Never thought Sinclair had the natural talent or Technique to be considered for my above list. I actually think he has great powers of concentration (as shown by his 3 big test scores) thus IMO doesn't fit the criteria

 

[James90]

Alok Kapali - Awesome technique, solid as a rock, all the shots in the book, magnificent timer of the ball but lacks confidence and his average in both forms of the game have dropped below 20.

 

[Adamc]

Not an under-achiever per se as he played 10 Tests and averaged 47+, but Vijay Merchant could have been one of the greats of Test cricket. Played 150 FC games, averaging a phenomenal 71.64 (2nd to Bradman) with 45 hundreds.

 

[slugger]

depends how you measure talent.

 

[honestbharani]

Hooper
Kambli
HIck
Inzamam (I still consider him an underachiever)
Franklyn Rose

 

[BoyBrumby]

Mark Butcher. When in full-flow he can be a joy to behold. He has a far better technique than other left-handers like Smith, Chanderpaul or Ganguly who all average far more than him in tests. Unfortunately he is prone to schoolboy lapses in concentration when well set.

An average of 34 and a half isn't enough to warrant the retention of a bloke who's 33 this year.

 

[masterblaster]

I'd take Andrew Flintoff out and put Ajit Agarkar in.

 

[Link]

simon jones, mark butcher, ganguly, mark boucher, ashley giles, and amazingly i think lara has the ability to improve his average, he has done before

 

[Langeveldt]

Brett Schultz (talented left armer, injury ridden IIRC)
Daren Ganga (best technique after Dravid? No runs... I adore watching him bat, but its usually brief!)
Boeta Dippenaar
Martin van Jaarsveld
Chris Schofield (never going to be a Warne, but surely he should have been more than 1 test??)

 

[BoyBrumby]

Chris Schofield (never going to be a Warne, but surely he should have been more than 1 test??)

It was: he played 2!

 

[Langeveldt]

It was: he played 2!

Was i confused with the number of wickets he took?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Was i confused with the number of wickets he took?

Ah, that'd be 0 then!

 

[Langeveldt]

Ah, that'd be 0 then!

Crikey!

 

[Link]

i would have liked to see him feature more often

 

[neutralguy]

How about mohammed sami. When he burst on scene pakistan thought that they had another waqar.Hasn't justified his potential yet and looks pretty much like normal bowler till now.

 

[neutralguy]

And talking of ajit agarkar.Once he was talked of having great potential.Now people question, whether does he have any potential at all?? A great enigma, no wonder.

 

[a massive zebra]

How about mohammed sami. When he burst on scene pakistan thought that they had another waqar.Hasn't justified his potential yet and looks pretty much like normal bowler till now.

I wouldn't say he is an underachiever but rather an overrated unintelligent individual, and proof that pace alone is not enough at the highest level.

These days many bowlers are selected for international teams on the basis of their pace alone, with little or no attention paid towards their performances in domestic cricket or their accuracy - Mohammed Sami is one, Simon Jones, Brett Lee and Ian Butler also deserve a mention.

The most effective pace bowlers since the late 90s, like McGrath and Pollock, have been more focused on putting the ball in the right place ball after ball, with a little movement, rather than trying to break the speed barrier. Many of the fastest bowlers compromise accuracy for extra speed and thus become expensive as a result, yet they still get selected over more accurate bowlers with less pace, who usually perform better. The selectors seem to ignore the principle that speed minus accuracy equals waywardness, and line and length at reasonable pace equals reliability. To many international selectors, pace is everything, and the ability to take wickets cheaply is not.