Cricketers who wasted their talents

[R_D]

Happens a lot in subcontinent(India/Pak/BD) and not limited to Cricketers, not the fault of cricketers themselves though, it is fault of their parents. There is an age restriction in most governement/Semi-govt jobs in India and hence lot of parents reduce the the age by couple of years when they enroll their kids in school.

Almost every Indian I know has two Birthdays a real one and an official one.

hehehe yeah so true.

mines the other way... in official one i'm a year older than i;m supposed to be

 

[Richard]

So how are Nick Knight, Graeme Hick fit to rank with the best ODI batsmen(e.g. Tendulkar, Richards, Bevan etc) of modern era ?

If you are going to make this kind of claim, people will laugh.

Umm, I was not comparing them to Bevan and Tendulkar.

 

[gettingbetter]

Umm, I was not comparing them to Bevan and Tendulkar.

It does, actually, Nick Knight and Graeme Hick were both superb ODI batsmen, fit to rank with most of the best ODI batsmen of the modern era

Stems from there old boy.

 

[Richard]

The "most" part was pretty carefully inserted - ie, to exclude the very, very best like Bevan, Tendulkar, Ponting, Saeed Anwar, Ganguly, Lara.

Both are fit to rank alongside and above just about anyone else from the post-1990 period, however.

 

[Sanz]

The "most" part was pretty carefully inserted - ie, to exclude the very, very best like Bevan, Tendulkar, Ponting, Saeed Anwar, Ganguly, Lara.

Both are fit to rank alongside and above just about anyone else from the post-1990 period, however.

If these batsmen were not among the above they simply were not the best. You seem to have your own definition of the word 'best'. I know the 'most' part was carefully inserted, so that you could argue to death that you didn't include Tendulkar, Ponting etc in your list ofbest and infact have another list called 'Very best' for them.

The point is that Knight, Fairbrother etc were not among the best batsmen of the modern era and unlike you my best includes Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara, Saeed, sourav etc. You cant have 100 batsmen in your best list.

Anyways care to point the best batsmen of modern era in your list ?

 

[Bouncer]

Happens a lot in subcontinent(India/Pak/BD) and not limited to Cricketers, not the fault of cricketers themselves though, it is fault of their parents. There is an age restriction in most governement/Semi-govt jobs in India and hence lot of parents reduce the the age by couple of years when they enroll their kids in school.

Almost every Indian I know has two Birthdays a real one and an official one.

Spot On, Same in Pakistan.

 

[Goughy]

It's not, though, really. People also talked of Jackson and McCabe being equal to or better than Bradman at their best.

Not saying Hooper wasn't good, BTW, but someone saying "he could be better than *insert name of brilliant player*" happens about as often as the sun rising.

Agree with Richard on this one . So many people say complimentary comparisons that they are virtually worthless. They are usually throw away comments that people unfortunately tend to remember.

Im sure most International cricketers have been tagged the next (insert name) or could have been as good as (insert name) at some stage of their career.

Hell I remember Daffy being compared to Hadlee

 

[Goughy]

My thoughts on a few of the players named

Shoaib- Im not sure I could say his talents have been wasted. Talking to Pakistani guys years ago that played with him, noone expected him to still be around now. The high estimate was on a 5 yr career due to the stresses and strains on the body and injuries. In that regard he has surpassed many peoples expectations.

Caddick- Caddick is a tough one. He certainly had an uneven temprament (sp?) but that also fed his nasty side. Power-puff one day and then a nasty surly bastard the next with the devil in his eye. If he was more balanced then maybe he would have lost that nasty side and not had the capability of destroying line-ups on his day. Interesting situation

Chris Lewis- Not a wasted talent IMO. Was never that much of a cricketer. He was more of an athlete that played cricket than a born cricketer. Never had the depth of skill or abilty to compliment his physical gifts. Would have been close to impossible for him to have achieved much more.

Cork- An over achiever in many ways. Lacked the pace to really worry batsmen but his competetive spirit drove him on to understand his limitations and become a solid Test player

Michael Bevan- Possibly the best batsman I have watched. Cetainly a victim of Aus batting depth but if there is someone in the wings more capable of scoring Test runs then maybe his exclusion was justified.

Alex Tudor- Played against him and know many others that have as well. No quite sure what people expected him to achieve. A tall med-fast bowler that could bat a bit. Certainly nothing special.

Ramprakash- A nervous player that played in a time when English cricket didnt pay much attention to the charater and personality of its players. Almost doomed to fail in the environment he played. Also though he potentially likes being a big fish in a small pond and only fulfills his ability in a relaxed environment. That is hard to replicate in Tests

Hick- See Ramprakash with the addition that he was even more fragile

Afridi- IMO nothing close to a wasted talent. Any top player could have his mediocre average and high strike rate if they chose to play that way every game. The reason they dont is that there are better ways to approach batting. Also the fact that Afridi cannot apply himself in a more traditional role shows his limitations. Somebody whos profile far exceeds their worth

Mushtaq Ahmed- Great bowler, should probably done more. Internal issues surely played a part.

The hard part is that many of these guys have mental strength issues. Not to say they are soft but lack the hardened edge many of the succesful players have. In that regard its hard to see the talent is wasted as they lacked a key element for success in the first place.

 

[pup11]

I think David Hussey is one player whose talent is getting wasted and its hardly his fault its the Aussie selectors who are hell bent to not select him.
Inzi is one player who i think seriously wasted his talent, if only he could have stopped being lazy he could have gone down into the history books as one the greatest batsman in the history of the game.

 

[Perm]

David Hussey doesn't deserve to be picked. I mean, who would you have him replace?

 

[gettingbetter]

Re: Goughy.

It's hard to say about Shoaib. I believe he is a combination of wasted talent and talent wasted - he could of been managed so much better and would of had a much more prosperous career.

Chris Lewis - he's touched heights in the county game that many people would dream of. I'm not sure what people base these decisions on, but using the domestic game is a criteria which I like to use.

 

[pup11]

Shoaib considers himself to bigger than the game itself and when a player starts to think like that then no matter how much talent he is no good for his team.

 

[Richard]

If these batsmen were not among the above they simply were not the best. You seem to have your own definition of the word 'best'. I know the 'most' part was carefully inserted, so that you could argue to death that you didn't include Tendulkar, Ponting etc in your list ofbest and infact have another list called 'Very best' for them.

The point is that Knight, Fairbrother etc were not among the best batsmen of the modern era and unlike you my best includes Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara, Saeed, sourav etc. You cant have 100 batsmen in your best list.

Anyways care to point the best batsmen of modern era in your list ?

So stop arguing semantics just to find the sake of having something to make a silly fuss about.

Knight, Hick and Fairbrother are fit to rank with the likes of the Mark Waughs, Martyns, Gilchrists, Symonds, Kirstens, Smiths, Twoses, Gayles, Chanderpauls, Jayasuriyas, Atapattus, Aravindas, Azharuddins, Dravids, Jadejas, Yuvraj Singhs, Yousufs and Johnsons. And superior to pretty well anyone else.

Not, however, quite in the league of the Bevans, Tendulkars, Inzamams, Pontings, Laras and Kallises.

 

[Goughy]

Chris Lewis - he's touched heights in the county game that many people would dream of. I'm not sure what people base these decisions on, but using the domestic game is a criteria which I like to use.

Not quite sure what you mean by that or how you can draw that conclusion unless you are cribbing directly from Cricinfo .

Lewis could touch the heights few in the county game can reach.

Lewis has a good but certainly not exceptional County record. As I said he was a natural athlete rather than a natural cricketer and that meant he had a relatively low glass ceiling regarding how far he could progress.

His athleticism could carry him so far but a sloppy and loose bowling action and an awkward batting technique meant he didnt have the cricket skills required to succeed at the higher levels.

One of those guys that neither the batting or the bowling was strong enough to carry the other suit. Compared to a guy like Cork his county batting career is better but bowling is worse.

Lewis didnt do anything in CC to signify something special. Rather a guy that could contribute with both bat and ball but wasnt capable of being frontline at either

 

[Richard]

And this interview with him is also quite revealing about Lewis' supposed super-talents.

 

[gettingbetter]

Caught me red-handed. In my defence, I didn't go back to it, its just a quote that I like. Your atheliticism reference is quite similar to eh?

But his FC stats look upon him unfavourably, he should of retired much earlier than he did and he did have some seasons where other players would die for. I'm too busy with assessments to get the filter out, but you do have to acknowledge that he did have the potential to become a good all-rounder.

 

[Richard]

Lewis never even had 2 good seasons on the trot.

As Kev (Goughy) said - not an especially outstanding cricketer. Phillip DeFreitas was almost always far superior to him with ball, and there was little to choose between them with bat.

If there had to be someone who could have done better, it'd be DeFreitas, and that was because he was poorly treated, not because he should have worked harder or done this or that differently. DeFreitas should have been a fixture in home Tests from 1990 onwards, and wasn't.

 

[speirz]

One who came to my mind was Greg Blewett, underperformed IMO for someone who actually got a decent shot in the Australian side.

 

[Sanz]

So stop arguing semantics just to find the sake of having something to make a silly fuss about.

Knight, Hick and Fairbrother are fit to rank with the likes of the Mark Waughs, Martyns, Gilchrists, Symonds, Kirstens, Smiths, Twoses, Gayles, Chanderpauls, Jayasuriyas, Atapattus, Aravindas, Azharuddins, Dravids, Jadejas, Yuvraj Singhs, Yousufs and Johnsons. And superior to pretty well anyone else..

You are the one who is arguing the silly semantics by making categories like 'Very Best' and 'Best' when there is no such thing. If you are going to compare Nick Knight to guys like Yuvraj Singh, Roger Twose, Symonds Jadeja, Gayle etc, who aren't the best in any form of game, I have no problem with your statement, and infact I will go ahead and say that Knight was better than all of them and Hick, Fairbrother were as good.

OTOH guys like Kirsten, Azhar, Aravinda, Waugh, Chanders,Dravid, Gilchrist, Yousuf etc aren't the best because of their ODI performance alone, they are great because of their overall success in international cricket, something Nick Knight didn't achieve.

That leaves us with the 'Creme de la Creme' or the best of the ODI format, ie.guys like Dean Jones, SRT, Sir Richards, Ganguly, Bevan etc and Knight, Hick etc dont even close.

 

[steplo]

This looks like an old thread and I'm new here, but I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned Mathew Elliot from Australia yet, I'll go dig up his stats for you.