Cricketers who wasted their talents

[Richard]

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.

Nothing has ever had anything to do with Test cricket. Completely different game. A player's Test credentials make precisely 0 impact on his ODI ones.

Nick Knight, Neil Fairbrother and Graeme Hick were most certainly in the 2nd tier of best ODI players of the modern era. It's ridiculous, really, to suggest they aren't, or to try and blur the two game-forms, or to say there's only "good" and "not good" so far as calibre is concerned. You could probably group players into 4 or 5 tiers at least.

The top tier consists of very few. Knight, Hick and Fairbrother do come fairly close to that top tier, but they don't have a place in it. They belong in the 2nd, alongside such players as Mark Waugh, Martyn, Gilchrist, Symonds, Kirsten, Smith, Twose, Gayle, Chanderpaul, Jayasuriya, Atapattu, Aravinda, Azharuddin, Dravid, Jadeja, Yuvraj Singh, Yousuf and Johnson.

 

[Sanz]

Nick Knight, Neil Fairbrother and Graeme Hick were most certainly in the 2nd tier of best ODI players of the modern era. It's ridiculous, really, to suggest they aren't, or to try and blur the two game-forms, or to say there's only "good" and "not good" so far as calibre is concerned. You could probably group players into 4 or 5 tiers at least..

2nd Tier of the best is different from Best. Thanks for making the clarification. And no they dont come anywhere close to the top tier.

 

[steplo]

Nothing has ever had anything to do with Test cricket. Completely different game. A player's Test credentials make precisely 0 impact on his ODI ones.

Nick Knight, Neil Fairbrother and Graeme Hick were most certainly in the 2nd tier of best ODI players of the modern era. It's ridiculous, really, to suggest they aren't, or to try and blur the two game-forms, or to say there's only "good" and "not good" so far as calibre is concerned. You could probably group players into 4 or 5 tiers at least.

The top tier consists of very few. Knight, Hick and Fairbrother do come fairly close to that top tier, but they don't have a place in it. They belong in the 2nd, alongside such players as Mark Waugh, Martyn, Gilchrist, Symonds, Kirsten, Smith, Twose, Gayle, Chanderpaul, Jayasuriya, Atapattu, Aravinda, Azharuddin, Dravid, Jadeja, Yuvraj Singh, Yousuf and Johnson.

You are jokeing about Fairbrother are'nt you?

 

[Richard]

2nd Tier of the best is different from Best. Thanks for making the clarification. And no they dont come anywhere close to the top tier.

The 2nd tier is being fit to rank with most people. Which is exactly what I said ITFP...

 

[Richard]

You are jokeing about Fairbrother are'nt you?

Nope. How many of his ODIs for England do you remember?

(Given that he only played briefly after 1996, I'd guess not many, though I may be wrong)

 

[grant28]

nathan bracken in tests.
rikki clarke possibly. this will cause a debate i know.
mark ramprakash the biggest wasted talent.
chris lewis.
tino best.

 

[shortpitched713]

nathan bracken in tests.

Didn't really waste its talent, the competition in Australia wasted it for him. That is to say there are clearly a few better options.

rikki clarke possibly. this will cause a debate i know.

Never had any to begin with.

mark ramprakash the biggest wasted talent.

Mental weakness let him down.

chris lewis.

Didn't have all that much cricket specific talent, if that makes any sense.

tino best.

See Rikki Clarke, unless you consider directionless skiddy pace to be a talent.

 

[Richard]

Haha. Clarke does have talent with the bat IMO. Perhaps a bit of a lesser man's Watson in that his bowling - mostly pretty mediocre - gets too much consideration, and impedes on the fact that he's actually a pretty darn good batsman in the longer form of the game.

Unlike Watson, though, he's mostly done awfully for England A; this is probably the only reason he hasn't played (proper) Tests.

Best, on the other hand, was indeed pretty bare in the ability cupboard. The ability to bowl Beamers and have virtually no-one notice any repetetiveness in them was his greatest talent.

 

[bond21]

man stop comparing fairbrother, nick knight and hick to much better batsman such as gilchrist, mark waugh etc.

Gilchrist, Waugh and Hayden are certainly top class one day players, putting them in the same group as gayle and ur three bosom buddies is just insulting.

 

[SJS]

Salim Durrani tops my list. He had the potential to be one of the greatest amongst that rare category of cricketers, the complete all rounder but he was just not serious about it.

 

[irfan]

Dwayne Smith. Poor man's Afridi -batting wise and like Afridi probably more useful with the ball which is indicative of the state of his batting considering his bowling is handy mediums at best.

 

[Richard]

man stop comparing fairbrother, nick knight and hick to much better batsman such as gilchrist, mark waugh etc.

It is very debatable whether Gilchrist is as good as any of Knight, Hick and Fairbrother (I'd say he wasn't as good as any), and if Mark Waugh is better (which I'd say he is) it's not a "much".

This in ODIs only, obviously. The fact that the Australian duo were better than any of the English three in Tests will naturally cloud the thinking of the simple-minded.

 

[Flem274*]

I've always been annoyed by the wildcards in ODI's. Sure they can win games but they can also get out early quite often and put your team under unneccessary pressure. As a supporter of an incredibly inconsistent team the last thing I like to see is the use of these wildcarrds. I would pick a Nick Knight over Adam Gilchrist any day of the week.

 

[Pup Clarke]

D'ya mean like a manufactured opener?

 

[Flem274*]

D'ya mean like a manufactured opener?

Well not exactly, Jayasuria is a true blue opener but he isn't the most consistent player to bat in cricket. I'm more meaning people who are selected on their ability to be unpredictable and take games away from the opposition. I like to see consistency in a batting and bowling line up.

However after watching Fleming and numerous other middle order NZ players struggling after being forced to open I am a passionate hater of manufactured openers.

 

[Richard]

You might be interested to know that Jayasuriya actually started his cricket career as a middle-order batsman and left-arm fingerspinner. Only after Arjuna Ranatunga suggested opening might be a good idea did he try it, and found-out he was actually quite good.

Nonetheless, his Test record is a pretty clear indication that he has problems aplenty with quality seam and swing. He's not an opener of the very top class, even in ODIs (though if you want someone to pillage a rubbish attack there's no-one, and I mean no-one, better), but he is that rare thing - a manufactured opener that worked at least to some degree.

 

[Flem274*]

You might be interested to know that Jayasuriya actually started his cricket career as a middle-order batsman and left-arm fingerspinner. Only after Arjuna Ranatunga suggested opening might be a good idea did he try it, and found-out he was actually quite good.

Nonetheless, his Test record is a pretty clear indication that he has problems aplenty with quality seam and swing. He's not an opener of the very top class, even in ODIs (though if you want someone to pillage a rubbish attack there's no-one, and I mean no-one, better), but he is that rare thing - a manufactured opener that worked at least to some degree.

OK then, I need a new example. Chris Gayle. Or is he manufactured too?

Interesting info there Richard.

 

[Pup Clarke]

OK then, I need a new example. Chris Gayle. Or is he manufactured too?

No, as far as I'm aware Chris Gayle has always been an opener.

 

[pup11]

Nick knight was a good odi player but there is noway he is better than Gilchrist, Gilchrist is one of the most destructive batsman in the history of the game and his record speaks for itself, he has scored 15 odi centuries and Australia have won comfortably on each of those 15 occasions, and i can dare say Australia would have also won more than 70% of the time when he has scored a fifty.
As far as Gilchrist's inconsistency is concerned, Gilly has got a role in the Australian side and that is to get them off to a flying start, so he has got a license to go beserk at the top of order and while doing so there is every chance he would be a little inconsistent and we tend to forget that he is also a wicket-keeper so after keeping for 50 overs its not the easiest thing in the world to go and open the innings.

 

[Richard]

OK then, I need a new example. Chris Gayle. Or is he manufactured too?

Interesting info there Richard.

No, as far as I'm aware Chris Gayle has always been an opener.

Yes, would work well.

Knight > Gayle by so far surely even the Fierys of this World would not dispute?