Cricketers who wasted their talents

[Richard]

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.

I'd dare say that Gilchrist would probably have been picked as a specialist batsman had he not kept wicket, though, so that's no excuse.

Either way, the Knight-Gilchrist thing has been done to exhaustion not so long ago so I won't go over it all again, but I think that to suggest Gilchrist is unquestionably better you'd have to be:
a) over-simplifying the issue or
b) an Australian fan

 

[Perm]

Yes, would work well.

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

Don't worry, he'd dispute it.

 

[Flem274*]

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.

But when he doesn't get them off to a flying start that puts extra pressure on Ponting to perform. Your next argument "Ponting is such a class act this does not worry him."

What happens if Ponting loses his wicket cheaply? Its bound to happen, and it has. Australia have gotten away with it so far because they must be one of the greatest cricket teams ever. When the side begins to decline however they may not get away with this so much and a few collapses may occur. If you get rid of Jayasuria and Sangakkara early you have a great chance against SL. Likewise Gayle and Lara.

 

[Perm]

But when he doesn't get them off to a flying start that puts extra pressure on Ponting to perform. Your next argument "Ponting is such a class act this does not worry him."

What happens if Ponting loses his wicket cheaply? Its bound to happen, and it has. Australia have gotten away with it so far because they must be one of the greatest cricket teams ever. When the side begins to decline however they may not get away with this so much and a few collapses may occur. If you get rid of Jayasuria and Sangakkara early you have a great chance against SL. Likewise Gayle and Lara.

The class and quality of the Australian batting lineup has contributed more to Gilchrist's effectiveness IMO. Obviously they've had one of the strongest ODI batting lineups of recent times, and some very good players since Gilchrist was pushed up to the top of the order. Since he has had the stability and experience below him, Gilchrist has been able to play in that aggressive nature which has made him so successful. Time to time he'll fail, you can't dispute that, but when he does there will be a class outfit below him, so his failure won't be felt as much.

 

[Flem274*]

The class and quality of the Australian batting lineup has contributed more to Gilchrist's effectiveness IMO. Obviously they've had one of the strongest ODI batting lineups of recent times, and some very good players since Gilchrist was pushed up to the top of the order. Since he has had the stability and experience below him, Gilchrist has been able to play in that aggressive nature which has made him so successful. Time to time he'll fail, you can't dispute that, but when he does there will be a class outfit below him, so his failure won't be felt as much.

Which is what I said is the reason why he's had so much success. As I said however, once the side loses some of its class through retirements and so on hitters at the top are going to become more and more of a liability.

 

[Perm]

Which is what I said is the reason why he's had so much success. As I said however, once the side loses some of its class through retirements and so on hitters at the top are going to become more and more of a liability.

Indeed. But since Gilchrist is going to be on of those classy players who retires shortly, I don't think it matters too much other than in a hypothetical sense

 

[Richard]

In this particular case, no it doesn't. But the general point is a very valid one - a seriously attacking player is often rated automatically superior to a slightly less attacking one, because of the "most people can recognise that genius" crap.

This completely overlooks the fact that such players simply cannot play this way without a very, very fine line-up around\below\above them. If someone has less of such a line-up around them, they're absolutely bound to play slightly, if only slightly, differently. None of these players, be it Richards, Gilchrist or whoever, has had anything less than a phenominal set of batsmen around them pretty much throughout a career.

Hence, to put them automatically, without even really giving the matter much thought, ahead of someone less flamboyant is utterly unfair if you ask me.

 

[Flem274*]

In this particular case, no it doesn't. But the general point is a very valid one - a seriously attacking player is often rated automatically superior to a slightly less attacking one, because of the "most people can recognise that genius" crap.

This completely overlooks the fact that such players simply cannot play this way without a very, very fine line-up around\below\above them. If someone has less of such a line-up around them, they're absolutely bound to play slightly, if only slightly, differently. None of these players, be it Richards, Gilchrist or whoever, has had anything less than a phenominal set of batsmen around them pretty much throughout a career.

Hence, to put them automatically, without even really giving the matter much thought, ahead of someone less flamboyant is utterly unfair if you ask me.

AWTA

 

[sunilreddy]

Mustaq Ahmed, Saqlain Mustaq, Hemang Badani(Better oneday player), Nick Knight(Good oneday player but retired very early), Sean Ervine, and many more.

 

[Richard]

I didn't really have a problem with the time Knight retired TBH. He wasn't playing in the just-concluded season, which suggests he'd not have been doing so in the WC played into said season.

And had he played on another 3 years, England's opener problems would merely have been delayed, and we couldn't solve it in 4 years, so what chance would we have had in 1?

 

[Goocheslamb]

i would add Carl Hooper here. he could have been one of the best all rounders if he wanted it too. In a career streching from 1986-2003 no body remembers him

 

[Evermind]

Not sure if he's been mentioned before, but if not, Vinod Kambli. He looked as good as Tendulkar when they both started out. Imagine if India had had 2 Tendulkars in their lineup. They'd have won a fair number of games!

 

[Something_Fishy]

Hansie Cronje. Idiot. Played well enough, but... well, you know.

Stuart MacGill (don't shoot me, it's just my opinion. And yes, I know there was Warne and injuries and and and, but he could have done better. Don't know much about his FC record tbh, so don't judge me).

To some extent, Herschelle Gibbs. Has always struggled with the mental side of things but is one of the most naturally talented players I'ver ever seen, could've done so much more.

Many Pakistani players.

So far, Prasanna Jayawardene, though I think as he settles into the team, he will grow in confidence and play better.

But the biggest one for me, and specifically his batting in Test matches, is Mark Boucher. Had the potential to average 35++ but just hasn't done enough.

 

[zaremba]

Mark Lathwell. Looked such a talented player, never did anything with it and got the heebie-jeebies in a big way when selected (albeit unwisely) for England

 

[fredfertang]

From 1985, or thereabouts, onwards, Sir Ian Botham

 

[nightprowler10]

Salim Malik.

 

[0RI0N]

From 1985, or thereabouts, onwards, Sir Ian Botham

Harsh...but true
His performances post '85 are ugly,less than 50 wickets from '86 till '92@ about 40 odd runs.
Sad really

 

[fredfertang]

He had the ability to be a top batsman long after he ceased to be a front line bowler - hugely frustrating - I do hope he reflects occasionally on what he might have achieved with a different outlook

 

[irfan]

I thought I'd go for a different approach and name a few currentcricketers who I think will end up wasting their talents by the time they're washed up.

David Warner: Inconsistent at best. Will be replaced at the top of the order in the ODI team by Jaques/Watson despite his immense striking ability.

Robin Uthappa: Like Warner, for a guy who is a hard hitter of the cricket ball - I highly doubt he will make an impression in the international scene if he resurfaces.

Jesse Ryder: Off-field issues will plague his career and could end up as a poor man's Lehmann.

Sreesanth: Has all the talent in the world to bowl 140+ outswing with perfect seam position but a lack of mental strength and perseverance could curtail his career.

Shaun Tait: No one else can bowl as quick as him or bowl a more deadly yorker but his tendency to spray it worse than a garden sprinkler too often will inhibit his effectiveness.

Xavier Marshall: His 85 against Australia was sublime but he has produced bugger all since. His continued selection was only justified on talent and potential rather than anything more substantial.

 

[Richard]

i would add Carl Hooper here. he could have been one of the best all rounders if he wanted it too. In a career streching from 1986-2003 no body remembers him

I don't know about that. Hooper was a good Test batsman between 1993 and 1999 before he sulked off for no good reason then a pretty good one again between 2001 and 2002. So he's not a complete nobody. Nonetheless, I think most people imagined he could average in the 50s, not early-40s. Also I don't think anyone expected him to take 5 years getting to grips with Test cricket. Mind you, Stephen Waugh took 8 years and he eventually ended-up absolutely magnificent, averaging 60. So Hooper probably wasn't anywhere near as good a batsman as most expected. As a bowler, though, he did about all he could - he was pretty decent as fingerspinners go.

Hooper debuted in 1987/88 BTW.