Which country produces more raw talent?

[Top_Cat]

On a per capita (or, per cricket player) basis, NZ or Australia. As a rule these are better sporting nations with larger, stronger, healthier citizens. You can call that racism or whatever if you like, but it's pretty obviously true.

Nah, not racist to suggest this at all. It's an acknowledgement of better health conditions in Australia vs Pakistan. The sorts of things you look for in determining the health of a nation (infant mortality rate, life expectancy, etc.), Australia is right up there with the highest in the world.

But then again, what is raw talent? In the end, the thread question seems to refer to innate abilities such as strength, co-ordination, hand-eye etc. Surely then this is basically a "which nation produces more physically capable people" question which is inherently racist?

It's trickier, sure. If you suggest that India produces more capable spinners for genetic reasons (more supple wrists, etc.), your biggest problem is a lack of evidence. Not racist, just very anecdotal. Same with African-Americans and athletic sports like basketball, Nungas and football, etc. As with all stereotypes, they have some basis in reality but no-one has really any idea of the degree or frequency so they are just a broad generalisation.

 

[Richard]

If you suggest that India produces more capable spinners for genetic reasons (more supple wrists, etc.), your biggest problem is a lack of evidence. Not racist, just very anecdotal.

Hah!!

 

[Migara]

Pakistanis. They produce all kinds of cricketers with various dimensions.Fast bowlers, swing bowlers, seam bowlers, finger spinners, wrist spinners, big hitters, sweet timers, dogged batsman, you name any one, Pakistan have produced them. The varation from one player to other is enormous among Pakstanis.

 

[Engle]

Pakistanis. They produce all kinds of cricketers with various dimensions.Fast bowlers, swing bowlers, seam bowlers, finger spinners, wrist spinners, big hitters, sweet timers, dogged batsman, you name any one, Pakistan have produced them. The varation from one player to other is enormous among Pakstanis.

Maybe this is why they dont get along ?

Kidding aside, yes, they do. Even the great WIndian team's of recent history could not produce a decent spinner, nor the great modern Aussie team, a good all-rounder.

 

[Dissector]

When it comes to per-capita talent it would be hard to beat Barbados from the 1950's to the 1980's. It has a population of less than 300,000; probably less in earlier decades.

An all-time Barbados 11 would look like:

Haynes
Greenidge
Worrell
Weekes
Walcott
Nurse
Sobers
Marshall
Garner
Hall
Griffith

From the 50's to the 80's the Barbados team would probably have been very competitive in test cricket.

 

[Richard]

True, that. Barbados's per-capita production truly is astonishing.

Even recently, they've still produced plenty of fine players - bowlers especially - in the Collinses, Collymores and (in the shorter game) Bradshaws.

 

[Richard]

Even the great WIndian team's of recent history could not produce a decent spinner

Perhaps they could - perhaps they just didn't need to pick him. I've often wondered how good Rangy Nanan might have been had he had a decent Test career. As it was, he played just a single Test (and did well enough, it might be added).

The all-pace strategy was conceived shortly after Lance Gibbs retired - Gibbs had enjoyed something of an Indian-summer to his career, but plenty of other nothing spinners had played in the early 1970s: Maurice Foster (more of a batsman than a spinner, but still); Arthur Barrett; Jack Noreiga (only a short-term option as he was almost 35 before he played); Inshan Ali; Tony Howard; Raphick Jumadeen; Elquemendo Willett; Imtiaz Ali; Albert Padmore. None of these played more than 12 Tests in the early 1970s (a few got a brief 2nd chance during the Packer Schism). And between 1977 and 1986, Nanan, Derick Parry (who later chose Rebel tours) and Clyde Butts played 1 Test each, none of the other two being fit to lace Nanan's boots. Roger Harper, a decent enough fingerspinner but good lower-order batsman and breathtakingly superb fielder, played 16, probably only being picked ahead of Nanan for his fielding.

What was truly odd is that Nanan enjoyed his best season 1986, just before the pace quartet broke-up, yet Butts was picked ahead of him for that autumn's tour of Pakistan. Truly baffling. Nanan's career therafter petered-out.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Pakistan.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Pakistan, simply cause of the monster discrepancy between quality of infrastructure and Test results. Talent is apparent when you do a lot of winging.

 

[kanga_kid]

im picking the south africans based on that they have more players playing for england than english players i know its not entirely true, but they are notorious for pinching SA players. and winning ashes with them lol (OH NO IM NOT A BITTER CONVICT) !!! lol

 

[StumpMic]

Maybe this is why they dont get along ?

Kidding aside, yes, they do. Even the great WIndian team's of recent history could not produce a decent spinner, nor the great modern Aussie team, a good all-rounder.

What the hell is symonds then?

Yeah Pakistan produces the most talent but also wastes the most. I think SL is also up there. For a country of just 19 mill (1 mill work abroad) it has produced quite a few cricketers.

 

[Dan]

Maybe this is why they dont get along ?

Kidding aside, yes, they do. Even the great WIndian team's of recent history could not produce a decent spinner, nor the great modern Aussie team, a good all-rounder.

What the hell is symonds then?

A batsman that bowls a bit? Although I am deeply ashamed to say this, Shane Watson isn't half-bad when he's fit

 

[biased indian]

pakistan for me....