• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Bilal Shafayat

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
steds said:
Talent. Thats what all the fuss is about

Do you enjoy being a contrary, critical, cynical, lemon-sucker?? Today you've put down Bilal Shafayat(this thread), Andrew Flintoff(thread-'is Andrew Flintoff overrated'), Omari Banks(thread-'What is so wrong with the West Indies?'), and Dinesh Mongia(thread-'kaif should be dropped from the Indian team?')
What's your problem, Richard?
Nothing.
The problem is that of those who try to see good in everything where it doesn't exist.
I hardly see how pointing-out that there is no evidence whatsoever that someone is as good as lots of people think is having a problem.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
Bilal Shafayat, season by season
Can someone please tell me what all the fuss is about!!!!!!!!!
Why on Earth is someone who had 10 reasonably good First-Class games in 2001 and 2002 and has done virtually nothing in a one-day career given such talk-up as he routinely is.
At least with Bell he'd just averaged 50-odd in 2001 when it all started.
But exactly what has this fellow done to deserve predictions of becoming, essentially, an all-time great - not just on this board, but from people everywhere?
Surely it'd be nice for him to become good enough to play for Notts first?
Then maybe if he starts becoming good enough for them, then he can start, looking like a good county player.
Then maybe he might even start looking like a very good county player and one who might, just possibly, forge a successful Test-match career.
Then maybe he might start looking like a Test-batsman of the highest class, one who might average 50 (which in this day and age is no indcator of all-time great status).
As you can see, he's got just a bit to do yet!
because potential..or even obvious talent doesnt always translate into a great average at county level.

Selectors (howmany times does this have to be said) dont just go off facts and figures...people who have watched the game(or indeed played the game) for years can have an instinct for who is going to be good and who isnt..some players just look good when they are playing,its something that cant be pinned down with an average.

Obviously, the guy is young and so he has a bit of development to go, but the raw talent is there
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
Nothing.
The problem is that of those who try to see good in everything where it doesn't exist.I hardly see how pointing-out that there is no evidence whatsoever that someone is as good as lots of people think is having a problem.
Richard, these players are playing top class cricket at very young ages, there is obviously some good in there, or the counties or the countries wouldnt invest time and money in these players.

You dont always need evidence in the form of an average, or a strike rate etc to see that a player is good...or if not good at the top level, certainly potential to be good, and so is worth investing in.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Swervy said:
You dont always need evidence in the form of an average, or a strike rate etc to see that a player is good...or if not good at the top level, certainly potential to be good, and so is worth investing in.
but how many times must it be said?players like vaughan,trescothick,harmison,ramprakash,hick and ealham all happened to have good domestic averages as well as good international averages.......no wait they didnt
 

Swervy

International Captain
tooextracool said:
but how many times must it be said?players like vaughan,trescothick,harmison,ramprakash,hick and ealham all happened to have good domestic averages as well as good international averages.......no wait they didnt

hehehe..they are just anomolies
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I am - because I was pointing out how Bell's hype may have been a bit more justified than the almighty thought it was.

I guess Bell is another who is useless though, and not even 7000 Test runs and 200 wickets would suffice.
 

Swervy

International Captain
marc71178 said:
I am - because I was pointing out how Bell's hype may have been a bit more justified than the almighty thought it was.

I guess Bell is another who is useless though, and not even 7000 Test runs and 200 wickets would suffice.
well not these days marc...there are NO good bowlers around anymore

and those 200 wickets, probably all bad shots by the batsmen :D

(Only teasing of course)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
I am - because I was pointing out how Bell's hype may have been a bit more justified than the almighty thought it was.

I guess Bell is another who is useless though, and not even 7000 Test runs and 200 wickets would suffice.
Now what made you assume that, eh?
Bell's poor First-Class form in 2002 and 2003 disappointed me as much as anyone else.
I'd like very much to see him score 7000 Test runs (200 wickets is pushing it somewhat I feel) but it'd be one hell of an achievement.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Which I believe he was playing and succeeding in at 16?
Indeed? That would have been in, what, 1998?
I haven't a clue - if you believe such, find some scorecards.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
hehehe..they are just anomolies
Yes, believe it or not, they are - anomalies in the trend that includes Butcher, Atherton, Strauss, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash (whether people like it or not), Knight, Hick, Fairbrother, to name some recent examples. Not to mention the God-knows-how-many who were selected when they shouldn't have been and failed.
Of course you can go back much further, and find that the trend continues - almost all international successes have had good domestic records. And it extremely optimistic to call Harmison an Test-match success on the evidence of 6 Test-matches of good figures (during a period in which there have been 3 of very poor figures, so success two-thirds of the time has earned him his pedestal). Equally to call Ealham's ODI stats poor is wholly stupid when in fact they are better than his domestic ones, by a tiny amount, and to call his domestic-First-Class ones suggestive of a Test-standard bowler is equally eyebrow-raising.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
because potential..or even obvious talent doesnt always translate into a great average at county level.

Selectors (howmany times does this have to be said) dont just go off facts and figures...people who have watched the game(or indeed played the game) for years can have an instinct for who is going to be good and who isnt..some players just look good when they are playing,its something that cant be pinned down with an average.
Looking good and not scoring runs is the biggest sin in cricket.
To pick someone who looks like he'll score runs and doesn't is about the most stupid thing someone can do.
How many players have talent and don't perform at county level? Not many. How many players are misinterpreted to have talent and upon reaching county level it is found they don't? Quite a few.
The best way to judge the game is the game itself.
Someone who thinks they know better than the game is heading for a fall.
As has been demonstated by the selection for international cricket of many players with poor county records, who have failed miserably.
Obviously, the guy is young and so he has a bit of development to go, but the raw talent is there
Is it? Surely it's about time we started seeing it then?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
He scored a century vs NZ U19 in 1998/99, when I think he would've been 16.
Crikey - strange that he wasn't playing for England u19 in 1999, then.
Some achievement, but still, one good innings at u19-international level doesn't really show much.
County-cricket is far more meaningful.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
Richard, these players are playing top class cricket at very young ages, there is obviously some good in there, or the counties or the countries wouldnt invest time and money in these players.

You dont always need evidence in the form of an average, or a strike rate etc to see that a player is good...or if not good at the top level, certainly potential to be good, and so is worth investing in.
Look, if someone hasn't scored runs at any level of cricket how on Earth can they possibly be likely to do so at the very highest level?
If someone is good, they'll perform - at that level. If someone is not good enough for the level they're playing at, they'll perform poorly.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Yes, believe it or not, they are - anomalies in the trend that includes Butcher, Atherton, Strauss, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash (whether people like it or not), Knight, Hick, Fairbrother, to name some recent examples.
knight,hick,ramprakash and fairbrother were all test match failures......and strauss isnt by any means proven yet.
add that to some of the other failures in silverwood,tudor,anthony mcgrath,allan mullally,peter martin and players like vaughan,tresco,harmison erc and you'll see that the anomalies are almost as many as those in the trend.....
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
knight,hick,ramprakash and fairbrother were all test match failures......and strauss isnt by any means proven yet.
add that to some of the other failures in silverwood,tudor,anthony mcgrath,allan mullally,peter martin and players like vaughan,tresco,harmison erc and you'll see that the anomalies are almost as many as those in the trend.....
Hick scored 6 test centuries, so you can hardly say he was a test match failure, he just failed to live up to some extremely high expectations.
 

Top