Players who played way more internationals than they should

[iamdavid]

Ronnie Irani....Greg Blewett

 

[Richard]

Why do you say either of those two?

 

[iamdavid]

Personal opinion...

I know Irani's domestic record was excellent and on the basis of that you could argue he completely deserved the chances he got...However just watching him ply his trade at international level I recall him looking so out of his depth it wasn't funny. (I'm referring mainly to the 02/03 VB series and 2003 world cup, I know he did do a pretty servicable job with the ball in the home ODI's in 2002). He had some nice shots with the bat however he was riddled with technical flaws and made to look silly by Warne on an occasion or two...and with the ball he plonked them on a length with little variation at about 115kph, made me seriously wonder how on earth he took so many wickets with the new ball for Essex.

I don't think Blewett was bad player at all, prolific domestic accumulator and great to watch. However given the depth of batting talent at Australia's disposal during the mid-late 90's, I do think a top order player with his technical deficiencies and who wasted the number of chances he did was pretty fortunate to play nearly 50 tests. In my eyes he was a good player, but not as good as Matthew Elliott, Stuart Law, Michael Bevan or Martin Love and most definately not as good as Darren Lehmann.

 

[Richard]

Personal opinion...

I know Irani's domestic record was excellent and on the basis of that you could argue he completely deserved the chances he got...However just watching him ply his trade at international level I recall him looking so out of his depth it wasn't funny. (I'm referring mainly to the 02/03 VB series and 2003 world cup, I know he did do a pretty servicable job with the ball in the home ODI's in 2002). He had some nice shots with the bat however he was riddled with technical flaws and made to look silly by Warne on an occasion or two...and with the ball he plonked them on a length with little variation at about 115kph, made me seriously wonder how on earth he took so many wickets with the new ball for Essex.

Irani wasn't a Test or ODI-standard player, but as I've said several times, he was a damn sight better than some who were given the chance for England around his time (and, in ODIs especially, since the end of his time as well).

For most of his career too he was a bit quicker than 115kph, which is out-and-out medium-pace. You've got to remember that just a few months after that 2002/03 winter he was forced to give-up bowling completely due to a knee injury. For much of his career he was more like 125kph, which is a fair difference.

I don't think Blewett was bad player at all, prolific domestic accumulator and great to watch. However given the depth of batting talent at Australia's disposal during the mid-late 90's, I do think a top order player with his technical deficiencies and who wasted the number of chances he did was pretty fortunate to play nearly 50 tests. In my eyes he was a good player, but not as good as Matthew Elliott, Stuart Law, Michael Bevan or Martin Love and most definately not as good as Darren Lehmann.

Interesting that you'd rate him as lesser than Law and Bevan, because Bevan especially was clearly technically inferior to Blewett in the time he played - in that Blewett's technical flaws needed a skilled bowler to exploit them, Bevan's could be exploited by any fool. Of course Bevan later, so I'm assured, solved his technical glitches but by that time, both he and Blewett were way out of the Test picture.

 

[Pratters]

My cousin always pops out the name of V.Rathour.

 

[iamdavid]

Irani wasn't a Test or ODI-standard player, but as I've said several times, he was a damn sight better than some who were given the chance for England around his time (and, in ODIs especially, since the end of his time as well).

For most of his career too he was a bit quicker than 115kph, which is out-and-out medium-pace. You've got to remember that just a few months after that 2002/03 winter he was forced to give-up bowling completely due to a knee injury. For much of his career he was more like 125kph, which is a fair difference. .

Granted I probably didn't see alot of Irani until injuries were having a real impact on his bowling, however it was during that period that he played the majority of his ODI's for England which reinforces my original point...played more than he should have.

I will give him credit to the extent that I think he was a better pick than Luke Wright.

Interesting that you'd rate him as lesser than Law and Bevan, because Bevan especially was clearly technically inferior to Blewett in the time he played - in that Blewett's technical flaws needed a skilled bowler to exploit them, Bevan's could be exploited by any fool. Of course Bevan later, so I'm assured, solved his technical glitches but by that time, both he and Blewett were way out of the Test picture.

All things considered I do rate Bevan a better batsman than Blewett, but that comparison might've been a little inappropriate, given that by the time Bevan had sorted his short ball troubles and was at the peak of his powers in terms of longer form batting Blewett had already been dropped for good.

At test level (particularly during the 90's with the wealth of bowling talent about), moving the ball into a right hander was hardly something exclusive to the highly skilled operators...and Blewett's grip issues made him very susceptible to that sort of delivery. His play against spin also left plenty to be desired, it was pretty well publicised that Mushtaq Ahmed had his number. I just think all things considered there were a number of better alternatives each time he was picked for Australia ...spose you could add Martyn and Hayden to the list of those overlooked in his favour.

 

[Richard]

Granted I probably didn't see alot of Irani until injuries were having a real impact on his bowling, however it was during that period that he played the majority of his ODI's for England which reinforces my original point...played more than he should have.

I will give him credit to the extent that I think he was a better pick than Luke Wright.

A miles better pick than Wright. Wright should - still - never, ever have come remotely close to playing ODIs. The scariest thing is he's even been in a Test squad and played First-Class cricket for England A. At a stronger time or with more consistent selectors Irani hopefully wouldn't have played Test cricket but he was a miles better First-Class player than Wright is or is ever likely to be. Irani could have been a useful complimentary player in ODIs in a strong side, but he only played about 1\3rd of his ODIs in 2002/03; in 2002 he was still in a decent condition, and actually bowled pretty damn decently.

All things considered I do rate Bevan a better batsman than Blewett, but that comparison might've been a little inappropriate, given that by the time Bevan had sorted his short ball troubles and was at the peak of his powers in terms of longer form batting Blewett had already been dropped for good.

At test level (particularly during the 90's with the wealth of bowling talent about), moving the ball into a right hander was hardly something exclusive to the highly skilled operators...and Blewett's grip issues made him very susceptible to that sort of delivery. His play against spin also left plenty to be desired, it was pretty well publicised that Mushtaq Ahmed had his number. I just think all things considered there were a number of better alternatives each time he was picked for Australia ...spose you could add Martyn and Hayden to the list of those overlooked in his favour.

Oh, certainly it was far from impossible to exploit Blewett's technical flaws, but I was merely saying that it was even easier to exploit Bevan's. Bowling inswingers does require some skill; bowling a few short balls requires virtually none.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Salisbury.

At least two comebacks too many.

 

[fredfertang]

Interesting case is Mr Irani and his dodgy knee - After 2003, on medical advice, he had to give up his distinctly ordinary medium fast bowling completely. His batting averages for the next three full seasons were 57, 57 and 59. After the four games in 2007 which preceded his forced retirement it was a Bradmanesque 118. Should he have abandoned his bowling as a youngster? What sort of a batsman might he have become if he had? Perhaps he'd have been one of the greats

 

[Richard]

It's an interesting question, but the conclusion I can't help but come to is that the fact that he was forced to give-up bowling meant batting became more important to him and thus he diverted all his remaining energies toward maximising what he had there. That and the fact that he was pretty much at the peak of his powers in those years. I honestly have to rather doubt that had he given-up bowling at a younger age (as, for instance, Michael Atherton was forced to) he'd have done all that much better as a batsman than he ended-up doing.

BTW his batting average rise at FC level was certainly mirrored at OD level too. But I still don't see his batting ever being technically equipped for either Test or ODI cricket.

And I also think Irani's bowling is being a little underestimated. Tearing-up trees? No, certainly not - ever. But if he was as hopeless as he often looked he'd not have taken 316 First-Class wickets at 29.24, as he did for Essex between 1994 and the early part of 2003.

 

[Richard]

Salisbury.

At least two comebacks too many.

You could make a case that it was foolhardy to recall Salisbury in 2000/01 (Croft would've been a better choice at the onset, rather than as a mid-winter replacement), but it'd have been equally poor to have ignored him in 1998. When he returned he was clearly a different bowler. Still not Test-class? Yes, that was obvious once he got the gig again. But there was only one way to find that out, and that was to try.

 

[Streetwise]

Vaughan in ODI's.

 

[inbox24]

James Hopes - should never have played a single T20, should only play ODIs when both Johnson and Watson are injured.

Adam Voges - nothing to speak of there.

Beau Casson - pointless to pick for a one off series, may as well have gone four fast bowlers, and at the time we had Hilfenhaus and Bollinger in the wings.

Cameron White - should never have played test matches

Andrew McDonald - should never have been in any international squad

 

[morgieb]

James Hopes - should never have played a single T20, should only play ODIs when both Johnson and Watson are injured.

Adam Voges - nothing to speak of there.

Beau Casson - pointless to pick for a one off series, may as well have gone four fast bowlers, and at the time we had Hilfenhaus and Bollinger in the wings.

Cameron White - should never have played test matches

Andrew McDonald - should never have been in any international squad

McDonald and Casson yes, Hopes, well he's a gun OD bowler but never struck to me as anything but a bit and pieces player, Voges no, he's a good OD batsman, and White, well, he was picked for the wrong reasons (i.e. a batsman picked as a spinner).

 

[iamdavid]

Andrew McDonald - should never have been in any international squad

I disagree, he was never going to set the world on fire, but the selectors decided they wanted an allrounder to bat at 6 and who else were they gonna pick? Henriques? Christian? Hopes? Worth noting we won 3 of 4 matches he played and that the guy did a respectable (although no more than that tbh) job.

 

[inbox24]

I disagree, he was never going to set the world on fire, but the selectors decided they wanted an allrounder to bat at 6 and who else were they gonna pick? Henriques? Christian? Hopes? Worth noting we won 3 of 4 matches he played and that the guy did a respectable (although no more than that tbh) job.

The fact that they 'wanted an all-rounder' was the wrong itself. Number six is reserved for a specialist batsman, unless you already have too many once in a lifetime players like Bradman etc. But until then you can't afford to skimp on the batting.

 

[iamdavid]

The fact that they 'wanted an all-rounder' was the wrong itself. Number six is reserved for a specialist batsman, unless you already have too many once in a lifetime players like Bradman etc. But until then you can't afford to skimp on the batting.

Yeah generally I'd agree with you, but remember the bowling had been awful in the two preceding tests. They'd failed to defend 400+ in Perth despite Johnson bowling out of his skin and then in Melbourne they had South Africa on the ropes only to be made look pedestrian by Dale Steyn. The selectors (rightly imo) reasoned that given the conditions they were likely to face in Sydney, the bowling attack was gonna need a bit more to it if they were to have a shot, and McDonald did the job, he gave them a reliable 5th option who could bowl to plan.

 

[bryce]

Mark Richardson 4 ODI's

never should have debuted in ODI's...

Lol, easy to say that in hindsight but with the combined facts that he performed fairly well in the domestic OD competition plus was scoring runs in Test matches, combined with the pressure he himself was putting on the selectors to give him a run in the ODI side (I remember hearing stories that he would be constantly emailing NZ selectors reminding them of his domestic OD endeavours).
If we saw him after that 26 off 71 balls however then that indeed would have been an utter travesty.

In regards to the above posts re McDonald I think of him as very solid cricketer. He is never going to be the most appealing to the eye, but he seems to know his own game and limitations extremely well and also appears to be a very reliable player. I hope we see a bit of him for the Daredevils this year.

 

[asty80]

Venkatpathy Raju

 

[zaremba]

Ian Harvey? I think he deserved to play as many games as he did. He probably doesn't have the best stats, but I can't think of too many bowlers who bowled as well as he can in the last 10 overs of an innings.

Agree 100%. A much under-rated player. England would have killed to have had an ODI player of that calibre at any point during his career.