Cricketers of limited talent who had International Success beyond their abilities

[trundler]

You cannot be serious!?!?!?

Bradman has a far stronger track record as a matchlessly brilliant all round sporting superstar than any of those guys you mentioned.

Bradman was a brilliant tennis player and had the opportunity to turn professional if he had not opted to focus on cricket. At 16, he had to choose between tennis, at which he excelled as a country champion, and cricket. He agonised over his decision and never ceased to test himself against the best, taking great satisfaction in beating every Australian Wimbledon player in his era in "friendly" matches.

He was a brilliant squash player and won the 1939 South Australia squash championship having not played squash for nearly two years until three months before the tournament.

He was the best billiards player in the Australian squad during the Ashes tours of 1930, 1934 and 1938. In 1934 he was beaten by the world's No. 1, Walter Lindrum. Bradman's competitive juices flowed. He had a billiards room built in his new Adelaide home. "He practised every day for a year," said Lady (Jessie) Bradman proudly, "and then challenged Lindrum to a return encounter and matched him."

Then in his early 30s, he won multiple sprint races at the Army's School of Physical & Recreational Training at Frankston, Victoria in 1940.

He was a superb golfer who shot under par at every major golf course in South Australia and Victoria, and continued to play until he was well into his eighties when he regularly ‘broke his age’.

None of the guys you mentioned can boast a sporting resume anywhere near as complete or comprehensive as this.

**** me dead I was clearly wrong. Thank you for correcting me. Guess my impression was wrong. The guy was a ****ing beast st everything. Unsurprising.

 

[a massive zebra]

I am pretty sure that Laxman, Tendulkar and Inzi were all highly talented. You raise a fair point about Dravid, though.

Huge success, an ATG, but was he all that talented? Or was he more like Mark Richardson, and made himself a success? (A better version of Mark Richardson of course).

I'm pretty sure Sledger was joking.

Although the skills required to play great attacking shots, to dominate attacks and to play matchwinning innings are more noticeable, I'd say the development of a rock solid defensive technique that allows you to consistently play long innings against quality attacks requires a fair level of talent. Otherwise everyone would do it. These skills are just less attractive and externally visible.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There are blokes who could have cut it at any sport but we are fortunate they chose cricket. For example, Hammond, Viv, Miller, Ponting, Marshall. I'm unsure if Bradman fits into that archetype. Maybe he was just smarter and more skilled.

Actually Bradman is probably the poster boy for this sort of talent. He was an absolute freak. IIRC he was almost world class at several sports as a kid and his hand eye coordination and natural athletic ability was absurd.

No doubt he had exceptional mental stamina as well though. You don't average double the next best in history without having all the attributes.

edit: I see we covered this already, don't mind me

 

[Burgey]

Talent is such a dumb concept

Some people's 'Talent' is to have immense levels of concentration
Some people are ridiculously disciplined and work well to a game plan
Some keep very cool in pressure situations and execute well
Some have great game sense and opportunism
Some people are intelligent, creative, and great at adapting

Talented isn't simply defined by the aesthetics of their batting and bowling or their range of skills or their athletic ability. Any player who has had success in International Cricket is Talented in some shape or form. It's impossible otherwise.,

You have no talent for anything.

 

[cnerd123]

You have no talent for anything.

You have a talent for making bad posts

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Inzamam just a terrible athlete and a terrible professional.

10. DON’T WAKE INZI
An obvious choice, says Bumble. “I watched his team going through a rigorous fitness and fielding drill before a Test match and Inzamam watched it all from the side of the net, in a deckchair, with his pads on! He was captain at the time. I thought about taking him the local paper and a cup of coffee. Later, when Inzi had batted, he was fast asleep on the floor next to his locker and Bob Hobley, who was the kit man for Pakistan, was asked by the coach to go and tell him it was time for fielding. So Bob shook him and said, ‘Inzi, it’s fielding’. Inzi just opened one eye, said ‘No’ and went back to sleep.”

https://www.wisden.com/stories/ten-reluctant-fielders

 

[jimmy101]

Four pages in and I'm the first one to mention Voges.

 

[Shri]

You cannot be serious!?!?!?

Bradman has a far stronger track record as a matchlessly brilliant all round sporting superstar than any of those guys you mentioned.

Bradman was a brilliant tennis player and had the opportunity to turn professional if he had not opted to focus on cricket. At 16, he had to choose between tennis, at which he excelled as a country champion, and cricket. He agonised over his decision and never ceased to test himself against the best, taking great satisfaction in beating every Australian Wimbledon player in his era in "friendly" matches.

He was a brilliant squash player and won the 1939 South Australia squash championship having not played squash for nearly two years until three months before the tournament.

He was the best billiards player in the Australian squad during the Ashes tours of 1930, 1934 and 1938. In 1934 he was beaten by the world's No. 1, Walter Lindrum. Bradman's competitive juices flowed. He had a billiards room built in his new Adelaide home. "He practised every day for a year," said Lady (Jessie) Bradman proudly, "and then challenged Lindrum to a return encounter and matched him."

Then in his early 30s, he won multiple sprint races at the Army's School of Physical & Recreational Training at Frankston, Victoria in 1940.

He was a superb golfer who shot under par at every major golf course in South Australia and Victoria, and continued to play until he was well into his eighties when he regularly ‘broke his age’.

None of the guys you mentioned can boast a sporting resume anywhere near as complete or comprehensive as this.

Little guy syndrome.

 

[andruid]

Does Paul Collingwood qualify? Greatest bits and pieces player of the 20th century. Wonderful fielder, but got his runs via stubborn persistence and I don't know how he got so many ODI wickets.

 

[sunilz]

Steve Waugh , Anil kumble, Cook

 

[fredfertang]

Does Paul Collingwood qualify? Greatest bits and pieces player of the 20th century. Wonderful fielder, but got his runs via stubborn persistence and I don't know how he got so many ODI wickets.

Colly was a proper batsman - the naysayers are just anti ginger

 

[rparikh14]

Shikhar Dhawan?
I mean, look at his test average and compare with F.C. average (excl. tests)
Test: 43.93, FC: 45.29

Now, compare this with his contemporaries:
Rohit Sharma -
Test: 39.97, FC: 61.44
Ajinkya Rahane -
Test: 43.13, FC: 59.71
Lokesh Rahul:
Test: 40.86, FC: 56.25

I would only say Virat Kohli is operating at a standard that we would expect him to, and predict that given more time, Rahul will do so too.

 

[a massive zebra]

Does Paul Collingwood qualify? Greatest bits and pieces player of the 20th century. Wonderful fielder, but got his runs via stubborn persistence and I don't know how he got so many ODI wickets.

Collingwood never played an international match in the 20th century. I agree regarding his batting but always thought his fielding was overrated. Sure, he had great reflexes, was an excellent stopper of the ball and took plenty of incredible catches, but he also dropped loads of absolute sitters. With Collingwood, it was almost as if, the tougher the catch, the more likely he was to hold it. I'd put him down as a maker of great catches, rather than a reliable catcher. I'd suspect that there are plenty of fielders who held are higher proportion of attempted catches than Collingwood, most of which are not as well remembered as they did not take the absolute blinders that Collingwood was known to take.

 

[trundler]

Ponting probably right up there.

 

[Bolo]

Collingwood ended up with the career of a good bat, but he definitely fits the definition to me.

I remember when he first surfaced, the more charitable commentators were calling him a bits and pieces player, while the less charitable ones were calling him a specialist fielder. Ended up as one of the better bats in his team, so definitely punching above his weight.

 

[Cow]

Tim May. I've seen oil tankers get sharper turn than him but somehow ended up with decent test figures.

Collingwood couldn't play a cover drive for 90%

 

[Bahseph]

I don't know how much success he has had but Farhaan Behardien doesn't have atrocious stats in comparison to his hacky technique.

 

[andruid]

Colly was a proper batsman - the naysayers are just anti ginger

In the sense that he had the mental game not to sell his wicket cheaply yes, but not in the plays a wife array of beautiful shots.

 

[mr_mister]

always thought Lehmann looked very unorthodox(but not necessarily ugly) when he batted. Spose he may count

 

[kingkallis]

Graeme Smith (c)
Justin Langer
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
Thilan Samaraweera
Paul Collingwood
TM Dilshan
Ridley Jacobs +
Dan Vettori
Anil Kumble
Makhaya Ntini
Courtney Walsh