Cricketers of limited talent who had International Success beyond their abilities

[Mr Miyagi]

Okay, so the bright people at CW know who started weak and got good, they know who started good and ended weak,

but do you know players of limited talent, who achieved far beyond their talents to international success?

I'll kick the ball off with two offerings;

Moeen Ali (sure we all know he's not that great, but he scores runs and takes wickets. He is no Keith Miller. He is no Aubrey Faulkner. But he has played a career of 50 games - and won more than a few with a contribution. More games to follow)

Mark Craig (yes, another spinner who cuts the ball instead of turning it. But like, he has scored Moeen has scored valuable runs, and despite his terrible test bowling average, has featured heavy in 4th innings bowling performances in wins for NZC - much higher than his average suggests. And while he is swiftly forgotten about, he played a lead hand in more NZC wins than far more famous and cherished NZC cricketers)

So: cricketers who achieved well beyond their talent and abilities:

 

[sledger]

Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar, Dhoni, and Inzamam are all names that immediately spring to mind.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar, Dhoni, and Inzamam are all names that immediately spring to mind.

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).

 

[Borges]

There is nothing like lasting international success beyond one's abilities; people who have had lasting international success are not people with limited talent.

What do you want me to do? Call a certain McGrath out for the bowler that he really was, and get a host of Australian Miyagis (and one trundler) baying for my blood?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

There is nothing like lasting international success beyond one's abilities; people who have had lasting international success are not people with limited talent.

What do you want me to do? Call a certain McGrath out for the bowler that he really was, and get a host of Australian Miyagis (and one trundler) baying for my blood?

Don't overthink it. But I'd be lying to you if the line and length metronome of channel bowlers skill vs talent to swing it debate hadn't happened in my mind before. The conclusion I won't share on that in this thread.

Some cricketers ooze talent, the gifted, some cricketers are labouring, far more limited in skills (but find a way nevertheless to succeed close to, equal to, or more than the talented).

 

[mr_mister]

Collin Miller looked like a dad and bowled like a park cricket second xi player. pretty solid test bowling record though.

 

[cnerd123]

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.,

 

[Mr Miyagi]

i find this question hard to answer. much like the term 'over achiever'. if not we are judging player's talent by the results, what are we going by? aesthetics? luck?

Over achiever is good imo.

You can go by aesthetics. You can go by luck.

The choice is yours. There is no right or wrong answer (unless Sledger wants to hassle Tendulkar. Inzi and Laxman again).

Who punched well above their weight (is a phrase you may prefer).

This isn't about Gowers and Richards, it is about Bresnans and Boycotts.

Perhaps the dour, the boring even, those who summoned and achieved beyond what their talents should have limited them to.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

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.,

Hmmm, KW defined talent for a batsman as simply finding the middle of the bat, he defined smarts and hard work as learning which shots to play for the higher percentage of success.

I like this definition.

For channel bowlers, it gets tricky. And people need to reach their own conclusion there.

But swing bowling is undeniably a talent.

Where finger spinners fit in - I guess leg and over-spin is more talent than simply cutting the ball. But that's just me.

People may make their own minds up.

 

[Borges]

Well, one could perhaps do something like this for those who have played a reasonable amount of international games as well as FC games.:
Look at their international record, and see if this is a lot better than their first class record minus international games.

However, this has the distinct draw back that the already laughable #pressure crowd would go absolutely gaga over this, and become even more #laughable.

 

[Daemon]

Jadeja's had a fine career with the ball so far

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Well, one could perhaps do something like this for those who have played a reasonable amount of international games as well as FC games.:
Look at their international record, and see if this is a lot better than their first class record minus international games.

However, this has the distinct draw back that the already laughable #pressure crowd would go absolutely gaga over this, and become even more #laughable.

I'm not sure what that would prove. Vaughan scored more at international than FC, but he played intls during his peak career which is the common explanation.

Borges, don't worry about laughable crowd, you're a smart and humorous guy. You must already have an intuitive response to cricketers you admired following who you didn't think were that talented, but just cunning enough (through hard work or smarts) to find a way to succeed.

It is no disservice to the cricketers to suggest that they weren't the most talented, all you're saying is that they found further ways besides talent, to be successes, it is a compliment.

 

[Bolo]

Bowlers who rely on favourable home conditions like Jadeja, Underwood and Philander.

Players who only played at their peaks like Vogues.

Players who only got a game because the other options were dross. Too many to mention.

 

[sledger]

Inzamam just a terrible athlete and a terrible professional.

 

[Borges]

Yeah, I'm aware of the concept of the 'street-smart' cricket player; of teams that champion 'mental disintegration' as a fundamental non-cricketing skill which allowed them to get better results than what pure cricketing skills would have; have my own suspicions about some bowlers whose records were at least partly attributable to surreptitious ball-tampering or just plain chucking etc.

But as I mentioned earlier, airing these opinions would, as some one else put it 'vitiate the forum atmosphere'. Best avoided, I would think.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Bowlers who rely on favourable home conditions like Jadeja, Underwood and Philander.

Players who only played at their peaks like Vogues.

Players who only got a game because the other options were dross. Too many to mention.

There's no place like home to succeed in if you're only going to succeed in one place, though wouldn't you agree Bolo?

 

[Bolo]

There's no place like home to succeed in if you're only going to succeed in one place, though wouldn't you agree Bolo?

50% of games is plenty to build a pretty awesome looking career around. Jadeja is busy proving you don't even need to play the others to build a hell of a career.

 

[Borges]

I rate a player who does excellently at home and doesn't play away games because he is quite useless in those quite highly.
The value of such a player to the team is so much higher than the one who does merely well enough both at home and away.

 

[Bolo]

I rate a player who does excellently at home and doesn't play away games because he is quite useless in those quite highly.
The value of such a player to the team is so much higher than the one who does merely well enough both at home and away.

I value a player like this very highly as you say, but don't necessarily rate them that highly. Jadeja is a massive value add, but merely a good player.

It's very rare to see this though.

 

[Shri]

You raise a fair point about Dravid, though.

You took the bait.