When I Was Wrong!

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha, as soon as I saw this thread I knew Richard would post in here implying he'd never been wrong about anything, while nobody else would suggest such a thing.

I'm with Gelman on the Hayden returning to the ODI side thing, was totally against it and it turned out to be an excellent decision.

Lee took longer to get results than I predicted on here, in particular I thought he'd have a good '05 Ashes, but he wasn't anything above decent in that series and took another year to come good.

Symonds as a test cricketer. I'm still not totally convinced but you really can't argue with his performances to date, especially in pressure situations.

Lots more I'm sure, when they come to mind.

 

[social]

Of those mentioned by David and social, I'd bet most if not all had their writers-off from: McDermott, Reid, Hughes, Boon, Stephen Waugh and maybe even Healy. All Australians who would turn-out excellent 1989 onwards but had been poor to woeful 1984/85-1988/89.

McDermott - yes but because of a lack of ticker rather than a lack of talent

Reid - yes but because of frailty rather than a lack of talent

Merv - had hopes for him because he was quick and ran in all day. Certainly didnt think his bowling nous would increase at the same rate as his girth though

Boon - obvious talent just needed time

Waugh - as per Boon but was simply picked too early out of desperation

Healy - didnt really care as this was pre-Gilchrist when batting wasnt that important

Most others were just pretty ordinary players making up the numbers

 

[Richard]

Haha, as soon as I saw this thread I knew Richard would post in here implying he'd never been wrong about anything, while nobody else would suggest such a thing.

Well if I'm less hasty than other people, yes, that does tend to mean I'm going to misjudge players less often than most.

I know you're not a fan of me not saying that such-and-such player will always be what I've labelled them as at Time X, but I'm afraid that's the way I work. I don't see the point of this long-term prediction lark, cricket's just too complex and, well, unpredictable, for that.

 

[Uppercut]

Well if I'm less hasty than other people, yes, that does tend to mean I'm going to misjudge players less often than most.

I know you're not a fan of me not saying that such-and-such player will always be what I've labelled them as at Time X, but I'm afraid that's the way I work. I don't see the point of this long-term prediction lark, cricket's just too complex and, well, unpredictable, for that.

But your arse does tend to get a bit sore if you sit on the fence all the time.

 

[Richard]

Healy - didnt really care as this was pre-Gilchrist when batting wasnt that important

Haha, so people only picked wicketkeeper-batsmen rather than wicketkeepers in 1999? Yeah, right. People have been picking wicketkeepers for their batting since before Test cricket was even played, and certainly any particularly good team has almost always had a wicketkeeper who could also bat well, and since the 1970s wicketkeepers being capable to some degree with the bat has been essential. It's only since the start of the 1990s (about the time Healy became a good batsman) that it's been a basic requirement for them to bat well though. But it most certainly predates Gilchrist, who is a freak one-off who may never again be equalled.

Most others were just pretty ordinary players making up the numbers

I know, hence I didn't mention the Hogans, Smiths, Maguires, Woolleys, Matthewses, Hollands, Rixons, Bennetts, O'Donnells, Gilberts, Kerrs, Davises, Zoehrers, Matthewses, Dyers, Sleeps, Taylors and Velettas.

(Wonder if anyone thought any of the above were ever going to amount to much incidentally - obviously most on here weren't even alive when they were playing so wouldn't have been able to)

 

[Richard]

But your arse does tend to get a bit sore if you sit on the fence all the time.

There's a difference between sitting on the fence and actually being sensible and not jumping to conclusions.

I just tend to wait a lot longer before I make my mind up about a player than some (most?) do. So many people seem to come to all these grandiose conclusions the first time they see a player bat or bowl. It's just ridiculous.

I like to give it a year at least before I either make my initial mind up about someone or change my mind from "he's crap" to "he's good".

 

[Prince EWS]

I know, hence I didn't mention the Hogans, Smiths, Maguires, Woolleys, Matthewses, Hollands, Rixons, Bennetts, O'Donnells, Gilberts, Kerrs, Davises, Zoehrers, Matthewses, Dyers, Sleeps, Taylors and Velettas.

Dire.

 

[Richard]

Is that just a disagreement on a pun or is there something about Greg Dyer that you like?

Given that he'd played his last Test before you were born it couldn't be that you thought he had potential as a Test player.

 

[andruid]

Watching my second only ever ODI on TV I saw one Brijal Patel pretty much be the only Kenyan to make an impression on an Aussie bowling line up that included Warne, Mcgrath, and Gillespie. I assumed from that that he was going to be the next big thing in Kenyan cricket for the next few years at least, even to the point of backing his selection to the 2003 World Cup side

 

[Top_Cat]

I know, hence I didn't mention the Hogans, Smiths, Maguires, Woolleys, Matthewses, Hollands, Rixons, Bennetts, O'Donnells, Gilberts, Kerrs, Davises, Zoehrers, Matthewses, Dyers, Sleeps, Taylors and Velettas.

(Wonder if anyone thought any of the above were ever going to amount to much incidentally - obviously most on here weren't even alive when they were playing so wouldn't have been able to)

Tim Zoehrer was rated a superior 'keeper to Healy generally. Was definitely a better bowler! In fact, Zoehrer was a good enough leggie that when Warne was picked and didn't do so well, there were some people wondering if Zoerher could be recalled to the Test side as a bowler. Gave the ball a fair rip, did Timmy. Pretty sure his personality precluded such selection, though.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I know you're not a fan of me not saying that such-and-such player will always be what I've labelled them as at Time X, but I'm afraid that's the way I work. I don't see the point of this long-term prediction lark, cricket's just too complex and, well, unpredictable, for that.

It's not so much witholding judgement, there's nothing wrong with that. I'd say I've withheld judgement on someone like Mitchell Johnson because he's shown some ability and also some flaws and it's been too early to call him a star or to write him off as a failure.

What grates with your judgements on cricketers is that you have a serious tendancy to make blanket statements about players based on whatever criteria, and when they perform better or worse than you predicted, to argue that you were never in fact wrong, and everything simply changed. If you (meaning anyone, not Richard specifically) argue that player X can't play in seaming conditions and they score a double century on a minefield against the world's best seam attack, that's called being wrong. Chances are they didn't learn to play in seaming conditions overnight, because though this is theoretically plausible, what is more likely is that you made a judgement based on inadequate evidence (after all, our knowledge as spectators is limited, especially as remote spectators) which turned out to be wrong.

Those who acknowledge that are generally easier to discuss cricket with, and it's a more pleasurable experience for everyone involved.

 

[Richard]

It's not so much witholding judgement, there's nothing wrong with that. I'd say I've withheld judgement on someone like Mitchell Johnson because he's shown some ability and also some flaws and it's been too early to call him a star or to write him off as a failure.

What grates with your judgements on cricketers is that you have a serious tendancy to make blanket statements about players based on whatever criteria, and when they perform better or worse than you predicted, to argue that you were never in fact wrong, and everything simply changed. If you (meaning anyone, not Richard specifically) argue that player X can't play in seaming conditions and they score a double century on a minefield against the world's best seam attack, that's called being wrong. Chances are they didn't learn to play in seaming conditions overnight, because though this is theoretically plausible, what is more likely is that you made a judgement based on inadequate evidence (after all, our knowledge as spectators is limited, especially as remote spectators) which turned out to be wrong.

I'm aware of that. However, I can't recall ever doing such a thing. I can't remember ever calling anyone a poor player in seaming conditions one day and the following day seeing them score a chanceless double-century on a minefield against the World's best seam attack. Nor even anything much resembling that.

I exceptionally rarely make any predictions about how a player is going to perform, that's precisely the point. I do say things like "Andrew Symonds is rubbish in ODIs", and I don't consider I was in the slightest wrong to say that Symonds was rubbish in ODIs between 1998/99 and the VB Series 2002/03. I would've been wrong had I said "and he'll never be any good either" but that'd have been a stupid thing to say, so I never said it.

I hardly ever make predictions about how a player is going to perform, I tend more often merely to comment on what's happened in the past. I do say "I have high hopes for so-and-so" from time to time but I don't think that's quite the same as saying "so-and-so WILL be a high-class player".

People often project predictions onto me based on comments I've made about what's happened in the past, but that's a different matter. People replying to what they'd like me to have said rather than what I actually have is something I've long gotten used to.

Things in cricket do change; players do get better (and worse) and I tend to comment more on this after it's happened than I do predict when and if it's going to happen.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, if you say someone is "rubbish" it does carry with it a kind of general judgement of their ability. I mean, Asif wasn't much to speak of in his first test against Australia. If I'd said he was a "rubbish bowler" after that match, it'd have rightly been considered a stupid statement when he started bowling wonderfully a few tests later, because the guy had ability. Very few players succeed immediately but quite a lot of players have characteristics which mean they may well perform well later.

But what I'm getting at more specifically with you is something like... person A says "X bowler has been performing well lately, I think he'll have a big year", and you say "no, X bowler is rubbish and can't swing the ball except on Thursdays and has a middle name in common with Y bowler who averaged 45 in test cricket between August 14 and September 12 in 1957, even while bowling on seaming wickets, and his performances lately are irrelevant because..." and so on. You might not actually say that the player in question won't ever get better but that's the clear implication.

Anyway, this is a cool thread so I'll try not to derail it any further.

 

[Xuhaib]

Love the thread, SO not big enough to contain the number of times I've been wrong about a cricketer so I guess I'll just pick some of the dumbest.

As far as the guys who got there despite my prgnostications to the contrary, pretty sure I tipped against Matt Hayden ever making the Test side after he was dropped in 1997 (boundary-reliant, over-rated by QLD'ers), I remember I tipped Glenn McGrath as being rubbish (just a length bowler who only had one delivery) and I'm hopeful I wasn't alone in thinking that after 1993, Andy Caddick was just a Hadlee-aping loser with big ears and no movement whatsoever. Anyone? Anyone?

As for as the guys who didn't get to where they should have by my reckoning, I maintain Matt Inness should have gotten a go ahead of Nathan Bracken, Mohammed Wasim was going to be better than Inzi (God he was smooth, though) and Jamie Siddons' spot in the Aussie side was assured, the only matter being one of time and Mark Waugh having a prolonged run of outs (once they didn't drop him after SL in 1992, knew it was never bloody going to happen.....).

You can blame the selectors for it he was yo-yo'ed in the batting order and never allowed to settle in the team.

 

[SJS]

Let me try and remember

I thought Maninder Singh would be another Bishan Bedi after playing him many weeks in the nets when he was about 14 years old. He fell away after a fine start.

I thought Gursharan Singh would be a fabulous Test batsman after playing against him in Grade Cricket and then seeing him in Ranji Trophy. He played just one Test.

I thought L Sivaramakrishnan would go onto become one of India's most successful spinners of all time. He too fell away after a great start.

I thought Sanjay Manjrekar would go onto become as great a batsman as Sunil Gavaskar.

 

[social]

Haha, so people only picked wicketkeeper-batsmen rather than wicketkeepers in 1999? Yeah, right. People have been picking wicketkeepers for their batting since before Test cricket was even played, and certainly any particularly good team has almost always had a wicketkeeper who could also bat well, and since the 1970s wicketkeepers being capable to some degree with the bat has been essential. It's only since the start of the 1990s (about the time Healy became a good batsman) that it's been a basic requirement for them to bat well though. But it most certainly predates Gilchrist, who is a freak one-off who may never again be equalled.

I know, hence I didn't mention the Hogans, Smiths, Maguires, Woolleys, Matthewses, Hollands, Rixons, Bennetts, O'Donnells, Gilberts, Kerrs, Davises, Zoehrers, Matthewses, Dyers, Sleeps, Taylors and Velettas.

(Wonder if anyone thought any of the above were ever going to amount to much incidentally - obviously most on here weren't even alive when they were playing so wouldn't have been able to)

"Batting well" as a keeper at that time could be defined as an average of 25-30.

Given that, so as long as Healy wasn't an absolute bunny with the bat, I didnt much care so long as he was an international standard keeper

The real match-winners were the batsmen and bowlers so that was the central topic of discussion

As for the above, you hope that players are going to be something special but a realistic assessment of their chances upon might be as follows

1 Hogan - Paul Harris type bowler, no great shakes

2 Smith - potential superstar, lost his way and went to SA

3 Maguire - Journeyman state quick

4 Woolley - Journeyman wk with good fc batting record

5 Matthews Greg - picked on hope as a spinner but became an excellent test batsman and whose bowling was badly mismanaged

6 Holland - see McGain

7 Rixon - good keeper, not great bat

8 Bennett - SCG specialist spinner but had talent

9 O'Donnell - great white hope who never developed

10 Gilbert - slower version of Tait

11 Kerr - excellent technique and good fc record

12 Davis - indicative of the times that he would be considered for tests

13 Zoehrer - see TC

14 Matthews Chris - big talent but technique and temperament were downfall

15 Dyer - see Rixon

16 Sleep - see Craig White

17 Taylor - the A grade spin partner of Peter Who? was a better bowler and everyone knew it

18 Veletta - superstar junior who never fulfilled promise at highest level

 

[Richard]

Well, if you say someone is "rubbish" it does carry with it a kind of general judgement of their ability. I mean, Asif wasn't much to speak of in his first test against Australia. If I'd said he was a "rubbish bowler" after that match, it'd have rightly been considered a stupid statement when he started bowling wonderfully a few tests later, because the guy had ability. Very few players succeed immediately but quite a lot of players have characteristics which mean they may well perform well later.

But what I'm getting at more specifically with you is something like... person A says "X bowler has been performing well lately, I think he'll have a big year", and you say "no, X bowler is rubbish and can't swing the ball except on Thursdays and has a middle name in common with Y bowler who averaged 45 in test cricket between August 14 and September 12 in 1957, even while bowling on seaming wickets, and his performances lately are irrelevant because..." and so on. You might not actually say that the player in question won't ever get better but that's the clear implication.

Anyway, this is a cool thread so I'll try not to derail it any further.

If you wish.

The intended implication of the just everso slightly exaggerated example you give in the second paragraph is actually nothing of the sort, however - it's exactly what I said before: "I think you're being hasty, I don't think the evidence of improvement is as strong as you suggest... at the moment. I'm going to wait a bit longer before I declare how good he is." If people want to interpret it as "no he's clearly never going to improve" though, I can't really stop them, but it does strike me as patent interpreting words as something that you can prove wrong because what's actually there isn't prove-wrong-able.

You've mentioned the "if you say someone is "rubbish" it does carry with it a kind of general judgement of their ability" thing that you mentioned in the first paragraph before BTW - I disagree, then as now. If I say "so-and-so's rubbish" I mean he's poor currently, and nothing more. I'm pretty sure I've said before now "he's pretty rubbish currently but he's got quite some potential IMO and I hope he might actually turn-out to be pretty good" or similar. If I've never actually written it on CW I've certainly thought it, plenty of times.

 

[Ikki]

I'd say Bevan. I thought he had what it would take to be a freak. Average in the 60s...I still dont see how it didn't happen.

And also Stuey Clark. I gave him a right walloping after his pitiful performance with Mick Lewis in that ODI against S.Africa. I couldn't believe he was picked for Tests, he just looked wayyy too plain and care-free. Damn, was wrong there.

 

[Richard]

"Batting well" as a keeper at that time could be defined as an average of 25-30.

Given that, so as long as Healy wasn't an absolute bunny with the bat, I didnt much care so long as he was an international standard keeper

So "batting doesn't really matter" translates to an average of 25-30? I'd describe needing to average 25-30 as batting being pretty important myself.

Incidentally, Healy averaged 17.66 with the bat in 1988/89 and 22.62 between 1989 and 1992/93. Neither of which would seem to be fulfilling the required role (circa 1990s) of a wicketkeeper-batsman in Tests. Fortunately he was persisted with, and in his next 60 Tests from 1993 up to the start of 1998/99 averaged 37.18.

But I really don't see how his first season was anything other than way below requirements. Unlike McDermott, Reid (who BTW averaged just a tick under 30 in his first 18 Tests, not enormously better than McDermott over the exact same time period), Hughes, Boon and Stephen Waugh, though, Healy's was at least not an extended period of substandard performance and any player can be forgiven a moderate introduction to the Test game.

 

[social]

So "batting doesn't really matter" translates to an average of 25-30? I'd describe needing to average 25-30 as batting being pretty important myself.

Incidentally, Healy averaged 17.66 with the bat in 1988/89 and 22.62 between 1989 and 1992/93. Neither of which would seem to be fulfilling the required role (circa 1990s) of a wicketkeeper-batsman in Tests. Fortunately he was persisted with, and in his next 60 Tests from 1993 up to the start of 1998/99 averaged 37.18.

But I really don't see how his first season was anything other than way below requirements. Unlike McDermott, Reid (who BTW averaged just a tick under 30 in his first 18 Tests, not enormously better than McDermott over the exact same time period), Hughes, Boon and Stephen Waugh, though, Healy's was at least not an extended period of substandard performance and any player can be forgiven a moderate introduction to the Test game.

Richard, I dont think that you realise that Rod Marsh, who was picked as a keeper batsman, averaged 26!!!!!!

Wally Grout, Don Tallon and Brian Taber all averaged mid-teens!

So for Healy to average 22 in his second season, it was actually seen as being pretty damned good

Anyway, you need to look at selections and performances in the context of the time - Oz was comfortably the worst team in the world for a period so they were trying anyone at anytime in the hope that someone or something would succeed