Boata Dippenaar - cricket's biggest underachiever

[Craig]

Its a shame for me to call Boata Dippenaar a underachiever, but I feel he is. I'm a fan of him, but it annoys me greatly that this guy hasnt lived up to his potential and ability

He has a good one-day international record for South Africa (he does average over 40 I think) but its Tests he has under achieved.

Maybe its confidence I dont know, but it does sadden me that a talented player like him doesnt make the most of his ability. Neil McKenzie for me as well hasnt always lived up to his potential as well.

 

[krkode]

Personally, I feel Venkatesh Prasad is one of the biggest underachievers around. Once in a blue moon he fires a beauty and then just disappears. I know he can do it more often but he just doesn't...

 

[Pratters]

Personally, I feel Venkatesh Prasad is one of the biggest underachievers around.

Prasad was treated very shabbily by the selectors I felt. He bowled beautifully in England and South Africa but then after Sri Lanka smashed all the Indian bowlers (Kumble for one got the most stick during the period), Prasad was dropped. He was never consistently picked again, or given a fair chance. He should have been picked up in a few test matches properly and was a quality bowler. Srinath has often stated he was the best bowling partner of his with whom he enjoyed bowling the most.

Considering talent, I think Ian Bishop was the biggest under achiever. I used to rate him above Courtney Walsh early on in his career.

 

[krkode]

I think Bishop had circumstances (injury?) that prevented him from playing any more than he did.

Correct me if I am wrong...:alien8:

 

[Pratters]

Courtesy cricinfo -

By the age of 26, serious back problems had twice brought a halt to one of the most promising fast-bowling careers. From a long straight hustling run and orthodox side-on action Ian Bishop was fast, showing the sort of pace that makes a crowd gasp as the ball thuds into the gloves of a keeper seemingly in another time-zone. There was sharp movement away from the bat too. After stress fractures of the vertebrae were diagnosed early in 1991, the giant Bishop underwent intensive rehabilitation, prayed a lot and modified his action, and became front-on without losing his awayswing. Two years later he took 6 for 40 on a rapid Perth pitch, to prove he had lost little of his potency. The following spring he broke down again, and was absent from the Test side for a further two years until another comeback, against England in 1995. Bishop played his last Test, also against England, in March 1998. Mike Selvey

By the time he was 26, he had huge injury problems. He still ended up with 161 wickets at 24.72. So he definitely could have taken 300 wickets if not 400. A huge under achiever. The Windies bowling would certainly have been much stronger had he been around longer and fitter.

 

[krkode]

C'mon. He played good health till he was 26 and he took 161 wickets at 24 a piece. How is that "huge underachievement." Even Walsh doesn't average any better. People don't take 300 or 400 wickets at that young, especially with injury halting them.. :rolleyes:

It's just bad luck that this had to happen to him...

 

[Pratters]

C'mon. He played good health till he was 26 and he took 161 wickets at 24 a piece

Thats exactly why I said he was an under achiever. How many bowlers manage such records when they are 26? Walsh took a majority of his wickets after he was 30. Bishop could certainly have achieved much more in cricket. An average of 24 in test cricket is also no mean thing.

 

[krkode]

How can you call him an underachiever if injury cut his career short?

That's unlucky, not underachieving. I would define an underachiever as someone who has the potential but never utilized it the max...

 

[Pratters]

How can you call him an underachiever if injury cut his career short?

Underachiever - some one who cannot achieve as much as he should have. Now this under achievment may be due to injury or due to lack of utilising potential. It works on both things for me.

 

[krkode]

Underachiever - some one who cannot achieve as much as he should have. Now this under achievment may be due to injury or due to lack of utilising potential. It works on both things for me.

As much as he "should" have or as much as he "could" have. With poor Bishop, there's a difference. :P

 

[Pratters]

He should have achieved much more but cuoldnt due to injuries. No difference :P:P:P

 

[Andre]

Dippenaar has serious, serious techinical flaws - he gets so square on in defence that he edges often aorund gully.

This is not so amplified in ODI's because of the lack of catchers around the bat.

 

[Arjun]

All of India's faster bowlers, except Agarkar, are under-achievers, especially Tinu Yohannan. These are a well-built, tall lot, the kind that would at least look like a pace attack. Unfortunately, when they get the ball, they start bowling short and wide deliveries once too often. They have a lot of potential, but bowl the wrong line and length once too often and it does not help them at all. Not to mention they're very predictable. At least Agarkar and Bangar make good use of their potential- it's a different story that Agarkar is a little man and Bangar does not have much ability. Zaheer and Nehra should stay fit, to help the team get more wickets. The team needs them a lot.

Look at this list

1. Mervyn Dillon
2. Cameron Cuffy
3. Nuwan Zoysa
4. Tinu Yohannan
5. Jacob Oram
6. Kyle Mills
7. Justin Kemp
8. Stephen Harmison

They are all big men, good enough to play as fast bowlers (as opposed to Agarkar), but they are not doing any justice at all to their ability. They have the power, so they should use it well. It's just some sort of attitude problem, especially Zoysa, whom many consider lazy.

Even Yuvraj Singh is an underachiever. Look at some of the shots he plays to get out. They come at the wrong time. He has not yet built an innings. Yet, he plays such a careless, irresponsible shot. If he was more thoughtful, he would have stayed around a little longer and it would help the Indian team a lot- and it would get him into the Test team and also runs in Tests.

 

[luckyeddie]

He should have achieved much more but cuoldnt due to injuries. No difference :P:P:P

Major difference.

By the same token (a player missing from the scene because of circumstances beyond his control) you could equally argue that Sir Don Bradman was an under-achiever.

If there hadn't been a second world war, he would have played another 20-30 test matches at least, probably scoring another 3000-4000 runs.

No, an under-achiever is one who SHOULD have done more but the reason he didn't was closer to home - Dominic Cork is one who springs to mind (massive ability, major temperament problems), Steve Harmison most definitely is not (limited ability).

For me, Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash are under-achievers, Anthony McGrath is not.

 

[raju]

Underachiever - some one who cannot achieve as much as he should have. Now this under achievment may be due to injury or due to lack of utilising potential. It works on both things for me.

By the same twisted logic Ben Hollioke is still under-achieving because he died in a road accident.

And Arjun...do you seriously see Justin Kemp as a fast bowler? He looked a right trundler to me when I saw him. But maybe this just illustrates your point. Have you seen him bowl fast?

 

[Bazza]

Raju, I'm sure that comment wasn't intended maliciously but it seems a little out of place and unnecessary.

Neil McKenzie was mentioned - hasn't he had enough chances to do something? He averages 33 from 38 tests. His ODI average of 38 is acceptable, but aren't there others who could have a go in tests? What about Martin van Jaarsveld?

 

[raju]

It wasn't meant to cause offence to anyone. Just used BH as an example.
Apologies offered if it was taken the wrong way

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Underachiever - some one who cannot achieve as much as he should have. Now this under achievment may be due to injury or due to lack of utilising potential. It works on both things for me.

An underachiever is not someone who 'cannot' achieve as much as he should have. An underachiever is someone who does not achieve as much as he should have.

Bishop certainly did not underachieve. In his career for Trinidad and Tobago and the West Indies he achieved more than most.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Underachievers...

Franklyn Rose - tremendous talent but he doesn't seem to have the right commitment.

Nixon McLean - unsure what the problem is with him.

Daren Ganga - he bats for long periods and looks solid but then he gets out. IMO, if he would play more aggressively in the time that he's at the crease he would have more runs when he gets out and easily average over 30. All his success has been when he's positive.

Adrian Griffith - lost the plot after New Zealand. Streak had a part to play in that.

Brian Lara pre-2001 - he's only now reached his full potential.

Shiv Chanderpaul pre 2002 - only since India he's been scoring centuries consistently.

Mervyn Dillon - he underachieves because he has to lead a very weak and constantly changing attack. The selectors have mistreated him recently IMO.

Dinanath Ramnarine - would have been picked ahead of Mohammed for South Africa if he hadn't retired. :!(

Marlon Samuels - still young. Oozing talent.

Carl Hooper - someone once said, "Hooper bats like a virtuoso... and then he gets out."

Stuart Williams - see Hooper.

Mahendra Nagamootoo - Nixon McLean syndrome.

Ricardo Powell - 'nuff said.

 

[Pratters]

Bishop certainly did not underachieve. In his career for Trinidad and Tobago and the West Indies he achieved more than most.

Bishop was a great player and it was very disappointing to see his career cut short.

If you are takling of under achievers as in talented players not doing justice to their talent coz of lack of effort/ willingness etc only, here's my list

Sivaramakrishnan - He is doing commentary for the last 3-4 years now. Didnt fulfill potential

Carl Hooper - if he tantrums and whims and fancies of playing only if he was captain are also ignored, he avereged only around 35. Now thats a huge waste of talent.

VVS Laxman - only recently after he was dropped from WC 2003 squad has he been consistent. There were few magical innings like the 167 and EDEN 281 but he was a huge inconsistent player

Alistair Campbell - he averages below 30 in test cricket. He does look good some times bad sadly has always underachieved through ou his career

Nantie Hayward - I am not sure why he isnt in the South African team right now. A very talented bowler.

Vinod Kambli - A very good batsman who did rectify his manners later in his career. However, he got an ankle injury in a one day game and never got to play test cricket again despite playing well in domestic cricket. Its funny how some one can get picked into one day cricket and be thrown when he should have been given a chance in the test squad.

Ashish Nehra - he is a very highly under rated bowler. Injuries though have a lot to do with it. He should be asked to get 'match fit' and then play for India.

And one who achieved potential because of being persisted with - Atapattu who had a horrendous beginning to his career, only to fulfil his potential because the selectors persisted with him.