Countries with the most overseas born International players over the years??

[SJS]

I'd agree, but he is SA-born.

I'm a bit too young to have see Tony Grieg (& certainly D'Oliveira!), but looking at his overall career figures he's probably 2nd only to Beefy in our all-rounders list (& even Beefy didn't bowl off spin too!).

I gotta go with Robin Smith tho, he was my hero growing up. Obv weakness against spin, but superb against pace & gutsy with it too. We ditched him far too early.

I have seen Tony Grieg. He was very good. What stood out in his game was his unbridled enjoyment of every moment he spent on the ground,

He was a great innovator in whatever he was doing batting or bowling and had a great sense of occasion.

He had a presence and the crowds loved him.

 

[Swervy]

I'd agree, but he is SA-born.

I'm a bit too young to have see Tony Grieg (& certainly D'Oliveira!), but looking at his overall career figures he's probably 2nd only to Beefy in our all-rounders list (& even Beefy didn't bowl off spin too!).

I gotta go with Robin Smith tho, he was my hero growing up. Obv weakness against spin, but superb against pace & gutsy with it too. We ditched him far too early.

not 100% true...botham took i think 6 wickets in the second innings of the Sri lanka test in 1984....i remember botham taking several wickets with off spin, bowling in tandem with Pat Pocock

 

[BoyBrumby]

not 100% true...botham took i think 6 wickets in the second innings of the Sri lanka test in 1984....i remember botham taking several wickets with off spin, bowling in tandem with Pat Pocock

Wow; good knowledge there Sir! I stand corrected!

Always an education on CW!

 

[Swervy]

Wow; good knowledge there Sir! I stand corrected!

Always an education on CW!

hey I know my Botham stuff...

He was my childhood hero..I even wrote an essay about heroes on him when I was 10 when I lived in Australia...I got a lot of ribbing for it from my mates.

So I used to make it my business to know everything there was to know about his career when I was young

 

[Linda]

so about a quarter of the population of Perth is South African????...are you sure about that???

Not certain, no. But remember that Perth's population is closer to 2 million these days.

 

[Swervy]

Not certain, no. But remember that Perth's population is closer to 2 million these days.

'Perth, capital of Western Australia has a population of approx 1.4 million people' from http://www.bcl.com.au/perth/about.htm

even so, that is one hell of a lot of saffies in one Australian city. I was in Perth for 6 months about 10 years ago..didnt meet one South African whilst I was there..tons of English though

 

[Richard]

hey I know my Botham stuff...

He was my childhood hero..I even wrote an essay about heroes on him when I was 10 when I lived in Australia...I got a lot of ribbing for it from my mates.

So I used to make it my business to know everything there was to know about his career when I was young

So that's why you're so silly about people talking him down, then.

 

[Swervy]

So that's why you're so silly about people talking him down, then.

I am so silly about people talking him down when they simply use figures to try and prove points,with players like Botham (and i guess Sobers) it doesnt just come down to statistics.

There were reasons why an Aussie kid (me) would pick up on Bothams ability to win games and entertain people with incredible skill,and consider him a real cricketing hero.

I saw all 4 of the big 4,and IMO Botham was the best cricketer of the 4.Its my opinion, and no amount of 'average' talk will change that

 

[Richard]

Generally the one who's played the biggest part in positive influence on matches will have the better average.
Botham's overall career stats are massively misrepresentative of him at his peak, yes, like they are with so many players. But equally they do say something about him - principally that he went on too long.

 

[Swervy]

Generally the one who's played the biggest part in positive influence on matches will have the better average.
Botham's overall career stats are massively misrepresentative of him at his peak, yes, like they are with so many players. But equally they do say something about him - principally that he went on too long.

I agree up to a point. If a players average was that players sole concern,then the temptation would be to quit and run the his peak,and so gaining immortality thanks to stellar averages..if Botham had have retired when his back problems were starting to effect his play slightly (1982) he would have finished with a batting average of 38,11 hundreds in 54 tests and a bowling average of 23 with 250 test wickets and a strike rate of about 50...would there have been any doubt then about his prowess as an all rounder.

However,a player doesnt tend to be too concerned by averages...the needs of the team are the main concern.The England team needed Botham,hence he was picked for a further 10 years, really because (and certainly for the last 3 or 4 years at least) there really wasnt anyone else to take over his role.He continued playing because he still had abilty to contribute..albeit not in the same manner as his first 5 years.

If someone of Sobers ability (for example) came onto the scene in England in 1982/83, and displaced Botham from the team,Botham would have had the aforementioned career statistics..would that mean Botham then would have been considered a better allrounder???? I dont think so...or at least i would hope not anyway

So, stats wise, yeah he went on too long..but as far as playing for his country is concerned he didnt

 

[Zinzan]

I agree up to a point. If a players average was that players sole concern,then the temptation would be to quit and run the his peak,and so gaining immortality thanks to stellar averages..if Botham had have retired when his back problems were starting to effect his play slightly (1982) he would have finished with a batting average of 38,11 hundreds in 54 tests and a bowling average of 23 with 250 test wickets and a strike rate of about 50...would there have been any doubt then about his prowess as an all rounder.

However,a player doesnt tend to be too concerned by averages...the needs of the team are the main concern.The England team needed Botham,hence he was picked for a further 10 years, really because (and certainly for the last 3 or 4 years at least) there really wasnt anyone else to take over his role.He continued playing because he still had abilty to contribute..albeit not in the same manner as his first 5 years.

Hey Swervy, Notice you never replied to my question to you on the cricket ODI's rankings thread...

If someone of Sobers ability (for example) came onto the scene in England in 1982/83, and displaced Botham from the team,Botham would have had the aforementioned career statistics..would that mean Botham then would have been considered a better allrounder???? I dont think so...or at least i would hope not anyway

So, stats wise, yeah he went on too long..but as far as playing for his country is concerned he didnt

 

[Zinzan]

Hey Swervy, Notice you never replied to my question to you on the cricket ODI's rankings thread...

 

[Swervy]

Hey Swervy, Notice you never replied to my question to you on the cricket ODI's rankings thread...

which one???

 

[Swervy]

got it now...see reply

 

[Linda]

'Perth, capital of Western Australia has a population of approx 1.4 million people' from http://www.bcl.com.au/perth/about.htm

even so, that is one hell of a lot of saffies in one Australian city. I was in Perth for 6 months about 10 years ago..didnt meet one South African whilst I was there..tons of English though

Like I said, Im not certain at all.
To attempted to get some good hard statistics, but the only site I found said also that our average Janurary temperature was 23C- I cant remember a time when it was that cold in Janurary- so I left that site well alone!
So I went an asked my stepdad (who is from SA) and he said he estimates close to 100,000, so take that as you will.

 

[Richard]

I agree up to a point. If a players average was that players sole concern,then the temptation would be to quit and run the his peak,and so gaining immortality thanks to stellar averages..if Botham had have retired when his back problems were starting to effect his play slightly (1982) he would have finished with a batting average of 38,11 hundreds in 54 tests and a bowling average of 23 with 250 test wickets and a strike rate of about 50...would there have been any doubt then about his prowess as an all rounder.

However,a player doesnt tend to be too concerned by averages...the needs of the team are the main concern.The England team needed Botham,hence he was picked for a further 10 years, really because (and certainly for the last 3 or 4 years at least) there really wasnt anyone else to take over his role.He continued playing because he still had abilty to contribute..albeit not in the same manner as his first 5 years.

If someone of Sobers ability (for example) came onto the scene in England in 1982/83, and displaced Botham from the team,Botham would have had the aforementioned career statistics..would that mean Botham then would have been considered a better allrounder???? I dont think so...or at least i would hope not anyway

So, stats wise, yeah he went on too long..but as far as playing for his country is concerned he didnt

No, he didn't.
So, in short, if you look at the stats you can see how fantastic a player Botham was... as long as you look at the right ones (ie before the back started playing-up on him). If you look at them broken down (pre-1982, post-1982) you'll see that, frankly, he went on too long.
If you think someone with this record would have played for 10 years if his record before it hadn't been so good, I think you're delusional, personally.
Botham might still have added something to the team, yes - he still played huge parts in turning games on their heads occasionally.
But he wasn't, really, a particularly good player from 1982\83 onwards, and I think if he'd packed the game up when his back started playing him up before the Australia tour, cricket might - just might - have been richer.
It ain't like we've ever found anyone who can play the "Botham role", even in the 10 years since his retirement, so he hung-around for... well, nothing, really.

 

[Swervy]

No, he didn't.
So, in short, if you look at the stats you can see how fantastic a player Botham was... as long as you look at the right ones (ie before the back started playing-up on him). If you look at them broken down (pre-1982, post-1982) you'll see that, frankly, he went on too long.
If you think someone with this record would have played for 10 years if his record before it hadn't been so good, I think you're delusional, personally.
Botham might still have added something to the team, yes - he still played huge parts in turning games on their heads occasionally.
But he wasn't, really, a particularly good player from 1982\83 onwards, and I think if he'd packed the game up when his back started playing him up before the Australia tour, cricket might - just might - have been richer.
It ain't like we've ever found anyone who can play the "Botham role", even in the 10 years since his retirement, so he hung-around for... well, nothing, really.

he was picked for the England team because even in the mid 80's, there werent that many better batsmen in England(qualified to play for England) around...with hindsight, maybe it could be said it would have been betetr for the England team if he went say around 86/87 (his last great batting performance was then..and his last productive test bowling as well..although it wasnt a very good spell to be honest at Melbourne)...but really at the time,the selectors would have been struggling to find someone to take his place. The only allrounder I can think of was Derek Pringle..well he was just a no-goer.

So even though Bothams powers were waning, he was still vital to the balance of the side..and thats why England couldnt really drop him until much later on....so on a personal level, yes Botham went on too long, his figures suffered for it etc...fortunately cricket isnt just about figures.England needed him, so he played..simple as...and I am glad, or we wouldnt have got to see his breathtaking hundred in 86/87 in Australia, or see him demolish Hadlee and co in 83, or take his 8for vs WI in 84, in times when he wasnt the player he once was....and England wouldnt have had one of the 91 World Cups best bowlers as well.

By the way..England have found the player who can play the Botham role....Harmison..hehehehehe

 

[Richard]

he was picked for the England team because even in the mid 80's, there werent that many better batsmen in England(qualified to play for England) around...with hindsight, maybe it could be said it would have been betetr for the England team if he went say around 86/87 (his last great batting performance was then..and his last productive test bowling as well..although it wasnt a very good spell to be honest at Melbourne)...but really at the time,the selectors would have been struggling to find someone to take his place. The only allrounder I can think of was Derek Pringle..well he was just a no-goer.

So even though Bothams powers were waning, he was still vital to the balance of the side..and thats why England couldnt really drop him until much later on....so on a personal level, yes Botham went on too long, his figures suffered for it etc...fortunately cricket isnt just about figures.England needed him, so he played..simple as...and I am glad, or we wouldnt have got to see his breathtaking hundred in 86/87 in Australia, or see him demolish Hadlee and co in 83, or take his 8for vs WI in 84, in times when he wasnt the player he once was....and England wouldnt have had one of the 91 World Cups best bowlers as well.

It's the old thing of "must like-for-like replace" again.
Just because you can't replace an all-rounder with an all-rounder, doesn't mean you can't improve the team by dropping all-rounder and bringing-in bowler\batsman.
England might still have benefited on the odd occasion from his presence, such as the century in the opening Test of '86\87. But in the main, figures don't lie - if someone has modest figures and they've played a huge part in winning certain games, it's completely inevitable that they'll have had a negative influence on others.
I don't know that England did have any better options in the mid-80s, but we can't say for certain that he was as indispensable as his pre-1983 figures suggested.

 

[wpdavid]

It's the old thing of "must like-for-like replace" again.
Just because you can't replace an all-rounder with an all-rounder, doesn't mean you can't improve the team by dropping all-rounder and bringing-in bowler\batsman.
England might still have benefited on the odd occasion from his presence, such as the century in the opening Test of '86\87. But in the main, figures don't lie - if someone has modest figures and they've played a huge part in winning certain games, it's completely inevitable that they'll have had a negative influence on others.
I don't know that England did have any better options in the mid-80s, but we can't say for certain that he was as indispensable as his pre-1983 figures suggested.

We probably didn't have many better options in the mid-1980's from what I remember. Standards in the CC weren't high, as can be guaged by the relatively low standard of players who first appeared for the test side in the decade as a whole. Botham was a long way from being a complete disaster in the mid80's to be fair. Even in the 1984 WI blackwash I think he was second in our batting averages behind Lamb, who had managed those three hundreds. He then had a very good series against Aus in 1985. After having a complete nightmare in the WI and missing most of the 1986 home tests due to his drugs ban, he made significant contributions to the 2 tests we won in Aus during 1986/87 before effectively bowing out with an ineffectual series at home to Pakistan.

When people say that Botham went on for too long, it's easily forgotten that he only played eight tests over a five year period after the 1987 home series against Pakistan until his final appearances in 1992. Those last two tests were a real pity, I thought. It was obvious that he was past it, and the Pakistanis were far too good to be worried about his reputation. Instead, we just had the sad sight of a once great player now out of his depth.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Back on topic - Norway must have the record. Just look at this squad!

* Syed Munawar Ahmed (captain)
* Aamir Waheed
* Abdual Hamid Shaheen
* Mehtab Afsar
* Monim Abdul
* Aziz Ataul
* Majid Zia Butt
* Mohamad Shamoon Chaudhry
* Mohamad Zeeshan Ali
* Shahid Ahmed
* Shahid Mahmood
* Shahzad Ahmed
* Zaheer Ashiq
* Zeeshan Shahzad Siddiqui

Lot of Scandinavian-sounding names, isn't it!

(yes, I know we were talking about international teams, but hey...claim whatever record you can )