Players who 'over-performed' internationally

[honestbharani]

The problem is that Shaun Marsh appears more talented than Steve Waugh and Warner looks like the greatest ever batsman if you believe that talent is the ability to play beautiful looking technically correct shots.

Nope.. Certainly not in test cricket.

 

[mr_mister]

its funny how at the end of the day that the 10-15 best batsman after bradman despite all having different styles and techniques all roughly ended up with the same average. like it's weird there's not a small batch of people who managed to average ~70

 

[TheJediBrah]

oh god this so much.

people prattling on about 'natural talent' and lacking 'intangibles'.

natural talent = shot making only in their minds and mental qualities being something that you should just expect to possess.

Yeah i've seen this exact discussion on here a few times.

ie. what is the definition of "natural talent"? Literally speaking it can mean anything, hand-eye coordination, strength, shot selection/mental aptitude.

But people tend to use it purely in the context of "being an aggressive strokemaker who times the ball well". Which I agree is kind of stupid but since most people do it I guess it is what it is.

 

[Shri]

Batsmen who score quick runs are as good as good bowlers when it comes to winning tests sometimes. While defensive bats can get you draws from bad positions. I can see why some people might consider aggressive bats to be better than more limited bats.

 

[ImpatientLime]

as far as i'm concerned, composure at the crease and mental fortitude are as much a 'natural talent' as being able to time the pants off a cover drive.

 

[Burner]

Talent is a meaningless word anyway. It means whatever people wants it to mean and in cricket generally flair is atrributed to talent.

 

[Coronis]

its funny how at the end of the day that the 10-15 best batsman after bradman despite all having different styles and techniques all roughly ended up with the same average. like it's weird there's not a small batch of people who managed to average ~70

Its almost like technique doesn't really matter that much.

 

[srbhkshk]

He came in as a replacement for Sidhu in the playing XI (and also because Manjrekar was injured). But before that he was selected in the team of 16 - and that had nothing to do with Sidhu or Manjrekar. It was a very controversial selection. The Eastern India selector Sambaran Banerjee convinced the other selectors that Ganguly's bowling maybe useful in the English condition and he should be selected as an all-rounder. Harsha Bhogle said from the commentary box that Ganguly's selection was from Eastern India quota in a way.

General problem with Bhogle, isn't it? Mostly talks sensibly and limits himself to general topics, but occasionally goes from stuff where he is out of depth and looks like an idiot.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Brendan Nash - walked away with a decent enough Test record considering he hardly tore apart FC cricket, wherever he played (Aus/WI/England).

 

[Top_Cat]

Great shout, did well for a bloke with a shot range that varied from forward defence to defensive prod through slips to defensive push through cover.

Most-said phrase from comms when Nash was batting; "Well, it doesn't matter how they come...."

 

[Furball]

Lol @ the "Indian Mafia circle jerk like-club", this new breed of sensitivity about any arguments against their team or any of their players since CW started, no other group comes close, yet Kiwi supporters get tagged as 'Kiwaahhs", and nobody can see the irony.

It's little wonder why top posters like Heef just don't bother here anymore.

You can all rant and rave and like one another posts in your typical circle jerk fashion, but Jadeja is NOT the world's number 1 bowler in any meaningful way except he's been lucky he's had an excellent run in home conditions. The true best bowler in the world, whoever it is, performs both home and away, and certainly doesn't average more than twice away than he does at home.

There's a nice juicy post that can create more outrage and circle jerking for the next 4 pages now Have fun.

waaaaah

 

[Furball]

I used to feel 'talent' is a term that belongs to things like hand/eye co-ordination, reflexes, and general body control, but over the years my experiences from following/training/playing different sports has lead me to use talent to cover things such as temperament, coachability, concentration, work ethic, etc. These are all things that some people are just inherently better at - ie, more 'talented' - than others.

I would class 'natural talent' as your shot making ability. So your T20 innovators like Buttler, de Villiers etc are more naturally talented than your Test batsmen like Cook because Cook doesn't have the ability to stick a yorker over the keeper's head.

Where people go wrong is assuming 'natural talent' is what makes a good Test batsman. The biggest asset for a Test batsman is his defensive game, because you can't score runs from the pavilion. Having loads of shots isn't the be all and end all if you play the wrong shot to the wrong ball. It's why I've never gotten the criticism Steve Waugh took for putting away the pull shot when the short ball is not a ball a batsman needs to be getting out to.

It's concentration, shot selection and defence that makes up the art of batting and scoring big runs, not necessarily 'natural talent.' It's a great asset to have but it's not the same as being a good batsman.

 

[Furball]

In fact, bowling probably gives you a better 'natural talent' vs 'better' comparison - Wasim vs McGrath.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Less heralded than David Steele, but Clive Radley was another County pro who made his debut at 33 and played 8 Tests in the 70's. He made two centuries and two fifties and averaged 48. It was against a modest New Zealand attack and Packerlessstan so it wasn't quite the Lillee/Thomson and Windies quartet that Steele faced. He also made a century and half century in 4 ODI's and averaged over 80.

 

[Red]

its funny how at the end of the day that the 10-15 best batsman after bradman despite all having different styles and techniques all roughly ended up with the same average. like it's weird there's not a small batch of people who managed to average ~70

Have always thought this too. So many great batsmen end up averaging 45-55 (Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting, Kallis, Lara, Chanderpaul, Border, Gavaskar, Waugh, Lloyd, Chappell).

Above that you've got a few guys who played limited tests - Dempster played 10 and avgd 65, Barnes played 13 and avgd 63.

After them it's Voges (20 tests for 61 runs) Pollock (23 for 61), Smith (54 for 61), Headley (22 for 60) and Sutcliffe (54 for 60)

Then there are a small bunch of guys averaging high 50s - Barrington, Weekes, Hammond, Sobers, Sanga, Hobbs, Walcott, Hutton.


But it is remarkable that no one with a career or note has managed to average anywhere in the high 60s, 70s or 80s, especially considering Bradman averaged 100. So remarkable. Especially when Voges did what he did.

 

[stephen]

I know that this might be controversial but I think Bradman was only able to do what he did because of the era in which he played. He was able to focus exclusively on tests and didn't have anywhere near the number of tours that happen today. I think that today he would probably average less (mid 80s perhaps) simply due to exhaustion.

 

[mr_mister]

yeah sure all well good, but 3 english legends who's career happened roughly around the same time as his, Hobbs-Hammond-Hutton couldn't come close to Bradman. Possibly O'Reilly and Grimmett's influence? who knows

 

[harsh.ag]

yeah sure all well good, but 3 english legends who's career happened roughly around the same time as his, Hobbs-Hammond-Hutton couldn't come close to Bradman. Possibly O'Reilly and Grimmett's influence? who knows

Think he's coming from the angle of "there's a physical limitation on the mental reserves which Bradman clearly availed himself of better than anyone else in his ambitious quest to go beyond the realm of mortal greats".

 

[Burgey]

I know that this might be controversial but I think Bradman was only able to do what he did because of the era in which he played. He was able to focus exclusively on tests and didn't have anywhere near the number of tours that happen today. I think that today he would probably average less (mid 80s perhaps) simply due to exhaustion.

There would have to be an element of that sort of fatigue if he played today. Same for all of them I guess.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Well, although the different formats complicate things these days, I'd wonder if, for tours at least, the larger number of first-class fixtures played back then could have partially offset the benefits of fewer tests and/or tours. For example, for tours to England (all had five tests), the number of additional (first class and non-first class) fixtures was (assuming I counted correctly):
— 1930: 26
— 1934: 25
— 1938: 24
— 1948: 27 (112 days scheduled play of 144 days on tour)

(Granted, Bradman would not have played all of these)

And the two most recent tours:
— 2013: 4 f.c., 2 T20s, 6 ODIs (and also 5 Champions Trophy-related matches)
— 2015: 4 f.c., 1 T20, 6 ODIs

So, on the fatigue question, what'd be the effect of longer tours then vs. shorter tours today plus multiple O.D. series and T20 tournaments?