• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

When I Was Wrong!

archie mac

International Coach
If you were a commentator or cricket writer, when would you have had egg on your face, I would have had an omlette on mine in 1992-93 after watching Keith Arthurton and Brian Lara in the first Test in Brisbane I declared that Arthurton was the better batsman and would go on to have the better Test career. This despite Ian Chappell and Richie Benaud declaring that Lara would be an all time great:ph34r:


Keith Arthurton =M-33 R-1382 HS-157* AVE: 30.71

Brian Lara = M-131 R-11953 HS-400* AVE: 52.88

So when did you get it wrong?
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
I got it wrong when suggesting that India should not have taken Ishant Sharma to Australia, soon after the Test squad was announced.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I try not to make my mind up too quickly about "new" players. I also tend to pretty well never say "so-and-so will never make a Test\ODI\First-Class\whatever-standard player" as that's just asking for trouble (though I do occasionally say I find it pretty unlikely).

Of course there are times when a poor-quality player gets better, which is a bit different.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
I suspect you were on your own there Arch.:laugh:

John Crawley is one I got wrong, he looked destined for a long and distinquised Test career from very early on.
 

archie mac

International Coach
I try not to make my mind up too quickly about "new" players. I also tend to pretty well never say "so-and-so will never make a Test\ODI\First-Class\whatever-standard player" as that's just asking for trouble (though I do occasionally say I find it pretty unlikely).

Of course there are times when a poor-quality player gets better, which is a bit different.
Not even Hayden?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Andrew Symonds as a Test cricketer.

I'm still yet to be convinced he's as good as his Test average suggests or even that bringing him back into the team would reap further rewards, but he's already achieved a lot more than I thought he could both with the bat and his off breaks.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Not even Hayden?
No no, not at all. I watched Hayden for a good 3 years (1999-2001/02) before I made my mind up fully about him - he was poor against quality seam and outstanding against spin and poor-quality seam. An impression which remains virtually unaltered 7 years later. Though it's fair to say he did play better than he ever has in one series in 2007/08. This is something I'll credit him for but which won't alter my overall impression of him.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Andrew Symonds as a Test cricketer.

I'm still yet to be convinced he's as good as his Test average suggests or even that bringing him back into the team would reap further rewards, but he's already achieved a lot more than I thought he could both with the bat and his off breaks.
I have two $50 dollar bets that Symonds would finish with a Test average over 40 (I made the bet after his first two Tests), feeling pretty good :cool:
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
John Crawley is one I got wrong, he looked destined for a long and distinquised Test career from very early on.
I thought the same with Crawley.

Also I didnt think Cork was Test standard (lacked that extra yard and was always in the A team).

Not that he was a World beater, but he did better than I thought he would.

I guess my big one (though I was very young) was that I thought Blakey would break all England batsman/keeper records.
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
Yes, but to be fair to you, he has improved a lot since that tour:)
That is true. However, it is my deficiency to not spot the talent of height, likely due to my infinite rating of Munaf Patel and the fact that I, myself, have been preferred to taller bowlers many times so far in my 'career'.
 

archie mac

International Coach
I thought the same with Crawley.

Also I didnt think Cork was Test standard (lacked that extra yard and was always in the A team).

Not that he was a World beater, but he did better than I thought he would.

I guess my big one (though I was very young) was that I thought Blakey would break all England batsman/keeper records.
Never played against Aust? I don't think I know him:unsure:
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Andrew Symonds as a Test cricketer.

I'm still yet to be convinced he's as good as his Test average suggests or even that bringing him back into the team would reap further rewards, but he's already achieved a lot more than I thought he could both with the bat and his off breaks.
Yeah, me similarly. Suspect we aren't alone either.

Sure I made disparaging remarks about Collingwood's potential as a test batsman before our 05/06 tour to Pakistan. Something like "test batsmen need to do more than score gutsy 10s".

Thought Vaughan would be our best batsman since Gooch too, but he's tailed off quite badly post- captaincy & injuries.
 

Redbacks

International Captain
Never thought Brett Lee would make it at test level.

Also never though Dizzy would get a double ton:wacko: :laugh:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Never played against Aust? I don't think I know him:unsure:
No, IIRR Richard Blakey's only Tests were in the subcontinent in 1992/93.

Was a damn fine Yorkshire servant until pretty recently though. And with Simon Guys and Gerard Brophys how we'd kill for a reincarnate of him now.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Was a damn fine Yorkshire servant until pretty recently though. And with Simon Guys and Gerard Brophys how we'd kill for a reincarnate of him now.
Especially the 1st half of his career. The last decade was nowhere near as procuctive as the first 10.

From 87-92 he scored 9 FC hundreds including 2 doubles (inc one on an Eng A tour where he, by all accounts, outbatted the likes of Atherton etc).

He then played for England and afterwards scored 4 FC hundreds 11 seasons.

He was very capable, but instead of kicking on and progressing he regressed and he was never the player people thought he may be.
 

masterblaster

International Captain
I was wrong on Ajit Agarkar. When he burst onto the scene being the fastest ODI bowler in history to 50 wickets I thought he'd be one of India's best fast bowlers in the test arena. Sadly, it was never to be.

However to compensate, Agarkar had a fantastic career for India as a Limited Overs cricketer and took well over 280 wickets at a decent average of 27. So it wasn't all bad there.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
I was wrong on Ajit Agarkar. When he burst onto the scene being the fastest ODI bowler in history to 50 wickets I thought he'd be one of India's best fast bowlers in the test arena. Sadly, it was never to be.

However to compensate, Agarkar had a fantastic career for India as a Limited Overs cricketer and took well over 280 wickets at a decent average of 27. So it wasn't all bad there.
Yeah, same here. I started watching cricket in '96, and he was the first Indian bowler who made me want to watch India bowling as opposed to me watching just the batting innings.

Was also wrong about Brett Lee. When he tore through the Indian batting in his debut series in '99, I reckoned he'd easily end up with a bowling average in the low 20's.
 

Top