Cricketers who wasted their talents

[Athlai]

Hmmm, if thats what you think, i don;t think it fits the crieteria for this thread. I mean, 1 Test?

Poor Andre didnt have enough chances to disappoint.

I meant more along the lines of ODI cricket which is more of his style cricket, not sure where he'd fit in the test team TBH I think Cairns was the main reason he never really got a shot.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Craig McMillan
Nathan Astle
John Blain

 

[gettingbetter]

I meant more along the lines of ODI cricket which is more of his style cricket, not sure where he'd fit in the test team TBH I think Cairns was the main reason he never really got a shot.

His bowlign average is slightly higher than what he does domestically, buts thats the case for most NZ ODI bowlers.

22/34 innings at 7 or 8 and averaging 18 isn't that poor.

 

[Flem274*]

Craig McMillan
Nathan Astle
John Blain

Ah no. He was expected to be a bit of a bits and peices player, like the previously mentioned Adams turned out to be. No one expected Astle to be as good as he was. We're not complaining though.

 

[Flem274*]

Good calls; though I sincerely hope Jesse's talent doesn't go to waste.

How's about one H.T.Davis??

To waste talent, you have to have it first

 

[iamdavid]

Ramprakash - look at his FC average and then his Test average

Hick - same as above

Harmison - has had moments of greatness, but hasn't been able to perform regularly

M. Waugh - to an extent; could of been so much better (than Steve)

Agree on Ramprakash and M.Waugh and to an extent on Hick.
But I believe if anything Harmison has overachieved, he had a 2 year period where he was really good and the rest of his career he's been mostly rubbish, people seem to view those 2 years as the bowler he really was and the rest as him underachieving. IMO those two years were just him overachieving and the rest is a more accurate reflection of his talents.

 

[andyc]

I'm 17, but yeah that's one innings, if he did those sorts of innings (not to that extent) consistently then that would be real talent

That's the point. He clearly has talent, but he's far too inconsistent. Therefore, talent wasted.

 

[Poker Boy]

Four names:
Vinod Kambli (yes, he averaged 54 but apparently his temprement kept him out of Test teams)
David Hookes (an Aussie Hick?)
Carl Hooper (I know he played a lot of Tests but IMO he should have scored a lot more runs than he did and a lot of his dissmisals were soft)
Chris Lewis (the buggest waste of talent in England IMO)
PS - Angus Fraser IMO made full use of his talents and it was to his great credit that he came back from his injuries to be a good bowler (if not as good as in 1989-1991). To say he wasted his talent is crazy.

 

[gettingbetter]

Agree on Ramprakash and M.Waugh and to an extent on Hick.But I believe if anything Harmison has overachieved, he had a 2 year period where he was really good and the rest of his career he's been mostly rubbish, people seem to view those 2 years as the bowler he really was and the rest as him underachieving. IMO those two years were just him overachieving and the rest is a more accurate reflection of his talents.

Anyone who has soared so high for so long in what is supposed to be the 'premier' FC league in the world hasn't wasted their talents?

Harmison: its hard to say, I think I'd take your option and say that he has over-achieved. Just the way you look at it I guess.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Darren Lehmann and Michael Bevan in test cricket, Alex Tudor.

Lehman himself didn't waste his talent, he was just unlucky being around at such a good time for Aus cricket.

 

[TT Boy]

Mushtaq Ahmed. Played a significant part in concluding his international career and even though he has enjoyed taking the proverbial piss out of county cricketers, he was/is far too talented for that level of mediocrity.

 

[Richard]

That's the point. He clearly has talent, but he's far too inconsistent. Therefore, talent wasted.

I think the best way of putting it is that he had the physical talents but lacked the mental ones, TBH.

 

[Richard]

Like andcy said, talent is being able to score 100 runs from 36 deliveries when you are 16. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you 16? Could you imagine doing that at your age? It's mind boggling how much talent that Afridi has with the bat, it is the mental side of his play that will always let him down.

I'm highly sceptical Afridi really was 16 at the time - I don't really think any 16-year-old could play such an innings.

Many estimates have Afridi as 3 or 4 years older than his cricket-records age.

 

[Richard]

I dont think Hick wasted his talent, he had a phenomenal record in FC cricket but it was more due to the fact that he was an exceptional batsman against medium pace stuff. Hicks game was never accompolished against genuine hostile quick stuff and was rather unfortunate to play in era when we had some great fast bowlers and thus his avg of mid 30 is an accurate reflection of his batting talents.

Don't agree, really - Hick in the first year of his Test career did indeed lack the technique against the short, quick stuff. However, between 1993 and 1995 he played any number of exceptional innings against any number of exceptional seam-bowlers, because he'd sorted the flaw in his game.

Unfortunately for him, an awful run of form in 1996 put paid to his place and he never enjoyed any real faith or a consistent run from then on (not exclusively down to poor selection - you can't pick players if there are no places available), and on the few occasions he did his temperament let him down.

And what's almost always forgotten is that Hick certainly didn't waste his one-day cricket talent, he's one of if not the best ODI batsman for England of the modern era.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'm 17, but yeah that's one innings, if he did those sorts of innings (not to that extent) consistently then that would be real talent

Yeah well consistency /= talent. At least not by most people's definition of the word.

 

[Sanz]

And what's almost always forgotten is that Hick certainly didn't waste his one-day cricket talent, he's one of if not the best ODI batsman for England of the modern era.

That doesn't mean much when your best ODI batsman in the said period is Nick Knight.

 

[Days of Grace]

Flem 274*, do you think that Flem has made the most of his talents?

I consider his average of 32 in ODI cricket a bit low. He is slowly starting to correct his test stats though (let's hope he gets more chances, by the way).

 

[Days of Grace]

That doesn't mean much when your best ODI batsman in the said period is Nick Knight.

I would agree with Richard (slightly on this): Hick would be the the top 10 English ODI batsmen, that's for sure.

 

[Flem274*]

Flem 274*, do you think that Flem has made the most of his talents?

I consider his average of 32 in ODI cricket a bit low. He is slowly starting to correct his test stats though (let's hope he gets more chances, by the way).

Actualy no I don't. There are reasons he hasn't acheived this. One is the fact he is not an opener and has a severe weakness to the new ball that is common in middle order batsmen. They can't help but twitch and try to chase the ball around. This was very noticable when he faced Bracken and Vaas. A factor that does not help is that he plays the ball very late since his reconstruction of his technique in 2000/01 which lead ultimately to the heights of 2003/04.

The other reason is that he has a technical flaw that was exposed by the highly accurate swing bowling of Vaas. He doesn't cover his pads against seamers properly. Against spinners this weakness in non existent, we all saw that in Sri Lanka against Murali where he scored 274*.

If he was returned to three or four in the ODI team, prefferably four as that has been his position since his Cashmere High School days and the most natural for him. Then we will see the results improve though I doubt the average will as he has played so many games.

In tests I expect him to get that average over forty now that he has gone past his horror form from the Sri lanka and the CB series.

 

[Perm]

That doesn't mean much when your best ODI batsman in the said period is Nick Knight.

Come off it, Graeme Hick and Nick Knight were both fine ODI batsman. Graham Gooch, Robin Smith and Neil Fairbthother could all stake claims as being the best ODI batsman of the modern to represent England, although Trescothick and Pietersen would be better bets IMO.