cricketers who have made the most of their talent

[Rant0r]

surely there's a link to the story somewhere, someone get off cricketweb for a nanosecond and google it

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah the run-chase at National Stadium was one of the for-instances I was thinking of.

Another - though it means little in the grand scheme as he shouldn't have been playing that series - was the second-innings at The WACA in 1998/99.

The point is not that he could not throw the bat at it, for invariably anyone including Jacques Kallis can do that. The point is that he had never been able to good job of it. I am not sure how scoring 35 (56) or 26 (33) particularly prove that point, especially when you consider that those were the fastest inning he ever played at the test match level. I do remember him making a fuss about being forced to bat down the order in a situation were chasing and needed quick runs, for he thought himself capable of doing so and this it appears is what you are basing this whole argument about. However I simply dont see how there is any evidence from his career that he was capable of scoring quickly and doing so effectively.

Interestingly enough, even one of the slowest ODI players of modern times in Jimmy Adams had a better SR in ODIs than Mike Atherton.

 

[Goughy]

What bowler/batsman has made the most of the talent he has or lack of it...

good english examples are KP Alastair Cook Sidebottom and Collywobbly

Way off the mark IMO. Collingwood has made the most of an awkward technique but he is possibly the most physically gifted and talented batsman of his English generation.

His is lightening fast and reads length amazingly well.

He is a talent shackled by a restrictive technique and backlift. You will struggle to see a more physically and visually gifted batsman.

 

[morgieb]

Steve Waugh. Isn't even the best batsman in his family, yet for some time was the best batsman in the world.

 

[pskov]

Steve Waugh. Isn't even the best batsman in his family, yet for some time was the best batsman in the world.

I didn't realise that Mark had spent some time in space.

 

[morgieb]

Mark had more potential than Steve, that's what I meant. It's just that Steve's sooo strong mentally that he turned out to be a better test player than Mark.

 

[James90]

First name that came to my head was Mark Richardson and I'm sticking with it.

 

[Perm]

You're an idiot morgieb.

 

[Richard]

Steve Waugh. Isn't even the best batsman in his family, yet for some time was the best batsman in the world.

Stephen Waugh was very, very comfortably better than Mark for every second between February 1993 and August 2001.

And Stephen Waugh was never really the best batsman in The World. Though his average (61) in the time period I mention above was actually the same as Tendulkar's was in his own spell of significance (in his case August 1990 to November 2002), Tendulkar played more games (95 to 90), was Test-class at the age of 17 (took Waugh until the age of 27 closing-in on 28) and so was always clearly better.

Also, Lara was better than either between April 1992 and April 1996, though he played just 32 games in this period.

 

[Precambrian]

Stephen Waugh was very, very comfortably better than Mark for every second between February 1993 and August 2001.

And Stephen Waugh was never really the best batsman in The World. Though his average (61) in the time period I mention above was actually the same as Tendulkar's was in his own spell of significance (in his case August 1990 to November 2002), Tendulkar played more games (95 to 90), was Test-class at the age of 17 (took Waugh until the age of 27 closing-in on 28) and so was always clearly better.

Also, Lara was better than either between April 1992 and April 1996, though he played just 32 games in this period.

Methinks Steve Waugh was indeed best bat in the world during the mid 90s, when Tendulkar had become the ODI great, but not test great yet.

The exact period is Season 93 to Season 96-97 (1 Jan 93 to 31 Mar 97).

His stats as follows during that period :

[B][I]Grouping	Span		Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50[/I][/B]

[B]Overall		1993-1997	43	67	17	3404	200	68.08	7252	46.93	9	20[/B]
											
v England	1993-1995	11	19	7	761	157*	63.41	1644	46.28	1	5
v India		1996-1996	1	2	1	67	67*	67	226	29.64	0	1
v New Zealand	1993-1993	6	7	2	394	147*	78.8	786	50.12	1	2
v Pakistan	1994-1995	5	8	1	371	112*	53	799	46.43	1	2
v South Africa	1994-1997	7	11	2	673	164	74.77	1461	46.06	2	4
v Sri Lanka	1995-1996	2	3	2	362	170	362	697	51.93	2	1
v West Indies	1993-1997	11	17	2	776	200	51.73	1639	47.34	2	5
											
in Australia	1993-1997	21	34	8	1635	170	62.88	3450	47.39	6	6
in England	1993-1993	6	9	4	416	157*	83.2	955	43.56	1	2
in India	1996-1996	1	2	1	67	67*	67	226	29.64	0	1
in New Zealand	1993-1993	3	4	0	178	75	44.5	357	49.85	0	2
in Pakistan	1994-1994	2	3	0	171	98	57	274	62.4	0	2
in South Africa	1994-1997	6	9	2	508	160	72.57	1177	43.16	1	4
in West Indies	1995-1995	4	6	2	429	200	107.25	813	52.76	1	3

Can't ask for a better performance, exceptional vs all teams.

 

[krkode]

I think he was mistaking flashiness and style for being better probably. Because I guess Mark Waugh is generally considered the more stylish of the two with regards to batting. Steve is easily better, though, over all.

 

[Precambrian]

Further to my post above, If you strictly consider seasons, from 1993 to 1995-96, he was phenomenal :

[B][I]Grouping	Span		Mat	Runs	HS	 Ave 	 SR 	100	50[/I][/B]
								
[B]Overall		1993-1996	29	2499	200	 83.30 	 46.28 	7	13[/B]
								
v England	1993-1995	11	761	157*	 63.41 	 46.28 	1	5
v New Zealand	1993-1993	3	216	147*	216.00 	 50.34 	1	0
v Pakistan	1994-1995	5	371	112*	 53.00 	 46.43 	1	2
v South Africa	1994-1994	4	360	164	 72.00 	 52.86 	1	2
v Sri Lanka	1995-1996	2	362	170	 362.00  51.93 	2	1
v West Indies	1995-1995	4	429	200	 107.25  52.76 	1	3
								
in Australia	1993-1996	14	1288	170	 85.86 	 49.08 	5	4
in England	1993-1993	6	416	157*	 83.20 	 43.56 	1	2
in Pakistan	1994-1994	2	171	98	 57.00 	 62.40 	0	2
in South Africa	1994-1994	3	195	86	 65.00 	 49.11 	0	2
in West Indies	1995-1995	4	429	200	 107.25  52.76 	1	3

Fantabulous.

 

[Richard]

I'd actually never noticed he was quite that good. I'd have been inclined to think Lara was better (certainly for me Lara > Tendulkar between 1992 and 1995/96) but I might have a closer look now TBH.

 

[zaremba]

Imran Khan is the first player to come to mind. Not nearly as talented as Botham or Kapil but had the ambition, professionalism and dedication to achieve more and become a better player. Worked more on his game than perhaps any cricketer who has come from the subcontinent, pushing himself from a medium pacer to a worldclass fast bowler and a supporting bat to one of Pakistan's key batsmen.

Spot on.

Doubtful whether Kapil and Botham had "better" talent than him.

Imran's own view was that he was never nearly as talented as Ian Botham. In fact that was his evidence, under oath, in his ball-tampering libel trial against Botham.

I'm not trying to downplay Imran's ability here (I wouldn't, as a Sussex fan) but praising him.

Botham, for all his achievements, was a horrible under-achiever. His talent was enormous - I can't think of anyone as gifted as he was (possibly Lara or Gower (another who wasted it) came closest). But he didn't try in the way that Imran did. Botham's achievement was to turn himself from a lavishly-gifted prodigy into a fat lazy show-pony. Imran's achievement was to turn himself from a good player into an outstanding all-time great. Subshakerz's comments sum up what Imran achieved in terms of transforming his own game.

 

[Richard]

As a batsman, I'd never hestitate to put Botham ahead in terms of "natural" talent (ie, the ability to bat well without having to practice). I also think that, in spite of Botham's somewhat spectacular comedown with the bat from 1984 onwards, Botham's career with the bat was still better than Imran's.

However, in terms of bowling I'm not sure Botham was particularly the more naturally talented - ie, ability to just bowl and hit good spots and make the ball do stuff without having to practice doing it or sometimes even know exactly what it is you're doing. I think it might've been Victor Marks who remarked that he thought Botham worked incredibly hard on his bowling in the vital teenage years and hence acquired the ability to swing the ball both ways at pace. Imran got better and better and learnt more and more tricks as his career went on but he was always quick (at least, from the sort of age you should be playing Tests at) and AFAIK always swung both new and old ball.

Botham actually had excellent batting technique too. That doesn't happen accidentally all that often.

All that said, I don't dispute for a second that Botham's lack of willpower to train and take care of himself handicapped him hugely in later years. What I've always wondered though is that had he been possessed of the sort of attitude that would've made him so much better later, would he have been so superlative for his first 4-5 years?

 

[zaremba]

Botham actually had excellent batting technique too. That doesn't happen accidentally all that often.

You're right that he had excellent batting technique, which is often overlooked. Just about the best technique in the England team for long periods in the late 80s.

But why then did he average only 33 in Tests given the excellence of that technique allied with his powers of timing, power and hitting ability? And why is he now, as a commentator, unable to offer a single piece of meaningful technical analysis in his interminable blithering blustering commentaries? My feeling is that the technique was pretty much God-given and is something he neither nutured nor understood.

 

[Richard]

It might've been. His analysis on bowling technique is pretty well invariably as insightful (no, not inciteful) as anyone's; I hope that his explanation of how James Anderson bowls outswingers and inswingers is going to help me greatly in the next 10 years. But on batting - nope, never anything beyond "play with a straight bat, move your foot to the pitch of the ball, play short balls off the back foot".

However, why did he average only 33 in Tests? Because for whatever reason, he just stopped batting well midway through 1984, and came back into the team in 1989 when he should never, ever have. I don't know whether this was because his technique went, because he completely lost his shot-selection, or something else. What's interesting is that against non-West Indies teams, he merely went from excellent to mediocre. It was only West Indies who ever completely conquered him, between '84 and '87.

And as I've said so many times - one question we'll never be able to answer truly and which I'd so love it if we did know is: was it West Indies or the captaincy that troubled his batting in 1980 and 1981?

 

[zaremba]

What I've always wondered though is that had he been possessed of the sort of attitude that would've made him so much better later, would he have been so superlative for his first 4-5 years?

Interesting question. I blame the mullet. Samson in reverse

 

[Goughy]

You're right that he had excellent batting technique, which is often overlooked. Just about the best technique in the England team for long periods in the late 80s.

I think he probably did against all but the quickest.

He never truely got into line and that caused him problems around his off stump against express pace. It was an issue not easily exposed unless facing rapid bowling.

Boycott breaks this down quite simply and nicely in "Boycott on Cricket"

 

[zaremba]

I think he probably did against all but the quickest.

He never truely got into line and that caused him problems around his off stump against express pace. It was an issue not easily exposed unless facing rapid bowling.

Boycott breaks this down quite simply and nicely in "Boycott on Cricket"

Quite possibly correct. However when you hear Boycs proferring those kinds of opinions, you start to search (and it's not usually a very difficult search) for the ulterior motive