Cricketweb's 5 most unfairly treated players

[Goughy]

Luke Wright definitely unfairly treated. Averaged 52 in the championship last season yet people were up in arms at him being in the Test squad on the basis of the way he's played the shorter stuff.

Hmm dont buy that at all. One decent summer is not enough to justify anyones selection. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can have a good year. It means nothing. 2-4 years back to back shows more. Wright has not done that and he has pretty terrible technique to even the full stuff. So many players have a good year. On its own it is worthless. Add into the equation that he is a non bowler and it is a worrying selection

If it were that simple then there is an English guy on his own team of roughly the same age that scored twice as many runs at a better average than Wright last season for Sussex

EDIT- Dont get me wrong. Its better than if he averaged 22 last season but not by too much

 

[thierry henry]

Hayden
Kallis

That's probably not just a cricketweb thing though

Couldn't be bothered coming up with 5

 

[thierry henry]

and wtf to the Neil Broom selections....

guy with ok-ish domestic record gets a go and completely stinks up the joint, but it's harsh to criticise him

 

[Richard]

Luke Wright definitely unfairly treated. Averaged 52 in the championship last season yet people were up in arms at him being in the Test squad on the basis of the way he's played the shorter stuff.

Same as Kev I'm up-in-arms at the fact that he's done precious little of note before last season and has a pretty bad technique full-stop, not merely because he's not very good against the short delivery.

As with more cases than one can possibly remember, there are better candidates who've been ignored in favour of an inferior one.

 

[bagapath]

Hayden
Kallis

AWTA. Both of them get praised too much on CW. A bit more balanced criticism would do them a world of good

 

[thierry henry]

AWTA. Both of them get praised too much on CW. A bit more balanced criticism would do them a world of good

"Balanced" criticism would certainly be an improvement though...

 

[honestbharani]

"Balanced" criticism would certainly be an improvement though...

indeed.. esp. considering your sig..

 

[GIMH]

Hmm dont buy that at all. One decent summer is not enough to justify anyones selection. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can have a good year. It means nothing. 2-4 years back to back shows more. Wright has not done that and he has pretty terrible technique to even the full stuff. So many players have a good year. On its own it is worthless. Add into the equation that he is a non bowler and it is a worrying selection

If it were that simple then there is an English guy on his own team of roughly the same age that scored twice as many runs at a better average than Wright last season for Sussex

EDIT- Dont get me wrong. Its better than if he averaged 22 last season but not by too much

Same as Kev I'm up-in-arms at the fact that he's done precious little of note before last season and has a pretty bad technique full-stop, not merely because he's not very good against the short delivery.

As with more cases than one can possibly remember, there are better candidates who've been ignored in favour of an inferior one.

Let me elaborate. It's not so much that I am saying he should have been picked per se. But had he never played for the T20 and ODI sides, I don't think people would have been up in arms about his selection, even in spite of the fact that CW is notorious for splitting the separate forms of the game.

Onions was the last played to be picked off one good season and he turned out okay so far.

 

[Richard]

Onions turned-out OK having been picked during the course of his only good season to date. We'll only be able to assess whether his selection has turned-out OK now that 2009 is finished, and other seasons are poised upon us.

As for Wright I'd say his having played ODIs probably alerts me more to his inadequacies than I might be aware had he not played them, but I'm always in objection to selections such as his. I'd be as annoyed by the fact that he's been picked based on a single season if he'd never played a ODI as I am given all the ODIs he's (ludicrously BTW) played.

BTW the fact that the majority of posters on CW are capable of distinguishing clearly between the two forms of the game is one of the things that contributes in a big way to the place enjoying a higher calibre of discussion than elsewhere. Something that is, to me, pretty obvious is taken as obvious here, whereas elsewhere it rarely is.

 

[Uppercut]

BTW the fact that the majority of posters on CW are capable of distinguishing clearly between the two forms of the game is one of the things that contributes in a big way to the place enjoying a higher calibre of discussion than elsewhere. Something that is, to me, pretty obvious is taken as obvious here, whereas elsewhere it rarely is.

Maybe so, but I think- and I think Corrin agrees- that CW often goes too far the other way.

 

[Richard]

I don't really think it's possible to go too far the other way TBH. It cannot do any harm to give zero consideration to the other format of the game when assessing one of them. Yes, it's true that some players - in fact probably more than not - are good at both formats, but the fact that they are so doesn't really mean anything much outside the individual concerned.

The fact that any one player is good at both formats doesn't mean a thing regarding any other player. If G__ is a good Test batsman and a poor ODI batsman then clearly J__ who is a good Test batsman and good ODI batsman is a cricketer of more note, but neither G__ nor J__ should be taken account of when trying to discern whether H___ is \ will be good at Tests\ODIs.

The wisest course of action when assessing a player's merits for First-Class cricket is to disregard OD cricket completely; likewise, when assessing a player's merits for OD cricket the wisest course of action is to disregard First-Class cricket completely. It is possible that taking account of one might not do any harm, but equally, it might do. It's a no-gain-for-potential-even-if-not-certain-loss scenario.

 

[Uppercut]

Disagree.

A player who is international class at one form but not the other is the exception, not the rule.

 

[Richard]

The way I see it there is no rule. There are plenty of players who are Test-class and not ODI-class; there are plenty who are ODI-class and not Test-class; there are plenty who are Test-class and ODI-class. There are very probably more of the lattermost than either of the former (I've never counted, might be an interesting thing to do someday), but not by anywhere near enough to call any of the three a rule.

 

[GIMH]

The point is that sometimes posters on here tend to treat Tests and ODIs as though they are completely different sports, like it's comparing football and rugby or something. Of course some players are only any good in one form or another, but the separation clearly goes too far sometimes.

 

[Manee]

The point is that sometimes posters on here tend to treat Tests and ODIs as though they are completely different sports, like it's comparing football and rugby or something. Of course some players are only any good in one form or another, but the separation clearly goes too far sometimes.

To an extent, I agree with you. The facet that the great Test players are, on the whole, very good to great ODI players (and vice versa, to a lesser extent) cannot be ignored. However, the issue that a player can be good at one form of the game whilst possessing vast flaws in the other is something vastly underappreciated, especially when it comes to the lack of willingness to consider 'List A' performances when selecting an ODI player, choosing to focus on a strong FC season.

All this being said, I feel that the most glaring omission from consideration is the issue that the difference between County/State and International cricket is a far greater barrier to the majority than a format of the game. Whether it is pressure or the quality of cricket, I'm not 100% sure and I'm sure it varies; however, it is this barrier which needs to be appreciated more so than the formats of the game. Alas, the lack of appreciation for this comes down to the overly statistical stance of the members on this forum, whereas the transferral from County/State to International cricket is something very much non-stasticial, by definition. It ventures into the psychological, something which is underappreciated as it cannot be measured and often comes down to fallible, but valuable human empirical judgement.

 

[bagapath]

Disagree.

A player who is international class at one form but not the other is the exception, not the rule.

outstanding test cricketers but good/ barely competent one day cricketers
sunil gavaskar
geoff boycott
ian botham
allan border
mahela jayawardane
michael vaughan

great/good one day cricketers but average/ bad test cricketers
michael bevan
nick knight
ajay jadeja
ajit agarkar
allan lamb

 

[Manee]

outstanding test cricketers but good/ barely competent one day cricketers
sunil gavaskar
geoff boycott
ian botham
allan border
mahela jayawardane

I'm pretty sure the reference was to modern cricket (mid 1990s onwards), where ODI cricket is of much more importance than it ever was before.

great/good one day cricketers but average/ bad test cricketers
michael bevan
nick knight
ajay jadeja
ajit agarkar
michael vaughan

The link is certainly more tenuous in this direction, but with the exception of Bevan, none of these would be the class of a true high quality ODI player such as Ponting, Tendulkar, Mcgrath, etc.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Woah, surely Michael Vaughan is in the wrong group? Not that he an outstanding Test player overall, but at times he touched that height.

 

[Manee]

Woah, surely Michael Vaughan is in the wrong group? Not that he an outstanding Test player overall, but at times he touched that height.

Ha, missed that one, myself.

 

[Richard]

The point is that sometimes posters on here tend to treat Tests and ODIs as though they are completely different sports, like it's comparing football and rugby or something. Of course some players are only any good in one form or another, but the separation clearly goes too far sometimes.

They are essentially separate sports in my book, but there are plenty of skills that cross over, same way in fact there are plenty of skills that cross over in football and rugby and many other combinations.

I don't really think the separation goes too far sometimes. Can you give me some examples of what you mean?