Players who didn't reach their full potential

[Richard]

Minus the bloody death.

That bloody death is about as murkily uncertain as that Shakespeare was even capable of literacy. Suffice to say that the accepted version of events cannot ever be unequivocally erased because there is no certainty either way, but it's very plausible that a) Marlowe did not die when he was said to have and b) Shakespeare never wrote so much as a single word, because he was not literate.

It's a very interesting case and those who say "well historical record is accepted as that Shakespeare wrote his plays so he surely must've written them" are a) rather annoying and b) rather head-in-the-sand-esque.

 

[Jarquis]

Nah, not at all. If anyone thought I was ignorant of the Dictionary spelling, uneducated, then... well, they underestimated me, TBH, but that happens with considerable regularity.

Highly intelligent people misspelling relatively simple words is far more common than somebody deciding that they are going to spell a word in an alternative manner because "they prefer it that way".

 

[zaremba]

Nah, not at all. If anyone thought I was ignorant of the Dictionary spelling, uneducated, then... well, they underestimated me, TBH, but that happens with considerable regularity.

I'm not inderestimating you (as I like to put it). As Marcuss says, what's amazing is that you know that no-one agrees with your spelling, you know that everyone will pick you up on it, and yet (a) you keep on using it and (b) you get on your high horse when quite inderstandably you are picked up on it.

 

[Richard]

I don't "get on my high-horse", I just say "guuuhhh, not this again". And point-out that the corrections are needless.

And BTW, yes, there are words I accidentally mis-spell with considerable regularity. There were more until I eventually weeded them out.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That bloody death is about as murkily uncertain as that Shakespeare was even capable of literacy. Suffice to say that the accepted version of events cannot ever be unequivocally erased because there is no certainty either way, but it's very plausible that a) Marlowe did not die when he was said to have and b) Shakespeare never wrote so much as a single word, because he was not literate.

It's a very interesting case and those who say "well historical record is accepted as that Shakespeare wrote his plays so he surely must've written them" are a) rather annoying and b) rather head-in-the-sand-esque.

Agread. Don't have much time for such ineducated people tbh.

 

[zaremba]

I don't "get on my high-horse", I just say "guuuhhh, not this again".

Haven't you learned that people will pick you up on it though?

Moth: "God, every time I mindlessly flutter near to this naked flame I get my wings burnt... Guuhhhh! NOT AGAIN!!!!!"

 

[Furball]

This is utterly silly. I am well aware of the Oxford Dictionary spelling, so from now on please don't quote it to me. I'm also rather bored of this discussion - I've had it 3-4 times before now.

If you're aware of the Oxford Dictionary spelling, then stop being so ugnorant and ineducated and just use the correct English then.

 

[SeamUp]

Don't believe Gibbs was equipped to do anything of the sort myself, his technique was always lacking and he was always vulnerable to the best seam bowlers. Nothing but nothing was ever going to change his laissez-faire attitude to... well, everything really. It's part of who he is.

In an era of stronger bowling attacks I believe Gibbs would've strugged to hold down a Test place as an opener, though he possibly might have had a chance in the middle-order.

Once again your ignorance seems to show.

Obviously on the outside being an English supporter you didn't really appreciate his abilities or grasp the undoubted talent he has.

Anyways I don't think an era where Gibbs faced McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne, Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Saqlain, Mushtaq, Gough, Caddick, Srinath, Kumble, Harbhajan and Murali is too bad.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Once again your ignorance seems to show.

Obviously on the outside being an English supporter you didn't really appreciate his abilities or grasp the undoubted talent he has.

Anyways I don't think an era where Gibbs faced McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne, Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Saqlain, Mushtaq, Gough, Caddick, Srinath, Kumble, Harbhajan and Murali is too bad.

Well considering that he averaged 31 against Australia (McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne), never faced Wasim, never did well against Shoaib, averaged 32 against India (Srinath, Kumble, Harbhajan), and 23.30 against Sri Lanka (Murali)...

Harsh on Saqlain and Waqar IMO.

This is all in Tests btw.

 

[SeamUp]

Well considering that he averaged 31 against Australia (McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne), never faced Wasim, never did well against Shoaib, averaged 32 against India (Srinath, Kumble, Harbhajan), and 23.30 against Sri Lanka (Murali)...

Harsh on Saqlain and Waqar IMO.

This is all in Tests btw.

Thats why I am saying he didn't live up to his potential. Thats what the topic is about. He still averaged 42 but it could have been better. He has shown on numerous ocassions in his career that if he really wanted to put on a master-class of batting talent he could do it. He just didn't do it enough due to personal issues.

Also considering many batsman struggled against Australia where he only averaged 31 against them. Also he was always a middle-order batsman who had enough talent to make a good test career as an opener.

Don't forget he is a stroke-maker who played the majority of his test career on sporting pitches at home as well.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think he just about did his potential with the bat justice though. He faced a lot of good bowling and came out averaging about 30 or so, and cashed in on weaker bowling. Fair enough for a decent Test batsman. He never really scored heavily, consistently against quality bowling. So there's no real evidence to suggest that he could at all.

I don't think he was ever likely to be more than that- decent.

 

[SeamUp]

I think he just about did his potential with the bat justice though. He faced a lot of good bowling and came out averaging about 30 or so, and cashed in on weaker bowling. Fair enough for a decent Test batsman. He never really scored heavily, consistently against quality bowling. So there's no real evidence to suggest that he could at all.

I don't think he was ever likely to be more than that- decent.

In South Africa we know he had the talent to do more.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In South Africa we know he had the talent to do more.

Ok, fair enough. Well in Trinidad and Tobago we know Lincoln Roberts had talent to do more.

 

[SeamUp]

Ok, fair enough. Well in Trinidad and Tobago we know Lincoln Roberts had talent to do more.

I don't know who he was of if there is a hint of sarcasm there mate.

But thats the thing about a topic like this. Each and every person has there own opinions.

Hence people saying Ramprakash, Hick, M. Waugh, Hooper and so on didn't live up to their talents.

Hell you could even say someone who averaged 20 in test cricket had potential to do better.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't know who he was of if there is a hint of sarcasm there mate.

But thats the thing about a topic like this. Each and every person has there own opinions.

Hence people saying Ramprakash, Hick, M. Waugh, Hooper and so on didn't live up to their talents.

Hell you could even say someone who averaged 20 in test cricket had potential to do better.

In the case of these players it's different though. Hooper and Maugh oozed class and had better techniques than Gibbs. There was nothing in their game and they lacked nothing technically to suggest that they shouldn't be averaging a good 10-15 runs more. Of course, looks can be deceiving. If a player is not mentally there, he's not good enough.

As for Ramprakash and Hick, they scored a superhuman amount of runs at domestic level, to suggest that they should have been better than average-to-poor Test players. Gibbs never even dominated FC cricket, let alone Test cricket. Of course, he was a better batsman at Test level than Ramprakash and Hick, but that just confirms how badly they failed to achieve their potential, more than it suggests the same for Gibbs.

 

[SeamUp]

In the case of these players it's different though. Hooper and Maugh oozed class and had better techniques than Gibbs. There was nothing in their game and they lacked nothing technically to suggest that they shouldn't be averaging a good 10-15 runs more. Of course, looks can be deceiving. If a player is not mentally there, he's not good enough.

As for Ramprakash and Hick, they scored a superhuman amount of runs at domestic level, to suggest that they should have been better than average-to-poor Test players. Gibbs never even dominated FC cricket, let alone Test cricket. Of course, he was a better batsman at Test level than Ramprakash and Hick, but that just confirms how badly they failed to achieve their potential, more than it suggests the same for Gibbs.

I don't agree entirely with all of that.

1. Gibbs played in a stronger domestic structure and averaged the same as he did in test cricket there.
2. Gibbs played the majority of his domestic cricket on green top seamers and on quicker surfaces.
3. Ramprakash and Hick milked a lot of dibbly dobblers on the county circuit or bowlers who were so tired after continual amount of matches. They simply play more there.
4. Gibbs debuted at 16 in FC cricket and played many years with Desmond Haynes at WP. Haynes was in awe of his talents.
5. I am a big believer in having a good technique. If gives you more of a chance to succeed sure. But while Gibbs' technique was't perfet it wasn't awful at the same time. It just meant he used his natural hand-eye co-ordination more than others. As for Hoopers and M. Waugh's technique they were by no means really good either.

The 2nd best ever batsman in test cricket, Graeme Pollock always said...it was a see the ball hit the ball game.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Can't say I saw as much of Maugh as I did of Hooper, but Hooper's technique was definitely better than Gibbs'. Can't see how that's disputed. If you think that his other qualities combined well enough that he should have scored better than he did, fair enough though.

Also, I'd be inclined to dispute that Graeme Pollock was the second best. But that's another discussion for another time. Preferably when I'm absent.

 

[SeamUp]

.
Also, I'd be inclined to dispute that Graeme Pollock was the second best. But that's another discussion for another time. Preferably when I'm absent.

Statistics at test level don't lie.

Ask Australians and the English who were the two strogest teams in the 60's of his capabilites.

Trent Bridge...v England

Adelaide, MCG, Cape Town & Durban vs Austrlalia to name but a few of his batting marvels.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Statistics at test level don't lie.

Well, one, they do at times. Especially with a small sample of matches (like 23 Tests). Not saying that they're lying here, but at the same time a strong case could be built for Headley (who had more centuries in 1 less innings, and averaged practically the same) and Tendulkar. On the whole you can't compare batsmen fairly across eras though, so best we leave this one be.

 

[Richard]

Once again your ignorance seems to show.

Obviously on the outside being an English supporter you didn't really appreciate his abilities or grasp the undoubted talent he has.

I'm a South Africa supporter almost as much as an England one. I grasp the abilities he has but also grasp firmly those he doesn't have, which quite a few people (inside South Africa and out) don't. I don't tend to tremendously appreciate players who have a great eye and lack technical efficiency, though, no - showponies, IMO. And good bowlers usually sort them out.

Anyways I don't think an era where Gibbs faced McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne, Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Saqlain, Mushtaq, Gough, Caddick, Srinath, Kumble, Harbhajan and Murali is too bad.

He did not face many of those bowlers and did poorly on the occasions he faced plenty of them.