OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's not an indication of great potential? Fmd I don't get you guys
-
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.
Placing our bets on "Test Cricket's Young Fab Four"
- Thread starter harsh.ag
- Start date
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
So one good innings is massive potential but a wretched series of 5 games in one country is written off as he did well somewhere else.
FMD I don't get you guys.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't blame you for ignoring my long boring post explaining why
Of course it is; but Root's lack of a ton overseas isn't an indication that he has less potential.
Some batsmen start off gun and make big overseas tons from their first handful of games, then taper off into a career of averaging 50+. Others take a while to get settled and continue to go up and up. Others fluctuate between brilliant form and times where they can't buy a run.
Potential isn't measured by 'overseas tons by age 25', or any other statistic. No two future ATG batsmen take the same path to that greatness; Smith started out as a 20s-averaging legspinner and Root as a Not Opener/Opener/Not Opener Again, Kohli as an ODI gun who had to translate to Tests, and Williamson a childhood prodigy.
You can't expect them to all have hit the same statistical markers by now, given how diverse their careers have been thus far. Furthermore, the statistical markers that they have or have not achieved by now mean little in measuring how they will perform going forward. If Kohli's potential is 'measured' by his ton vs. SA, why isn't Root's 'measured' by averaging 65 in England? Why isn't Williamson's measured by his newfound consistency? Or Smith's by his complete and utter gun-ness since the selectors realised he was a batsman?
Whatever statistical metric you pick to use in an attempt to argue that one of these four has more potential than the other is limited in its usefulness by the particular experiences of each batsman. Kohli's played double the amount of overseas games as Root FFS (not to mention his shedloads of ODI experience in other countries); of course it's likely that he'll have a better overseas record or an overseas ton.
At the end of a career, or even when they've each chalked up ~50-60 Tests over 5-6 years, those experiences converge and comparisons become more meaningful. Then, if Root's overseas average is still in Ramprakash territory and Kohli has played blinders against gun attacks on unfriendly decks, we can meaningfully say that Kohli is a better batsman away from home.
I'd argue very strongly that potential isn't quantifiable through statistics in the first place; it's almost the complete antithesis of what stats attempt to do. Graeme Hick had more 'potential' than Michael Atherton, I'm sure, but look who has the better stats of the two. Sometimes that potential doesn't turn into results; that doesn't mean the potential never existed.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Now, that is a very fair point. Really tough pitch, too.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
All fair points, except they've already made in the thread already about a dozen times
And I really hope people stop feigning deafness and stop repeating that bolded part. I'm saying the exact same thing. Kohli has played more overseas than Root. So have Rahane, Bravo, TPC, WIlliamson. That's why we have a clearer picture of what they're capable of. We're not sure what Root will do if he goes to SA to face Steyn and Philander or when he goes to NZ. For the last time, No one is saying Kohli is a better batsman overseas, just that he's played for longer and has some runs in SA, NZ.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ballance>Root anyway
More proven =/= more potential. End of, as far as I'm concerned.
Kohli having made an overseas ton does absolutely nothing to raise his ceiling, to use a Phlegm-ism. Root's won't suddenly raise once he makes an overseas ton. It might mean a lot about who's going to be a more successful Test batsman in actuality, but that isn't what potential is.
Kohli having made an overseas ton does absolutely nothing to raise his ceiling, to use a Phlegm-ism. Root's won't suddenly raise once he makes an overseas ton. It might mean a lot about who's going to be a more successful Test batsman in actuality, but that isn't what potential is.
BeeGee
International Captain
The way you judge a young player's potential is by watching them bat, both at the crease and in the nets. What's their work ethic like? Do they work hard at their game?
It's more reliable than analysing their past performances, because this isn't about what they did in the past, it's about what they are going to do in the future.
BeeGee
International Captain
It is a very poor indicator because they are still developing their games and they are at the start of their careers.
When you go to watch a game of cricket, get there early and watch the players practicing in the nets. Before, during and after the game.
You learn more about a player in two hours watching them practice, than fifty hours reading scorecards and stats sheets.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah, you learn about players by watching them bat in a test match against good bowling. Not against a machine in the nets.
Yes, but past performance isn't a particularly meaningful indicator of long-term performance at this stage of their careers, due to sample size issues and the different bases from which they started.
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
Bee Gee was talking specifically about work ethic OS, and he's very right in what he says. If you're looking at these youngsters you will tell an awful lot about them and how far they are likely to go by watching them on the ground warming up. Some players are immensely talented and their talent alone will take them to a certain level, but if you want to identify players that will go onto greatness, find a way to get through the inevitable form losses then they are the players that will be first in the nets and last out, the ones that will throw themselves around in fielding drills before the game starts etc.
During a test match against good bowling is when you see their temperament, fight and desire on display......but again Bee Gee wasn't talking about this aspect. Obviously great players need the complete package so if you have the opportunity and want to make a real informed judgment on them you'll pay attention to what they are doing before during and after a test match.
Whilst writing this post it occurred to me that the only player in this discussion that I have watched in practice closely is TPC. He was doing fielding drills with Boof right in front of me in Adelaide last year.........the Aussies have no need to worry about his work ethic at all..........super impressive.
Yeah, and that's fine Hurricane -- "I think Smith has a weird technique and is likely to decline when his eye starts to go/bowlers figure him out" is an entirely valid judgement to make on his potential. As would be "I don't think Kohli has the drive to play 15 years of Test cricket" or "Williamson's back foot punch flaw will bring him undone against quality quick bowling; his recent form has been the exception, not the usual."
However, "Joe Root has less potential than Virat Kohli because he hasn't made an overseas ton and Kohli has, despite Root coming close twice and playing half the away games as Kohli" is not. That's a judgement on performance and, IMO, an utterly unfair one at that. It doesn't affect the potential of the player whatsoever.
I'm going to leave the link to Phlegm's masterclass on pedantry here, given it's somewhat relevant IMO:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...-players-talented-discussion-terminology.html
However, "Joe Root has less potential than Virat Kohli because he hasn't made an overseas ton and Kohli has, despite Root coming close twice and playing half the away games as Kohli" is not. That's a judgement on performance and, IMO, an utterly unfair one at that. It doesn't affect the potential of the player whatsoever.
I'm going to leave the link to Phlegm's masterclass on pedantry here, given it's somewhat relevant IMO:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...-players-talented-discussion-terminology.html
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
@ Dan
The only comeback you have to Maximas' arguments is that the sample size is too small to make any judgements about his away record just yet.
If, however, he is always getting out for low scores overseas then it suggests a technical flaw in his game which would limit anyones assessment of his potential.
And he may have a technical flaw by the way. As I posted in the tour thread his game is set up to play against a late swinging ball. He hits the ball later than anyone I think I have ever seen. This means that he may find bouncier wickets his undoing.
The only comeback you have to Maximas' arguments is that the sample size is too small to make any judgements about his away record just yet.
If, however, he is always getting out for low scores overseas then it suggests a technical flaw in his game which would limit anyones assessment of his potential.
And he may have a technical flaw by the way. As I posted in the tour thread his game is set up to play against a late swinging ball. He hits the ball later than anyone I think I have ever seen. This means that he may find bouncier wickets his undoing.
