Ian Salisbury

[slippy888]

Why did he never live upto his potential guys in international cricket?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Makes a good steak though

 

[trundler]

Not sure if this is Mandela effect but I remember a previous slippy thread about Ian Salisbury

 

[Blenkinsop]

I think he did live up to his potential, he just didn't have that much potential.

 

[Aidan11]

In 15 tests he took 20 wickets @ 76.95 apiece.

Admittedly he never got a good run in the side but those stats are really not acceptable for test level.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

A lot of English players could not replicate County Cricket form at test level during the 90's , guys like Salisbury , Nick Knight , Ramprakash, Hick etc , perhaps the step up was far too big .

 

[Prince EWS]

Not sure if this is Mandela effect but I remember a previous slippy thread about Ian Salisbury

Robert Croft vs Ian Salisbury

Which spinner contributed more to English cricket, i think Salisbury was a very unlucky had a lot of dropped catches of his bowling and his international career stats dont do him justice really.

www.cricketweb.net

 

[a massive zebra]

1. He had very limited control and generally bowled one full toss or long hop per over, thus releasing any pressure.
2. He didn't have a good googly or any real variety.
3. He didn't really have much luck in Tests and was unfortunate not to have the opportunity to run through a tail.
4. He didn't play any matches against minnows like Zimbabwe, against whom he could definitely have improved his stats.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

1. He had very limited control and generally bowled one full toss or long hop per over, thus releasing any pressure.
2. He didn't have a good googly or any real variety.
3. He didn't really have much luck in Tests and was unfortunate not to have the opportunity to run through a tail.
4. He didn't play any matches against minnows like Zimbabwe, against whom he could definitely have improved his stats.

Andy Flower would have murdered Salisbury

 

[a massive zebra]

Andy Flower would have murdered Salisbury

It's not necessary to be successful against all opposition batsmen to improve an average of 76. To take an extreme example, in West Indies 2001 tour of Sri Lanka, Brian Lara had enormous success against Murali and Vaas with 688 runs in a 3 match series, yet they took a combined 50 wickets @ 18.54 and won the series 3-0. Salisbury wouldn't have done that well against Zimbabwe, but with a bit of luck he probably could have averaged 35-40 against them.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

He was the runaway winner of the CW Worst Test Cricketer poll. He had few redeeming features. It was a time of inconsistent selection from England to say the least - particularly with bowlers - throughout the period from Dexter-Illingworth-Graveney as Chairman of Selectors. Lots of players (particularly bowlers) with few caps. Then, even when he was played the captains weren't really given to taking a risk in bowling changes as they were liable to be hung out to dry by the media. For example, in Salisbury's last test, he bowled only 21 overs whilst Ashley Giles bowled 62, Saqlain bowled 67 and Danish Kaneria 50.

 

[Yeoman]

A lot of English players could not replicate County Cricket form at test level during the 90's , guys like Salisbury , Nick Knight , Ramprakash, Hick etc , perhaps the step up was far too big .

This I think is the prime reason. Arguments around his potential to perform at test level were, I think, largely based on excitement around his being an English leg spinner, he being the first elected at rest level for around 25 years.

 

[Starfighter]

He was still better than Rubel Hossain

 

[a massive zebra]

He was still better than Rubel Hossain

He was definitely not the worst Test bowler. Better than Rubel Hussain, Asoka de Silva, Andy Whittall amongst others.

Salisbury definitely wasn't Test class, but he was also unfortunate in how things turned out for him. With a bit more luck, he could probably have ended up with a Test bowling average in the mid 50s. In other words, not close to good enough, but also not amongst the worst ever.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Obviously time to repost this:

Perhaps someone ought to have report Gatting for match fixing.

 

[a massive zebra]

A lot of English players could not replicate County Cricket form at test level during the 90's , guys like Salisbury , Nick Knight , Ramprakash, Hick etc , perhaps the step up was far too big .

There might be an element of truth to this, but several of England's long standing 90s batsmen (Atherton, Stewart, Hussain, Smith) were barely more successful in county cricket than Tests. Also Knight and Hick did have successful ODI careers and were amongst the leading English ODI batsmen of their generation.

I think it's more that non established players were regularly dropped after just a couple of failures, unlike more modern times where players are shown faith and given the security of a reasonable run in the side in order to prove themselves. The likes of Hick and Ramprakash were under significant and constant pressure to score runs in the current match at the risk of being dropped, and this pressure proved too much for them.

 

[Chin Music]

1. He had very limited control and generally bowled one full toss or long hop per over, thus releasing any pressure.
2. He didn't have a good googly or any real variety.
3. He didn't really have much luck in Tests and was unfortunate not to have the opportunity to run through a tail.
4. He didn't play any matches against minnows like Zimbabwe, against whom he could definitely have improved his stats.

This. My recollection is that he had an action that always spelt out him likely not being able to land the ball consistently and he didn't.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Obviously time to repost this:

Perhaps someone ought to have report Gatting for match fixing.

 

[sledger]

He was great on the early ICC games.

 

[slippy888]

If he was trash how did he get 800 1st class wickets