cricketers who have made the most of their talent

[Redbacks]

Alot of issues come into consideration. Any player who has missed games through suspensions or drinking problems could possibly be ruled out. Any 'great' has probably used their talents well to exceed the rest.

Closer to home, two who forged a career from a unique talent:
Bevan springs to mind. Never a massive stroke player yet he was able to find a niche in the ODI game, 'the closer', and became a great 'reductionist' of the game in a way I haven't seen many players achieve since.
Gilly as the wicketkeeper batsman/ODI opener. Was the linchpin in our great one day performances, he would punish bad balls more regularly than not and at a high %. Watching him bat in a T20 or a ODI there is barely a difference.

 

[Rant0r]

tres was one of the unsung heroes of the '05 series, he got england off to good, quick starts consistently without making a big ton, his footwork is woeful, worse than most english batsman, who i don't regard as having the best footwork techniques around funnily enough being the pioneers of cricket. I also love watching vaughan and laxman in full flight.

but i think the nail was hit on the head with hick, so much talent, so much waste, and if only ramprakash could play like he did against australia against everyone else.

back to the topic though, hoggard is another one who has done wonders at test level considering the talent around him and that he sometimes looks like part of the barmy army. discarded way too soon

 

[Richard]

Katich surely. 95% of his game is mental.

He's mentally very talented, in fact.

I think this thread would be best described as "made the most of their physical talents" TBH.

 

[Richard]

mark ealham played about 6 tests, i don't know how/if that qualifies, i think he must have touched richard, he's mentioned him in nearly every forum on here.

Mark Ealham was a terrific ODI bowler. He was never going to be a Test player of any note, he didn't have the height nor the multidimensional skills. But few with such basic physical skills would have made even particularly good ODI bowlers.

Look at Ian Austin for means of comparison.

 

[Woodster]

Paul Collingwood I would certainly agree with. He's quite a limited players in terms of strokeplay, but his sheer bloody mindedness and the fight he possesses means he has so far got himself a very decent average.

 

[Rant0r]

they were talking on abc the other day about this test they do at the centre of excellence, the batsman is told he must hit the next ball for example, through mid off no matter where it pitches, and so on, apparently katich was the best they've ever recorded at it, like 95% success rate or something

 

[Manee]

Malcolm Marshall too. Never has such a short bowler been so good (it's debateable that any bowler has ever been so good, unless his name was SF Barnes).

Seem to remember debating this with you before but Malcolm Marshall was reputadly very strong and therefore had a fair bit of talent in that department. I remember an anecdote that he could have the keeper standing fully back whilst bowling from backfoot contact onwards.

 

[Manee]

Allan Donald

Allan Donald

Technically perfect in his bowling action and has said to have stretched for forty (?) minutes each day - both surely strengthen this double claim.

 

[Jigga988]

i knew someone would mention hayden... do you think it's any coincidence his rise to prominence came at the same time that all the best opposition bowlers retired and were replaced with pop gun wielders ?

my idea of the thread is about players who have no right playing test cricket on talent alone, but do, and are quite successful, say a collingwood. not a bunch of blokes with talent oozing from their pores who succeeded, like ponting

what would be more interesting would be the player who has made the least out of their talent, say a craig mcmillan, or a host of englishmen

This is the main point of the forum people

 

[tooextracool]

Possible to include Chanderpaul in this? I haven't watched him bat much but you always hear about how dodgy his technique is... seems like he just scores runs by doing whatever he can to NOT get out! Rather than being your typical decent test batsman averaging 45+...

Maybe its just me but what does talent have to do with technique? There is simply no rationale behind someone with a good technique being more talented than someone with a poor technique, in fact as it turns out, those with poor techniques usually need to be more talented in order to make up for their lack in technical prowess. Players like Trescothick may not have had the best technique, but they were gifted with the sort of hand-eye coordination that few possess.

As far as the original question is concerned, surely no one has made the most of his talents than the great Donald Bradman? Unless someone seriously believes that he underperformed based on how talented he was.

 

[Jigga988]

Maybe its just me but what does talent have to do with technique? There is simply no rationale behind someone with a good technique being more talented than someone with a poor technique, in fact as it turns out, those with poor techniques usually need to be more talented in order to make up for their lack in technical prowess. Players like Trescothick may not have had the best technique, but they were gifted with the sort of hand-eye coordination that few possess.

As far as the original question is concerned, surely no one has made the most of his talents than the great Donald Bradman? Unless someone seriously believes that he underperformed based on how talented he was.

Someone is getting a bit philisophical

 

[tooextracool]

He's mentally very talented, in fact.

I think this thread would be best described as "made the most of their physical talents" TBH.

Yeah Cricket is 50% a mental game and to undermining the importance of mental talents that players possess to suggest that they are less talented would involve not appreciating the structure of the sport. Cricket will always be fundamentally a better sport than baseball IMO because players genuinely need to use their head when they bat. The best players in the game are not big, burly muscular men on steroids with little going on between their heads being able to hit countless home runs.

 

[krkode]

Maybe its just me but what does talent have to do with technique? There is simply no rationale behind someone with a good technique being more talented than someone with a poor technique, in fact as it turns out, those with poor techniques usually need to be more talented in order to make up for their lack in technical prowess. Players like Trescothick may not have had the best technique, but they were gifted with the sort of hand-eye coordination that few possess.

As far as the original question is concerned, surely no one has made the most of his talents than the great Donald Bradman? Unless someone seriously believes that he underperformed based on how talented he was.

Yes you are right, but it's fruitless to argue that people like Bradman and McGrath did not make the most of their talents, because they surely did. Why even talk about this then, might as well head to the record books and list off a list of people with the highest batting averages and the lowest bowling averages. Thread over.

But I think the point of the question was to identify people who weren't gifted (honestly, what does gifted even mean?) who forged successful careers for themselves anyway out of sheer hard work/luck/determination/strength of mind, whatever you want to call it.

Again, you are right, technique is not the only manifestation of talent, but it is probably one of the easier to identify ways in which any two cricketers are different. But at the end of the day, surely anyone who is successful, however you want to define that term, had to have been talented. You can maybe get lucky in business, you can maybe get lucky in science but you don't get "lucky" in sports. People who were technically and mentally weak can't be successful in cricket. You either have one or the other or both. So I guess the topic is talking about people who were talented in other, intangible/mental, ways that ultimately made them successful anyway, because clearly they were less "talented" in the usual sense of technique, footwork, hand-eye coordination, height, etc.

 

[Richard]

Another thing to bear in mind is that technique can be both natural and manufactured. It's no less effective in either case, but bowlers like Fred Trueman and Dennis Lillee simply had the perfect bowling action come completely naturally to them. So, as a matter of fact, have I - I'm a good demonstration that a classical action does not mean that much if you don't have the height, speed and control of line and length, none of which I possess to particularly high standards.

On the other hand, someone like Geoff Boycott is an example of a perfect technician who was entirely self-taught. Boycott's technique came from endless honing and perfectionism. His predecessor Len Hutton, on the other hand, while an impossibly hard worker himself, had the perfect technique as an entirely natural matter.

Boycott also possessed in abundance the underrated natural talent of fierce concentration.

 

[krkode]

Boycott also possessed in abundance the underrated natural talent of fierce concentration.

Yeah, sometimes I wonder if Chanderpaul can be compared, temperament-wise, to Boycott. I haven't seen much of either player batting, but based on what I've read it could seem that they are more similar than not.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes you are right, but it's fruitless to argue that people like Bradman and McGrath did not make the most of their talents, because they surely did. Why even talk about this then, might as well head to the record books and list off a list of people with the highest batting averages and the lowest bowling averages. Thread over.

That is hardly the case though. It is arguable as to whether a player as gifted as Tendulkar made the most of his talents, while equally it could be argued that someone like Mark Richardson did make the most of his talents.

But I think the point of the question was to identify people who weren't gifted (honestly, what does gifted even mean?) who forged successful careers for themselves anyway out of sheer hard work/luck/determination/strength of mind, whatever you want to call it.

The point I was making however, is that having the strength of mind is unique to only a few players. Not everyone can bat like Steve Waugh because not many people are gifted with the same ability to bat with the doggedness that he possessed. If this was not a gift than almost every player would have had it.

Again, you are right, technique is not the only manifestation of talent, but it is probably one of the easier to identify ways in which any two cricketers are different. But at the end of the day, surely anyone who is successful, however you want to define that term, had to have been talented. You can maybe get lucky in business, you can maybe get lucky in science but you don't get "lucky" in sports. People who were technically and mentally weak can't be successful in cricket. You either have one or the other or both. So I guess the topic is talking about people who were talented in other, intangible/mental, ways that ultimately made them successful anyway, because clearly they were less "talented" in the usual sense of technique, footwork, hand-eye coordination, height, etc..

Well what I dont understand is how is technique at all associated with talent? IMO technique has nothing to do with talent. Almost anyone can bat with the right technique if they wanted to, but the bottom line is that some are better off with different techniques. Technique isnt a 'skill' or an 'ability' that someone possesses. Its merely a style in which a player represents his abilities.

 

[analyst]

Chanderpaul hit one of the quickest centuries in Test Cricket and as an opener for West Indies in ODI"s had a growing reputation as a great partnership along with Gayle.

Memory of Boycott will forever be batting the entire day, while it was an effort worth reading about, I would never teach or promote cricket of that sort today, however great a cricketer you are.

You need to show a bit of respect for the game and I don't mean throwing your wicket away but giving a bit to the game. Boycs did that and has done that consistently on the field and off it. Forty not out sticks in my mind as one of the darkest days of cricket, even if it showed great concentration which few players in modern cricket have.

 

[krkode]

Well what I dont understand is how is technique at all associated with talent? IMO technique has nothing to do with talent. Almost anyone can bat with the right technique if they wanted to, but the bottom line is that some are better off with different techniques. Technique isnt a 'skill' or an 'ability' that someone possesses. Its merely a style in which a player represents his abilities.

I think ultimately we're arguing about semantics. If you replace "technique" with "skill" in my above posts it would mean almost the same thing. Basically, my point is, and the point of the thread, is there are some people who are not as skilled as others. And yet they managed to do well for themselves and in some cases had more successful careers than their more skilled peers.

 

[Richard]

Chanderpaul hit one of the quickest centuries in Test Cricket and as an opener for West Indies in ODI"s had a growing reputation as a great partnership along with Gayle.

Memory of Boycott will forever be batting the entire day, while it was an effort worth reading about, I would never teach or promote cricket of that sort today, however great a cricketer you are.

You need to show a bit of respect for the game and I don't mean throwing your wicket away but giving a bit to the game. Boycs did that and has done that consistently on the field and off it. Forty not out sticks in my mind as one of the darkest days of cricket, even if it showed great concentration which few players in modern cricket have.

What is easily forgotten is that Boycott could and did play the innings where hit aggressive strokes often and scored quickly - he just hardly ever did it. Michael Atherton similar.

Chanderpaul is notably different in that I've always got the impression even he never really knows what's going to happen when he bats. It just seems to be a question of what mood takes him. He can be insanely slow or insanely fast. And he can be both in the same innings.

Boycott however simply played the way that mostly best suited himself and the team - he knew that if he scored runs the chance of his side being beaten were slim. I've always believed this stuff about scoring slowly being disrespectful to the game is utter rubbish. The true cricket conniousseur doesn't really mind about pace of scoring, IMO.

 

[analyst]

I have defended Boycott for many things but the more I read about that innings, I can't believe he really scored so little. I admire the concentration and the technique, it is absolutely astounding that he could do that, I just could not believe 40 runs for the whole day.