• 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.

Disappointing players

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Sudeep said:
Personally, I think he wasn't backed by the selectors. But with such a blazing start, bigger things are naturally expected of you, and Kambli failed to do that.
I too felt he deserved some more chances back then. Too talented.

Also Nehra whom some one mentioned and B.K.V.Prasad were two bowlers who I thought would do much more. Every one may say they were totally hopeless but to get an idea about the talent of Prasad, his bowling in 96/97 should be looked at.

Nehra has had injuries but hs been far too inconsistent as well. Not a totally hopeless talent. Just a case of talent not being put to proper effect.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Arjun said:
Ian Blackwell is one that springs to mind. He has a lot of potential as a hard-hitting batsman, as a foil for the defensive players in the batting side, and bats left-handed. However, he has a pathetic sense of timing and hardly gets bat to ball. IF he could display the same batting ability he does for Somerset, the English batting lineup could be a lot stronger.
That's just the point - Blackwell has never really scored many runs for Somerset.
He's just performed twice in televised games, which gave lots of people the idea that he's rather better than he is.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Jono said:
I wouldn't exactly label his injuries as his own mistakes. By attempting to utilise his potential, it caused him to succumb to injuries.
I'd say Bond had 2 options:
A short career bowling very quickly, or;
A longer career bowling at fast-medium.
Bowling fast and for a long time was never an option - he doesn't have the body to do it.
If he tries to bowl fast, he'll get injured.
 

Richard Rash

U19 Cricketer
Richard said:
I'd say Bond had 2 options:
A short career bowling very quickly, or;
A longer career bowling at fast-medium.
Bowling fast and for a long time was never an option - he doesn't have the body to do it.
If he tries to bowl fast, he'll get injured.
Are you a back specialist?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
PY said:
Alex Tudor is definitely one in my opinion. Graeme Hick, Ramps....the list of English ones could go on forever. :(
Some fair calls there.

Hicky especially, I'm old enough to remember the anticipation there was counting down to when he qualified. In retrospect there probably was too much burden of expectation put on his shoulders; he seems a genuinely lovely, but mentally fragile chap.

I think the long list of "next Bothams" deserve a mention too: Pringle, De Freitas, Lewis, Capel, Gough (originally touted as all-rounder) and both the Hollioakes.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
BoyBrumby said:
Hicky especially, I'm old enough to remember the anticipation there was counting down to when he qualified. In retrospect there probably was too much burden of expectation put on his shoulders; he seems a genuinely lovely, but mentally fragile chap.
Personally I think no-one spotted a flaw in his technique that was almost inevitably going to see him fail against the best attacks - apart from one period.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
PY said:
Might annoy Andre if he sees this and probably a few other people but Mark Waugh never quite made as high as I thought he could and maybe should have, not sure if that is to do with application though.

Alex Tudor is definitely one in my opinion. Graeme Hick, Ramps....the list of English ones could go on forever. :(
Couldn't agree more. Mark Waugh was always over-rated IMO.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Personally I think no-one spotted a flaw in his technique that was almost inevitably going to see him fail against the best attacks - apart from one period.
and given that the good players arent stopped by these flaws, the flaw doesnt prove anything. and his brief period of success shows exactly that.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
and given that the good players arent stopped by these flaws, the flaw doesnt prove anything. and his brief period of success shows exactly that.
Yes - but there are players who are and players who aren't stopped by their flaws.
Hick was one who - mostly - was.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Yes - but there are players who are and players who aren't stopped by their flaws.
Hick was one who - mostly - was.
i dont think he was stopped by that technical flaw, he was stopped more by the temperamental one.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd suggest that the temperamental flaw was a very direct result of the technical one.
Because he was, for much of his early career (and some of his late), dogged by uncertainty against the short-ball it caused him to play shots that resulted in his dismissal.
No, he didn't often get out to the short-ball itself - but hardly anyone does.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
I'd suggest that the temperamental flaw was a very direct result of the technical one.
Because he was, for much of his early career (and some of his late), dogged by uncertainty against the short-ball it caused him to play shots that resulted in his dismissal.
No, he didn't often get out to the short-ball itself - but hardly anyone does.
what happened to the theory about players not feeling pressure and playing each ball on its own without thinking about the previous delivery?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And I've stated "every single player ever to play the game has done this faultlessly" where exactly...?
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
And I've stated "every single player ever to play the game has done this faultlessly" where exactly...?
so bringing up the flaw in his technique(given that almost everyone has some sort of flaw) proves what i ask?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Because some flaws result in failure.
Yes, some don't as well, but in this case I think it has.
So therefore I think it's appropriate to bring it up.
 

DocHead

School Boy/Girl Captain
Paul Adams in big way, he could've been SA's spearhead spinner for years, never buckled down and learnt to pitch a ball on a good length 6 times an over. Then removed 2 variations from his already lean cupboard, and to top it off, decided he couldn't be arsed to turn the ball anymore.

Makhaya Ntini, after 7 years in international cricket, to not have variation is disappointing, not not even have a recognisable slower ball is downright despondent. Just that one thing would have added so much to his game.

Neil McKensie, the man can play when he wants to, just didn't seem to have it together enough. I think he's been passed in the pecking order by a few players now. He can join Dale Benkenstein in the perpetual whatcouldhavebeen list.

Dale Benkenstein

Ahmed Amla, I remember they used to talk about him like they do about his brother when he first came in, but now his 1st class average is 25, and I'd be surprised to see him last even in the Dolphins side for more than a couple seasons more. Jon Kent, an U19 World Cup star, he managed 1 ODI cap, but he's gone backwards in a huge way......

Can I just add the entire Natal Dolphins non-capped squad in there. :)
 

Top