Disappointing players

[tooextracool]

True, he has a unique talent to hit the ball as he cleanly as he does. Lacks application maybe, lacks temprament no, he is very relaxed at the crease. I just feel some players take to higher class cricket and burst onto the scene, and some dont.

he actually has a very poor temperament, and cant go on for more than 10 balls without trying to hammer a boundary, and i think some of his stupid dismissals in the natwest series show that.

 

[steds]

Nah, they arent disappointing.. Just plain substandard

is substandard your word of the day?

 

[Richard]

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.

Agree with all the above - presuming, that is, you're talking about Neil McKenzie.
Never seen anything of Ahmed Amla so I can't really comment on him.

 

[Richard]

Ian Salisbury

15 Tests, 368 runs @ 16.72, HS 50
20 Wickets @ 76.95 each, BBI 4-163, SR 124.6, Econ 3.70

4 ODIs, 5 Wickets @ 37.40, BBI 3-41, SR 37.2, Econ 5.70

Why?

Because he's a far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far better bowler than he ever demonstrated in his Test-career (should never have been picked for ODIs so that means nothing).
He's another of the Ramprakash tragedies who didn't have the temperament - nor did he show the improvement Ramprakash did.
(tooextracool - DO NOT start on the "he didn't make an improvement" - he did [going from averaging 16 to 37 is an improvement, there is no disputing that], even if that improvement was not sufficient to keep him in the side)
In fact, in his last 6 Tests his only 2 wickets were the last to fall in the innings.

 

[Richard]

No he isn't, just a normal county pro who hits the ball hard.

Nothing more.

He's not normal - he's really not good enough to play for anyone except Somerset, as demonstrated by his record away from the cooking-bowl-sized ground.

 

[Richard]

Come on, no one ever really had anything to be disappointed about.
Right from his first test scores, it was obvious that his batting was hardly a special talent which he had wasted - 0, 17, 40, 13, 5, 5, 59, 29, 4, ...

Brearley had far more talent than anyone who didn't watch him bat seems to realise.
His record for Middlesex was pretty good.
His record - Test and First-Class - for England was terrible.
But IMO it was down to lack of the right temperament.

 

[Richard]

I might be crazy but im actually a fan of Ian Blackwell. i saw him make 70 odd in a totesport league match last season and he looked the finnished article.

Just goes to show the folly of judging someone on one innings.

 

[Richard]

Blackwell shot to fame with his blazing innings in the C&G final against Kent

Semi, actually.

establishing himself as one of the hardest hitters of the ball. An England call-up was on the cards when Flintoff was injured, and he had a rather good Champions Trophy, while most other batsmen disappointed. He didn't make too many against Zim, but hit the ball hard and he took the attack to the Indians very well in the next match. However, lack of planning and adaptability have been a weakness, along with lack of bat-sense.

There was that match in the VB Series, where the English were chasing a total of slihtly over 250. Trescothick and Knight got a century partnership, till Tresco got out. Blackwell was sent at Number 3, he didn't spot the ball well at all. He was sent higher up to score quick, but scratched for not too many. That's the problem- lack of application.

The problem is that his shot-selection is not good enough, never has been, and almost certainly never will be.

 

[Richard]

and how did it result in failure?
if you had analyzed hicks career, which im certain you didnt, given that you only started watching cricket since 2001, you would see quite clearly that he wasnt troubled much by the short ball.
incidentally if you look at the dismissalls of the 2 bowlers who troubled him most - ambrose and waqar, you'd see that they got him bowled and caught behind far more often than they got him out caught.

Since 1998 actually - and that seriously.
I've been watching it since 1992.
Please stop trying to modify what I've said.
I'm perfectly well aware that most of his dismissals weren't off short-balls - but IMO plenty were as a direct result of short-balls.

 

[Swervy]

Brearley had far more talent than anyone who didn't watch him bat seems to realise.
His record for Middlesex was pretty good.
His record - Test and First-Class - for England was terrible.
But IMO it was down to lack of the right temperament.

Lack of temprement?? In what way...(I am not questioning whether you are right here, just wanting to ubderstand exactly what you mean)
Brearley (probably by his own admission) just wasnt good enough for test cricket...however he did probably concentrate alot on other things in life over his batting..teh talent was apparently there in the very early days, but like so many hundreds of players, it just didnt develop

 

[Richard]

is substandard your word of the day?

It's a vital one in cricket.

 

[Swervy]

Brearley had far more talent than anyone who didn't watch him bat seems to realise.
His record for Middlesex was pretty good.
His record - Test and First-Class - for England was terrible.
But IMO it was down to lack of the right temperament.

although you may well be right....how do you know Brearley had far more talent than anyone who didnt watch him bat seems to realise...I doubt you have actually watch much more than a few balls on some highlight tape....so you are falling into the trap that you appear to be saying other people fall into...using the stats to make judgements about talent

 

[Richard]

Lack of temprement?? In what way...(I am not questioning whether you are right here, just wanting to ubderstand exactly what you mean)
Brearley (probably by his own admission) just wasnt good enough for test cricket...however he did probably concentrate alot on other things in life over his batting..teh talent was apparently there in the very early days, but like so many hundreds of players, it just didnt develop

No-one ever identified any faults in Brearley's technique.
IMO the "he\I wasn't really a good enough batsman for Test-cricket" is just a result of the romanticism about his captaincy.
Brearley was a prolific run-maker at the English domestic level (in a day before the "county cricket is useless" brigade) and IMO that said that he had the ability.
If someone has the ability and doesn't have a glaring technical flaw that results in their exposing at Test-level then their failings can only be put down to not having the neccessary temperament.

 

[Richard]

although you may well be right....how do you know Brearley had far more talent than anyone who didnt watch him bat seems to realise...I doubt you have actually watch much more than a few balls on some highlight tape....so you are falling into the trap that you appear to be saying other people fall into...using the stats to make judgements about talent

No, I've watched extensive stuff of him batting.
Including the odd Middlesex game.
And saying he was a good player for Middlesex based entirely on stats isn't exactly an unfair thing to do - everyone said it AFAIK.
His case has always been one that fascinated me - and yes, I consider him to have squandered a great talent - an especially large shame given his captaincy skills.

 

[steds]

It's a vital one in cricket.

only for describing people who aren't good enough

 

[Swervy]

No-one ever identified any faults in Brearley's technique.
IMO the "he\I wasn't really a good enough batsman for Test-cricket" is just a result of the romanticism about his captaincy.
Brearley was a prolific run-maker at the English domestic level (in a day before the "county cricket is useless" brigade) and IMO that said that he had the ability.
If someone has the ability and doesn't have a glaring technical flaw that results in their exposing at Test-level then their failings can only be put down to not having the neccessary temperament.

how do you know no-one has identified a flaw in his technique.....to question the temprement of certainly the best captain I have ever seen play the game seems odd..that doesnt mean I dismiss that that might be the case mind.

From watching him play, it strikes me that he was so obviously not up to test standard as a batsmen...he often opened the batting with Boycott, the gap is huge between the two..and that is just with quick naked eye observation.

 

[Swervy]

No, I've watched extensive stuff of him batting.
Including the odd Middlesex game.
And saying he was a good player for Middlesex based entirely on stats isn't exactly an unfair thing to do - everyone said it AFAIK.
His case has always been one that fascinated me - and yes, I consider him to have squandered a great talent - an especially large shame given his captaincy skills.

what extensive stuff might this be then???? I am genuinely interested

 

[Richard]

only for describing people who aren't good enough

Exactly - and given the large number of those I think I was correct in what I said!
It's good - not in any way offensive, but a very accurate description nonetheless. In many ways it's better than "rubbish", "crap" etc.

 

[Richard]

how do you know no-one has identified a flaw in his technique.....to question the temprement of certainly the best captain I have ever seen play the game seems odd..that doesnt mean I dismiss that that might be the case mind.

From watching him play, it strikes me that he was so obviously not up to test standard as a batsmen...he often opened the batting with Boycott, the gap is huge between the two..and that is just with quick naked eye observation.

Well being nothing like as good as Geoff Boycott isn't exactly anything to be ashamed of! That's another thing - possibly he looked, at times, even worse than he was, because he had such a brilliant opening partner.
Why does he have to have had a good temperament to be a good captain? Captaincy and batting are totally different thing. Unquestionably he had the temperament to captain (and field well) but there are so many things that show that being at the crease is totally different to anything in cricket - the temperament required is incomparable.
I don't think you can say "he was a brilliant captain so he had to have a good temperament for anything" - yes, I know you didn't say that in so many words. Nonetheless you implied it's possibility.

 

[Richard]

what extensive stuff might this be then???? I am genuinely interested

Err - match videos, y'know?
The best stuff you can get.
No, not all ball-by-ball, but enough ball-by-ball to fill in gaps that might be left by extended-highlight footage.
I've also read plenty of descriptions of his batting which, as I say, simply suggests that his shot-selection wasn't anywhere near as good in the environment of international cricket as it was on the domestic scene.
There have been players like him down the years - Greg Blewett, for example. Boeta Dippenaar has several times suggested he might be able to shake that - we wait and see whether the most recent one really was the breakthrough.
Sadly, for some, there is a pressure to international cricket incomparably greater than at the domestic level. For others, like Tendulkar, things which would cause crushing pressure to some have little effect.