Disappointing players

[wpdavid]

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.

If you have the time, it would be interesting to compare Brearley's performances before and after his break from the county game. I vaguely remember reading that he was initially quite prolific but appreciably less so when he returned from his sabatical. Of course, all of his test career fell into the second period.

Having watched much of his test career, I can't really buy your argument that he was a very good batsman who lacked the temprament. Truth is he only got into the side because in the mid-1970's we were struggling badly to find genuine test batsmen. A lot of his tests were played against pretty ordinary attacks, so the fact that he never made a test ton and finished with an average in the low 20's does say it all, I'm afraid. And that's before I even get started on why his captaincy was vastly over-rated, but let's not go there today.

 

[Richard]

Truth is he only got into the side because in the mid-1970's we were struggling badly to find genuine test batsmen.

True, but nonetheless an average in the 40s in the Championship would normally mean no-one could complain about a selection.
I think Brearley merited his selection.

A lot of his tests were played against pretty ordinary attacks, so the fact that he never made a test ton and finished with an average in the low 20's does say it all, I'm afraid. And that's before I even get started on why his captaincy was vastly over-rated, but let's not go there today.

Already done it, remember?
I don't think his captaincy was vastly overrated, personally - I don't judge it on the results of his team, which I agree might be slightly exaggerated in significance.
The fact that he played mostly against ordinary attacks merely adds weight to the idea that it was temperament not technique that was the problem. If it was simply that his technique was good enough for domestic but not international cricket he'd have done well against the weaker sides. However, it was the fact that it was "international" cricket that affected him IMO - same way it has with other players occasionally.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Hick and Bevan (Tests) spring immediately to mind.

 

[marc71178]

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).

15 games is a lot of chances - is it just coincidence that he never showed to be this good even when got the helpful conditions?

 

[marc71178]

No, not all ball-by-ball, but enough ball-by-ball to fill in gaps that might be left by extended-highlight footage.

Out of interest where has this ball by ball stuff come from?

 

[Link]

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.

maybe, but thats the way he plays, most aggressive players would see 10 balls as a long period of time in an ODI's.

 

[Link]

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

Fair enough, i dont really respect that much any more. but from them knocks, i thought i saw potential.
maybe not

 

[marc71178]

maybe, but thats the way he plays, most aggressive players would see 10 balls as a long period of time in an ODI's.

But the best ones can then sort themselves to not fall into that trap (ie Flintoff)

 

[Link]

But the best ones can then sort themselves to not fall into that trap (ie Flintoff)

Yeah your right, but i was not comparing Blackwell to someone like Flintoff, i didnt even say he was a good player. I just said that he had something unique. And to the point i was just saying that Blackwell going after someting every 10 balls is just his natural game.

 

[Marcus]

Blackwell is a legend....down in taunton he plays great...but its a batter friendly wicket...yes hes been disappointing for England....but he hasnt really been treated well.....although he does need to lose weight......disappointing for me currnetly is anderson and gough...both played poorly in zimbarbwe and bowled to many extras and tooo short.....look at the bowlers we could use.....can we really rely on Gough? debatable....and if he is to paly in the 2007 world cup then hes pushing out a good new seamer...anderson needs to go back to his county again.....or at the moment loughbourgh....he'll re learn wot is needed for international cricket...he had a promising start.....he needs to have a bright future

 

[Link]

Blackwell is not a legend, i know you are in somerset but dont kid yourself.
The future does not revolve around Darren Gough especially in the 2007 World Cup.

 

[Richard]

15 games is a lot of chances - is it just coincidence that he never showed to be this good even when got the helpful conditions?

It's not coincidence at all, it's all exactly the same reasons - poor temperament.

 

[Richard]

Out of interest where has this ball by ball stuff come from?

Libraries, mostly.

 

[Richard]

Blackwell is a legend....down in taunton he plays great...but its a batter friendly wicket

There are pitches every bit as bat-friendly elsewhere.
There are no grounds as obscenely small elsewhere.

 

[marc71178]

Libraries, mostly.

Public libraries?

 

[southern man]

Ronnie Irani
Ken Rutherford
Muhommad Wasim ( he is also in **** provincal form)
Lance Cairns

 

[wpdavid]

True, but nonetheless an average in the 40s in the Championship would normally mean no-one could complain about a selection.
I think Brearley merited his selection.

Already done it (re. his captaincy), remember?

So I had. Sign of the ageing process, I'm afraid. I can remember what happened 10 years ago better than what I wrote a few months back. Oh well. Some would see it as proof that I write most of my articles in my sleeo.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

its quite impossible to have a weakness against the short ball and yet be dismissed far more often by pitched up deliveries. you havent watched half his career, so lets just say that you know nowhere near as much as i do.

 

[tooextracool]

maybe, but thats the way he plays, most aggressive players would see 10 balls as a long period of time in an ODI's.

you can quite easily go through 10 balls with a few singles and 2s. IMO that was his major flaw, in that if he got a period of slow scoring he couldnt resist trying to do something stupid to change the situation without even waiting for the right ball.

 

[tooextracool]

It's not coincidence at all, it's all exactly the same reasons - poor temperament.

which doesnt affect bowlers over extensive periods of time. its quite impossible for a bowler to go through 15 tests without a single good one unless hes rubbish, which salisbury undoubtedly was.