Players who didn't reach their full potential

[Richard]

I suppose you could include Mark Waugh.

Although he averaged 41 playing almost wholly through the 90s which was by no means bad back then, probably 45 by today's standards, he still looks like a bit of a failure statistically.

He should have scored more than 18 centuries in 128 matches, he was after all more talented than Steve who averaged 51 (albeit boosted by 46 not outs) and scored 34 centuries.

Looking back Mark Waugh's career stats look better in the shorter version of the game and although he could be excellent in ODIs, that under sells him a bit.

It's a shame that youngsters looking on cricinfo or wherever at his stats will merely see an adequate and possibly over-promoted test player, but for those of us that saw him play in his prime will know that he was much more than that.

The main thing that convinces me that Mark Waugh could've done better is the fact that for much of his career he IIRR averaged around 55 in Australian domestic cricket, which of times was of a quality not far below that of some Tests. So it wasn't a question of either lack of the game for the step up, nor a failure of temperament.

As with Carl Hooper (who is a bit different again in that he was utterly dreadful for about 5 years before being decent-but-still-nowhere-near-as-good-as-he-was-domestically for another 6, before walking-out) it's just difficult to explain his case. Unlike, for instance, Michael Vaughan and Ian Bell (who are similar in looking like they should score far more than they did\have-so-far), both were batsmen who showed all of that they could dominate weak bowling, score well against strong bowling and had no temperamental issues. As I say, Mark Waugh and Hooper go down to me as great mysteries. It'd be inexplicable if they were unable to get themselves motivated to perform at Test level, but the fact that that explanation is as (in)plausible as any other says it all.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Issues that cannot be accounted for by mere onlookers like ourselves. There are many variables we don't know of.

 

[Richard]

Yurav is a natural striker of the ball, he has a skill you can't teach.

But being a successful Test player requires so much more than that. Yuvraj does not have other essential aspects of his game essential for Test match success. He does have about all you need in a good ODI batsman and as such he's top-quality in that format.

Martyn was a free-flowing natural, easily good enough to play at number 4 for Australia as he did but ultimately did not fulfil his potential which I believe could have been 25 centuries and an average of 50.

Meh, I think Martyn is grossly flattered by an average of whatever it was he averaged 2001-2006/07 (think it is ~49-50). If he'd routinely faced stronger bowling I reckon he could've had perhaps a 10-12-year career and averaged ~39-42, with maybe the odd short really outstanding period chucked in there. Although he was a wonderful natural timer through the off-side of the ball that did not deviate, he was not someone I think had truly top-notch judgement and the ability to achieve success akin to, for instance, Gordon Greenidge or David Boon against the moving ball. Make no mistake - he certainly wasn't a no-hoper when it swung, but I don't think he was more than decent. Also early in his career he was something close to a standing joke against spin like most WA'ns and it took him a long time to become a good player of spin.

I am not sure about Harmison never doing enough with the ball , in his pomp he could terrify batsman, bowl at 90mph, take heads off and move it away from the right hander. Low self confidence and the subsequent lack of control it bred was his real issue

I only exceptionally rarely saw Harmison move the ball away from the RHB. Although Harmison may indeed have worried some batsmen and struck the odd blow here and there, he never really had the ability to dismiss them - though it is true that there was a very brief period of 4 months and 7 Tests at the start of 2004 where he was gifted a whole stack of wickets. That had never happened before and never happened again. Harmison has never, all career, been someone who can bowl out batsmen - he's just someone who batsmen don't much like facing. I actually don't believe the low self-confidence excuses, I think they're just a get-out for those who were duped into believing he was more talented than he is.

 

[Richard]

Issues that cannot be accounted for by mere onlookers like ourselves. There are many variables we don't know of.

The point I'm making is they're issues I doubt anyone really knows of. If someone does, you'd imagine they'd come out in some book or other.

 

[L Trumper]

I suppose you could include Mark Waugh.

He should have scored more than 18 centuries in 128 matches, he was after all more talented than Steve who averaged 51 (albeit boosted by 46 not outs) and scored 34 centuries.

Looking back Mark Waugh's career stats look better in the shorter version of the game and although he could be excellent in ODIs, that under sells him a bit.

It's a shame that youngsters looking on cricinfo or wherever at his stats will merely see an adequate and possibly over-promoted test player, but for those of us that saw him play in his prime will know that he was much more than that.

Yeah that thing bugs me to no end. Younger Waugh is more talented as batsman,bowler and fielder. But his statistics simply sucks. He should have averaged atleast 50 in my opinion. In fact he more or less do the same against top or crap oppositions.
Watching him bat is an absolute treat.

 

[Richard]

IIRR, in three of the four levels (List-A-one-day, First-Class, ODI and Test) Mark averaged more than Stephen. Only at the Test level did Stephen average more - the trouble is that the Test level is overwhelmingly the most significant, and the difference was substantial (Stephen averaged 61 for the greater part of his career, Mark averaged IIRR about 43). Whereas at the two domestic levels there wasn't that much between them, and in ODIs the difference, while significant, was not so stark as in Tests.

Also in terms of the relative talent of the Waugh twins - sure, Mark may have been more physically talented but Stephen was undoubtedly more mentally talented. In the end, that told big-time. Could not possibly count the number of times Mark got himself out purely because he seemed bored; Stephen just did not do that.

 

[stumpski]

So many English players from the last 20 years fit into this category - just a few more off the top of my head in addition to those already mentioned:

John Crawley
Marcus Trescothick
Mark Lathwell
Chris Lewis
Alex Tudor

Perhaps the list of those who did go on to achieve their full potential would be a shorter one.

 

[Richard]

Sure would:

Graham Thorpe

 

[Richard]

TBF though I dispute that many of those had it in them to achieve more than they did. Crawley, yeah, perhaps, as he was not given a fair second crack of the whip after having apparently solved the issues that had bugged him 1994-1998/99. Lathwell no way IMO - he just wasn't cut-out for a career that involved the limelight. Trescothick as most know is someone whose Test career figures grossly flatter him, not underdo his value. Lewis I've always disagreed with those who claim he was so talented - very limited bowler and decent lower-order biffer who was never going to be anything more than a not-very-good Test all-rounder.

And Tudor we really will never know what might've happened had he not got that horrific smack on the head in 2002/03. Even up to then he'd been mind-numbingly frustrating.

 

[stumpski]

And the Gaffer? Debuted a few weeks shy of 27, yet still fitted in 133 Tests. Also had to field the suspicion of nepotism - at least at the start of his career - and switching between opening and keeping.

 

[Dano.85]

If you go by stats alone flintoff, not enough wickets for such a good bowler and not enough runs.

 

[stumpski]

Lathwell's early exit from county cricket would certainly suggest he had temperamental problems, but perhaps you don't remember how highly he was regarded in 1993 - and he was appallingly treated, dropped after two Tests in which he hadn't even done that badly. Wasn't like he got 10 runs in four innings or anything.

 

[L Trumper]

Also in terms of the relative talent of the Waugh twins - sure, Mark may have been more physically talented but Stephen was undoubtedly more mentally talented. In the end, that told big-time. Could not possibly count the number of times Mark got himself out purely because he seemed bored; Stephen just did not do that.

Thats why he is consistently placed in the under achievers list while stephen was placed among the greats of the game. Then again it was mark's charm, whenever you think he is batting beautifully and going to get a big score he get out for innocuous of the deliveries. But still managed enough match turning and match saving knocks.

 

[Richard]

Lathwell's early exit from county cricket would certainly suggest he had temperamental problems, but perhaps you don't remember how highly he was regarded in 1993 - and he was appallingly treated, dropped after two Tests in which he hadn't even done that badly. Wasn't like he got 10 runs in four innings or anything.

Hmm, he did poorly in the Tests and in my book there's no way he should've played them - Hick was stupidly unlucky to get dropped when he did. How on Earth anyone thought Gooch moving into the middle-order to accommodate Lathwell was a good idea either is beyond me.

I know Lathwell was highly regarded early in his career but my point is essentially that those early expectations were ineducated ones - people did not yet know that Lathwell had such a hatred of the limelight. If that had been known, everyone would have always known that he was never going to make a successful international cricketer.

 

[Richard]

And the Gaffer? Debuted a few weeks shy of 27, yet still fitted in 133 Tests. Also had to field the suspicion of nepotism - at least at the start of his career - and switching between opening and keeping.

Stewart managed to turn himself into one of the greatest wicketkeeper-batsmen the game has seen, and he was 33 by the time he did it - yet in my view with better handling he could've been so much more than he was. In the 5 years between 1991 and 1996 he had his role changed no less than 17 times. I just wish that he'd been picked constantly as a specialist middle-order batsman in that time, rather than shunted non-stop from middle-order to opening, opening to middle-order, keeper to specialist batsman, specialist batsman to keeper... and back again. He even got dropped once.

 

[stumpski]

I always felt I'd have liked to see him as England's regular no. 3 (specialist) batsman - I think he could have nailed that down for years. And it was a problem position for us even then.

 

[Richard]

Yup. Admittedly this is mostly with hindsight, but I've never, ever remotely understood why, between 1992 when Atherton regained fitness and 1996 which was the last time before Stewart finally became good enough to keep at Test level, the England top-five wasn't Gooch (followed by Knight), Atherton, Stewart, Thorpe, R Smith (followed by Hussain). It seemed madness to shove all of Gooch, Knight and Atherton (and later Butcher as well), who were all natural openers, down to three to make Stewart (who had never opened apart from in a makeshift capacity before the 1991/92 tour of New Zealand) open.

Very little of that can be blamed on injuries. Bad selection was so much of the reason why the England side which could've been pretty damn good for most of the 1990s was instead such a nearly-man-story.

 

[L Trumper]

Very little of that can be blamed on injuries. Bad selection was so much of the reason why the England side which could've been pretty damn good for most of the 1990s was instead such a nearly-man-story.

Ha! England's 90s circus acts. Atherton, Knight/Gooch , Stewart, Thorpe, Smith, Hussain and adding hick and ramprakash genuinely good batting line up. Gough,Cork,Caddick etc provides good bowling line up too. But somehow they stayed at the bottom of the barrel. In fairness though they are competitive against all teams apart from AUS which tagged them to mediocrity. They should have achieved more.

 

[Richard]

England could easily have had a batting-line-up (we'll be charitable and say top-six but in reality top-seven is a near-must) that had no holes in it for virtually the entire decade. Instead there was just a single Test where this could truly said to have happened - ie, the side was composed of Test-class players, who had established themselves as Test-class at that time and were not in the midst of downtime. That was Edgbaston 1998:
M Butcher
Atherton
Hussain
Stewart
Thorpe
Ramprakash

You know what the bottom five was don't you? Yes:
Ealham
Cork
Croft
Gough
Fraser

Oh dear. Some good bowlers there (not that one of them bowled at all that game - Gough had had his finger broken by Donald) but not much batting.

 

[L Trumper]

Yeah. For some odd reason they generally get their act together against SA and always had a chance against a damn good SA side for all series. Even when they were out played they usually hung out for draws. 94,95,98 in all of them selection worries were there but not over the top, batting line up used to be fine with out any shockers in the order.