Players who didn't reach their full potential

[gap2]

Shane Bond, Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar would be the obvious ones, they all had the potential to become legendary pace bowlers (though they are all great bowlers respectivley) but with injury getting the best of Bond and Lee, and with Akhtar not being able to handle his personal life they were all unable to reach the full potential which they could have IMO.

So post any cricketers whom you think didn't reach their full potential or in other words underachieved.

 

[King Pietersen]

Do you really need to copy every single bloody PlanetCricket thread to CW?

Kevin Pietersen's beginning to look like he'll never actually reach his potential. He could be the best batsman in the world, but he really hasn't look like that for the last 12 months. Some of that could be down to his achilles injury, but he looked in terrible form for the entire SA tour. Hopefully he'll find some form in Bangladesh and start playing well again. He needs to get that average back up above 50.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hmm, I think Lee still reached his potential, at least from a physical point of view. He's still played a fair bit of cricket for a pace bowler.

 

[Dano.85]

Mark ramprakash without a doubt. The guy is a first class run machine.

 

[Kylez]

Greg Blewett didn't fill all of his potential.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Kevin Pietersen- Has played poorly for most of the last 2 years. A time when he should be reaching is prime

Flintoff- Injuries, fitness and an unwillingness to accept towards the tail of his career that he was a better bowler than a batsman

Damien Martyn- All the shots and all the time to play them, but seemed to lack the mental strength to make it work and become world class

Shane Bond- Injuries

Yurav- Looks like, besides a few cameos, he will squander a great natural talent

Asif- problems with authority

Carl Hooper- Looked like a world beater, very average stats.

Atherton- In a different time he could have been so much more

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Afridi- Could have done more in tests

Inzi- Should have averaged well over 50. Still a very good player though

Harmison- Could go from unplayable to the worst bowler in the world in a matter of months

Simon Jones- Injuries

Hick- The king of first class cricket, poor test player

Caddick- Had all the ingrediants to be all over batsman, but mental strength again seemed to let him down

 

[slowfinger]

Do you really need to copy every single bloody PlanetCricket thread to CW?

Kevin Pietersen's beginning to look like he'll never actually reach his potential. He could be the best batsman in the world, but he really hasn't look like that for the last 12 months. Some of that could be down to his achilles injury, but he looked in terrible form for the entire SA tour. Hopefully he'll find some form in Bangladesh and start playing well again. He needs to get that average back up above 50.

Never, just, no. He'll never be a great but he could be good, end of.

 

[Richard]

Disagree with most of the names mentioned so far TBH but Carl Hooper and Andrew Caddick are bang-on IMO. Hooper simply can't really have any viable explanation proferred; Caddick was badly handled by selectors. Abysmally handled, in fact.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Who do you disagree with, Richard?

 

[Richard]

Lee, Shoaib, Bond, Ramprakash, Yuvraj, Martyn, Afridi, Harmison, Inzamam-ul-Haq.

Hick is a questionable case, because he certainly lost-out through utterly dismal selectorial handling to some extent, but I'm far from sure he ever really had it in him to be a top-class Test batsman over a really lengthy time (he of course was such a thing for a relatively short period of 3 years). Simon Jones too I'm not sure about.

Pietersen and Asif both, hopefully, have more of their careers ahead of than behind them. So I don't think it'd be wise to assess them as of yet. Some have only said Pietersen's looking like joining the clan, which is fair enough; some have intimated he already has, which I don't agree with.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Lee, Shoaib, Bond, Ramprakash, Yuvraj, Martyn, Afridi, Harmison, Inzamam-ul-Haq.

Hick is a questionable case, because he certainly lost-out through utterly dismal selectorial handling to some extent, but I'm far from sure he ever really had it in him to be a top-class Test batsman over a really lengthy time (he of course was such a thing for a relatively short period of 3 years). Simon Jones too I'm not sure about.

Pietersen and Asif both, hopefully, have more of their careers ahead of than behind them. So I don't think it'd be wise to assess them as of yet. Some have only said Pietersen's looking like joining the clan, which is fair enough; some have intimated he already has, which I don't agree with.

Shoaib- Probably needed to more of the same. His career has been okay in short bursts.

Bond- A fantastic bowler. I can't see how you disagree with this one.

Ramps- Simply didn't have it for the top level. No argument from me there.


I stick by Martyn, Harmison and potentially Yurav.

 

[bagapath]

pietersen has scored 16 centuries and averages 48 in test cricket. if he is not one of the greatest players of all time at least he is certainly one of the greatest england has ever had. no way he could be compared with the asifs and bonds who didnt do enough justice to their natural talents.

 

[L Trumper]

No matter how much they score players like Gower, M Waugh, Hooper seems like they never achieved their full potential.

 

[Richard]

I believe that completely with Mark Waugh - as with Hooper. With Gower I think he did as well as he could have. Gower was one of those incredibly rare players who could just rock-up and bat, he hardly needed to practice all career. I don't believe that someone forcing him into practicing more would've helped; in fact, maybe, quite the opposite, for he needed to be relaxed to perform.

 

[Richard]

Shoaib- Probably needed to more of the same. His career has been okay in short bursts.

Bond- A fantastic bowler. I can't see how you disagree with this one.

Ramps- Simply didn't have it for the top level. No argument from me there.


I stick by Martyn, Harmison and potentially Yurav.

Yuvraj I just don't think has it either mentally or technically either. Martyn for me had the potential to be a decent Test batsman and was just that. Don't think he could've been more. Harmison was never going to be very good, he just didn't do enough with the ball. Bond however much basic bowling talent he had lacked a durable body and the same factors which turned him from decent to excellent bowler also made him more injury-prone. His action, like Flintoff's, just encouraged injury. Shoaib simply did not have a strong enough body to enjoy an injury-free career. He was always, always going to be an on-off force.

 

[0RI0N]

Mark 153* Waugh
Seriously.
Coulda been a contender.
Coulda been as good as G Chappell.
128 tests
Ave 40 odd
20 hundreds
153*
Immensely talented,but it just seams Asif after his horrible SL tour of 92 he was just coasting in Test cricket.
Pity though.

 

[Richard]

it just seams Asif

You couldn't make it up.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

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.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Yuvraj I just don't think has it either mentally or technically either. Martyn for me had the potential to be a decent Test batsman and was just that. Don't think he could've been more. Harmison was never going to be very good, he just didn't do enough with the ball. Bond however much basic bowling talent he had lacked a durable body and the same factors which turned him from decent to excellent bowler also made him more injury-prone. His action, like Flintoff's, just encouraged injury. Shoaib simply did not have a strong enough body to enjoy an injury-free career. He was always, always going to be an on-off force.

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

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.

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