Players Who You Predicted Would Be Great................

[tooextracool]

I'm not going to do anything of the sort, I never do - you, on the other hand, make many, many, many very poor attempts to.
Here is yet another example.
"Time and again" means not "every time" - if I meant "every time" I would have said something along the lines of... oh... "every time", probably.
"Time and again" means, quite simply, enough times for it to be considered of note.
How many more phrases are you going to try and use incorrectly?

ok then lets look at these so called 'time and time again ' failures against good attacks then shall we?
against australia played 3 series, with averages of 42.67,41.60 and 25.63...looks like he succeeded more often against them than he failed.
against SA he again played 3 series, with averages of 60.80,48.83 and 3......oh yes failing time and time again that.....
in fact the only good pace attack that he failed against consistently against was pakistan, and even that can be justified because he had problems against a particular bowler.
hicks failure had nothing to do with his supposed weakness, he was quite capable of playing around it on several occasions. his weakness was all temperamental if you ask me, and the period between 93-96 where he didnt have a single series failure emphasizes that.
seriously you can try faking everything that you want about any other player, but when it comes to hick you better get your facts right, because i have watched every hick innings(bar the ones in the 83 wc) and know more about hicks intl career than you will ever know.

 

[tooextracool]

I never once said "I could have predicted it" - that's just your fifty-times-daily attempt at putting words on my keyboard.
I pointed-out that someone did predict it, so it was not as if everyone expected him to be a Test-match success.

and the fact that he succeeded at the county level suggested to everyone that the weakness wasnt really making much of a difference to his performances.....

It was about as certain to lead to the problems it did as anything is ever certain to lead to anything. No-one can be certain about anything. But in Paul Hancock (the writer of this particular 1990 article)'s case, he guessed right.
Anyone who guessed the same thing about Viv Richards (and I've never heard anything of anyone who did) would have turned-out to have guessed incorrectly.
And I don't think I've ever heard anyone else compare the two of them - so it's just possible that Viv was a bit more nible-footed than you give him credit for.

oh and because you've read articles from the 70s before richards made his way into the side have you? because in your previous life you were reading about 'why richards is going to fail?'
and no good players dont have any problems working around their weaknesses, no matter how bad their weakness really is. almost every player has a weakness, therefore it must be assumed that no one will succeed.

 

[dro87]

Them's fine stats.

And don't be put off by Richard - he's what we English call 'a man of strange ideas' - and you are more than welcome to tell him to 'va fancu...' (voice trails off into distance) - well, you would be if we condoned swearing.

(Welcome to CricketWeb)

well, i don't care very much if Scuderi didn't make it 2 the top... i fine with what he is... One of the best european players apart from the uk... I think he is better than several player from holland...

 

[Richard]

And don't be put off by Richard - he's what we English call 'a man of strange ideas' - and you are more than welcome to tell him to 'va fancu...' (voice trails off into distance) - well, you would be if we condoned swearing.

Have I yet disputed Joe Scuderi's prowess in the Italian domestic scene?

 

[Richard]

ok then lets look at these so called 'time and time again ' failures against good attacks then shall we?
against australia played 3 series, with averages of 42.67,41.60 and 25.63...looks like he succeeded more often against them than he failed.
against SA he again played 3 series, with averages of 60.80,48.83 and 3......oh yes failing time and time again that.....
in fact the only good pace attack that he failed against consistently against was pakistan, and even that can be justified because he had problems against a particular bowler.
hicks failure had nothing to do with his supposed weakness, he was quite capable of playing around it on several occasions. his weakness was all temperamental if you ask me, and the period between 93-96 where he didnt have a single series failure emphasizes that.
seriously you can try faking everything that you want about any other player, but when it comes to hick you better get your facts right, because i have watched every hick innings(bar the ones in the 83 wc) and know more about hicks intl career than you will ever know.

Interesting, Hick's innings in the WC83 - 8 years before his ODI debut. This for someone who knows oh so much about Hick's international career.
Well I can assure you you don't know any more about Hick in 2000 and 2001 than I do.
I've also watched plenty of highlights of Hick between 1991 and 1999, and why the problems with his technique weren't evident in the 1993-1995 time is something I can't explain, but I'm afraid there's little doubt in my mind that the problems before and after then were technical not temperamental. That's what the fact that, even during the time of general failures, his successes came against sides without very good pace attacks, suggest.

 

[Richard]

and the fact that he succeeded at the county level suggested to everyone that the weakness wasnt really making much of a difference to his performances.....

No, it wasn't - they weren't identified very well in the domestic-First-Class game.

oh and because you've read articles from the 70s before richards made his way into the side have you? because in your previous life you were reading about 'why richards is going to fail?'
and no good players dont have any problems working around their weaknesses, no matter how bad their weakness really is. almost every player has a weakness, therefore it must be assumed that no one will succeed.

Wrong, it could be predicted that all players might fail.
Those predictions could be wrong or right.
There are some weaknesses or limitations that are easy to exploit, others that aren't - like Graeme Smith's mainly leg-side play.
A problem with the short-ball isn't that difficult to exploit.
But we won't really know for certain until x or y plays that level of cricket that they're being predicted success or failure at.

 

[tooextracool]

Interesting, Hick's innings in the WC83 - 8 years before his ODI debut. This for someone who knows oh so much about Hick's international career.

ok then, he didnt play any matches in 83, and i never claimed to have watched them either. however i do know more about hick's career from 93-01 then you will ever know

Well I can assure you you don't know any more about Hick in 2000 and 2001 than I do.

oh i do believe me....since he didnt play in any match in 83 i can safely say that ive watched every hick innings.

I've also watched plenty of highlights of Hick between 1991 and 1999, and why the problems with his technique weren't evident in the 1993-1995 time is something I can't explain, but I'm afraid there's little doubt in my mind that the problems before and after then were technical not temperamental. That's what the fact that, even during the time of general failures, his successes came against sides without very good pace attacks, suggest.

then why come up with gibberish like 'he failed time and time again against quality bowling attacks' then? once again i have proved you wrong.
and no you cant explain it because it is quite possible that he applied himself during that period, he managed to get around his weakness and play the way he did in domestic cricket. and no while he did have technical problems many many times they were just soft dismissals, he just played stupid shots to get himself out.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it wasn't - they weren't identified very well in the domestic-First-Class game.

is this the same person who says that players who succeed at the county level must succeed at the intl level? if his flaws werent identified in the first class game then theres no way you could have predicted failure in the first place.....

Wrong, it could be predicted that all players might fail.
Those predictions could be wrong or right.
There are some weaknesses or limitations that are easy to exploit, others that aren't - like Graeme Smith's mainly leg-side play.
A problem with the short-ball isn't that difficult to exploit.
But we won't really know for certain until x or y plays that level of cricket that they're being predicted success or failure at.

yes i know that some weakness are easier to exploit, but the point is that no matter what weakness you have you can still succeed if you play around it, and viv richards has shown that with a very similar weakness to hick, you can still succeed, therefore not you or anyone else could have predicted failure. and hick's success between 93-95 suggested to everyone that he could in fact play around it.....

 

[Richard]

ok then, he didnt play any matches in 83, and i never claimed to have watched them either. however i do know more about hick's career from 93-01 then you will ever know

93-98, probably, yes.
98-01 - I doubt it.

oh i do believe me....since he didnt play in any match in 83 i can safely say that ive watched every hick innings.

And I've watched every one since summer 2000. Plus all those in 1998.

then why come up with gibberish like 'he failed time and time again against quality bowling attacks' then?

Err, because he did?

once again i have proved you wrong.

No, you haven't.

and no you cant explain it because it is quite possible that he applied himself during that period, he managed to get around his weakness and play the way he did in domestic cricket. and no while he did have technical problems many many times they were just soft dismissals, he just played stupid shots to get himself out.

Yes - caused by his problems with the short-ball. He was visibly intimidated and played soft shots as a result.

 

[Richard]

is this the same person who says that players who succeed at the county level must succeed at the intl level?

No, it's not - once again I've never said exactly that, I've just said that most players who do better than a peer at domestic level will also do better at international.

if his flaws werent identified in the first class game then theres no way you could have predicted failure in the first place.....

By that, of course, I meant identified by his stats in the First-Class game. No, I couldn't have, because I wasn't 6 years old when he made his international debut, but the fact is someone else did.

yes i know that some weakness are easier to exploit, but the point is that no matter what weakness you have you can still succeed if you play around it, and viv richards has shown that with a very similar weakness to hick, you can still succeed, therefore not you or anyone else could have predicted failure. and hick's success between 93-95 suggested to everyone that he could in fact play around it.....

Maybe he could - but only for a limited time.
Failure is always predictable - if there's a single successful player who's not been predicted failure at some point I'll be astounded. In some cases, the predictions prove correct (and inspired spotting) and in some they don't.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it's not - once again I've never said exactly that, I've just said that most players who do better than a peer at domestic level will also do better at international.

and given that its been proven wrong on infinitely many occasions in the past?

By that, of course, I meant identified by his stats in the First-Class game. No, I couldn't have, because I wasn't 6 years old when he made his international debut, but the fact is someone else did..

here is your exact post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrow
I think Graeme Hick turned out one to be one of the biggest disappointments of the modern era.

Only to those who didn't take the time to analyse his technique and identify a palpable weakness with heavy-footed dominance and the planting of the back leg.
Those who actually noticed that upon seeing him play realised that it was always going to lead to problems with the short-ball at the Test level. And they weren't too surprised when he failed time and again against the better attacks.
and then this:
Most people said that, quite true - but my Dad, always a Hick fan, showed me an newspaper article in 1996 about Hick, written in 1990, predicting that he'd struggle in Test-cricket against consistent short-pitched bowling due to his flat-footedness. Nothing to do with hindsight.
I'll dig it out if you want.
Of course, you can always say I've written it myself.

it seems to me that you were suggesting that he was expected to fail......

Maybe he could - but only for a limited time.

no because even after that most times he got out for reasons other than his weakness..

Failure is always predictable - if there's a single successful player who's not been predicted failure at some point I'll be astounded. In some cases, the predictions prove correct (and inspired spotting) and in some they don't.

so people predicted that tendulkar would fail then?

 

[tooextracool]

93-98, probably, yes.
98-01 - I doubt it..

and given that ive watched every hick innings throughout his career, you couldnt know any more than me from 98-01...

And I've watched every one since summer 2000. Plus all those in 1998..

oh you've watched a lot

Err, because he did?

then you missed my post then?
"ok then lets look at these so called 'time and time again ' failures against good attacks then shall we?
against australia played 3 series, with averages of 42.67,41.60 and 25.63...looks like he succeeded more often against them than he failed.
against SA he again played 3 series, with averages of 60.80,48.83 and 3......oh yes failing time and time again that.....
in fact the only good pace attack that he failed against consistently against was pakistan, and even that can be justified because he had problems against a particular bowler.

No, you haven't.

read above,instead of coming up with stupid statements like "time and time again" .

Yes - caused by his problems with the short-ball. He was visibly intimidated and played soft shots as a result.

rubbish the poor shots had nothing to do with being intimidated.....his problems were mental.

 

[mahartaab]

Kamran Akmal- Cant say if he will be great but cerainly have tools to be very good all-round player
mohammad sami- it frustrates me sometimes ...why isnt a guy with such potential ad talent having much success

 

[33/3from3.3]

Michael Papps of NZ

 

[33/3from3.3]

I'm not going to do anything of the sort, I never do - you, on the other hand, make many, many, many very poor attempts to.
Here is yet another example.
"Time and again" means not "every time" - if I meant "every time" I would have said something along the lines of... oh... "every time", probably.
"Time and again" means, quite simply, enough times for it to be considered of note.
How many more phrases are you going to try and use incorrectly?

You could say
Time and time again he's used the phrase "time and time again" incorrectly

 

[andyc]

Don't get involved in a Richard-TEC duel

 

[33/3from3.3]

soz i couldnt resist that one

 

[chooka_nick]

On The Sport Forum in late 2003 I said that Phil Jaques, Mike Hussey, Chis Gayle and Cam White will become great cricketers.
Yes, you heard me, I was on the Hussey bandwagon before it was even a bandwagon! Ha!

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I feel that Shane Bond will end up on this list.

 

[deeps]

Alec Tudor
Shahid Afridi
Mohammed Wasim
Sairaj Bahutule
Neil Mckenzie
Adam Dale
Brad Hogg-his batting can be so much better,shld have made it as THE all rounder for aus
Tafeeq Umar - still has time
Murali Kartik - imo is better than Harbajan
Jacques Rudolph
Jacques Kallis