Robert Key - Wasted talent?

[Craig]

The first time I saw Robert Key bat I thought he had the makings of a solid player, whilst his concentration at times was lacking I remember his innings in Hobart against Australia 'A' in 02/03 showed a good player at FC level and in the Perth Test (in his second Test) he showed a willingness to smash Shane Warne back over his head for six and I thought he generally played him well.

He can clearly bat, over 11,000 FC runs and 33 FC hundreds and with a FC average of 41says he has ability, and yet he has only played 15 Tests and with a paltry average of 31 and unless serious innings happen, it is no scret that it is very hard to break into the England batting line-up. And, if, he is ready, I can't see Marcus Trescothick getting back in, unless they wanted to drop Strauss, but surely if they were to ever to have done it, they would have done it by now? Even if his form was very patchy to say the least in the summer just gone.

So therefore does Key can go down as an individual as somebody who has wasted his talent as a Test batsman as he clearly is mediocre at that form of the game (his List A stats would suggest that) or never been really good enough from the beginning?

 

[stumpski]

I've seen him play quite a bit over the last few years, for Kent as well as England, in fact I saw him carry his bat against Surrey only a couple of weeks ago. There's no doubt he's a good player, even a very good county player. But there have been many others of a similar standard in county cricket, including his old opening partner David Fulton, who never had the chance to play 15 Tests or even one Test. Hard to say that Key should have played more at the expense of Vaughan, Strauss, Trescothick, Cook and Butcher. He seemed to have cemented his place with that 2004 double-hundred against West Indies but an indifferent tour of South Africa followed and since then he's been restricted to the captaincy of Kent and England 'A.' So personally I would put him as just short of top class, rather than a wasted talent.

 

[open365]

Key's not an international player from what i've seen of him, he's got the Brad Hodge esque ability of nicking outside to the off stump to the most innocuous deliveries.

 

[Richard]

Key is a deeply contradictory player (in the longer game, at least - as Craig says he's wholly mediocre full-stop in the shorter game, totally unsuited to the requirements there). He can look a million dollars against superb bowlers, and get out to innocuous deliveries from innocuous bowlers. He can have a terrific temperament, and fix hole after hole that springs-up in his technique... but he can still keep getting out in different ways, with no plausible explanation other than "not being able to hack the mental step-up".

TBH I've always rated him pretty highly. He's been one of the best opening-batsmen going around for a fair while now (3 or 4 seasons at least), and has actually done reasonably well batting at the top of the order in Tests. He looked OK when first introduced, just with one very obvious problem - pushing at balls hard outside off. That was soon fixed-up, and hasn't (from what I've seen) resurfaced since. Since then, when batting at three (never again had the chance to open after that summer 2002) he's actually done OK. Now he had some fortune in the summer of 2004, dropped in both of his large innings. Perhaps surprising everyone, though, I still thought he looked quite good, even if he never totally convinced me - or most people, for that matter.

He then had a fairly average time in South Africa - as did Mark Butcher - and both fell behind first Ian Bell then Paul Collingwood, the latter a batsman IMO not really fit to lace the boots of either, but who has had more than his share of fortune in Test cricket and also played some fine knocks.

Now, a new hole may be open with Strauss looking seemingly less assured by the game. I honestly wouldn't have a great problem with Key being reintroduced for the New Zealand tour were Strauss to fail yet again in Sri Lanka (think he's still just about got enough credit to remain in FTTB) and would have genuine hope that he might score well against what could be either a decent or fairly weak Kiwi seam-attack (and I think he has what it takes to score against both strong and weak attacks).

The Key Test-match story, I think, may not yet be completely told.

 

[Dasa]

Best ever English batsman tbh.

 

[iamdavid]

I agree with Craig and Richard in that Ive always thought he had something to offer at test level. Even when he first emerged I liked the look of him, seemed to have a lot of time to play his shots, there was nothing tentative about his batting at all he was very firm and decisive and he hit the ball very hard. Even on that first tour of Australia, for all that has been made of his soft dismisals to the likes of Damien Martyn, he looked a million dollars while at the crease to be fair and I always thought he was just one big break away from becoming a star. Unfortunately he got that break in the form of his double hundred against West Indies and hasnt kicked on since.

I hope there is more to come, taking into account the technical aspects of batting I would rate Key as very near the best batsman in England atm, in my eyes he has more ability (despite having not converted it) than Collingwood, Strauss, Bell, Prior, Shah, Joyce, Bopara and Flintoff.

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

Key is a deeply contradictory player (in the longer game, at least - as Craig says he's wholly mediocre full-stop in the shorter game, totally unsuited to the requirements there).

Good post for the most part I reckon, but I don't agree with the above comment. He's played some excellent limited over innings this season, perhaps most notably in the 20:20 semi final against Sussex, and whilst he's no great athlete, he's not a liability in the field either. He's never going to be a Bevan or an Afridi in terms of his limited overs ability, but I think it's harsh to say that he's totally unsuited to requirements in that form of the game.

Also think it's worth adding that he's turning out to be quite a shrewd captain by all accounts - he led brilliantly on 20:20 finals day for Kent.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Haha, Bevan and Afridi in the same sentence.

 

[Poker Boy]

If he had played in the 80s and 90s when England were chopping and changing for fun, he would have had far more chances. Its odd to think that most of hisTests have come because others were injured or unavailable. His debut was because Treso was injured and Thopre had quit, he wasn't orginaly picked for the 2002/03 Ashes tour and only got there because Thorpe pulled out again, and his 2004 apearences were because of Butcher's injury and Hussain's retirement. He also had this habit of getting out cheaply to part timers like Waugh and Martyn and the crap 2003 Zimbabwe team and yet his 200 was againat truly awful WI bowling. I do think if he had a run he would have been solid but nothing more - I'd say an average of mid to high 30s but not 40. I do agre with Richard that they could do worse than pick him if Strauss' poor form continues but his problem now is would they go for a younger opener - maybe even his own team mate Denly who got picked for England A (no I won't use the nickname ) ahead of him?

 

[open365]

If he had played in the 80s and 90s when England were chopping and changing for fun, he would have had far more chances. Its odd to think that most of hisTests have come because others were injured or unavailable. His debut was because Treso was injured and Thopre had quit, he wasn't orginaly picked for the 2002/03 Ashes tour and only got there because Thorpe pulled out again, and his 2004 apearences were because of Butcher's injury and Hussain's retirement. He also had this habit of getting out cheaply to part timers like Waugh and Martyn and the crap 2003 Zimbabwe team and yet his 200 was againat truly awful WI bowling. I do think if he had a run he would have been solid but nothing more - I'd say an average of mid to high 30s but not 40. I do agre with Richard that they could do worse than pick him if Strauss' poor form continues but his problem now is would they go for a younger opener - maybe even his own team mate Denly who got picked for England A (no I won't use the nickname ) ahead of him?

How is that odd in anyway?

 

[Richard]

I do agre with Richard that they could do worse than pick him if Strauss' poor form continues but his problem now is would they go for a younger opener - maybe even his own team mate Denly who got picked for England A (no I won't use the nickname ) ahead of him?

I've yet to see Denly but I've heard one or two non-optimists compare Denly's technique very infavourably indeed with Key's, if only in Twenty20 where technique often goes out the window.

 

[Richard]

Good post for the most part I reckon, but I don't agree with the above comment. He's played some excellent limited over innings this season, perhaps most notably in the 20:20 semi final against Sussex, and whilst he's no great athlete, he's not a liability in the field either.

I was talking about ODers, TBH, not Twenty20s. I haven't seen anything to suggest he's more than very average in the 50-over (and 40 if we absolutely must ) stuff. Haven't kept track of much this season, though, I'll say again.

 

[Perm]

How is that odd in anyway?

Because it means he hasn't been good enough in the selectors eyes to force himself into the team ahead of any other batsman.

 

[wpdavid]

Now, a new hole may be open with Strauss looking seemingly less assured by the game. I honestly wouldn't have a great problem with Key being reintroduced for the New Zealand tour were Strauss to fail yet again in Sri Lanka (think he's still just about got enough credit to remain in FTTB) and would have genuine hope that he might score well against what could be either a decent or fairly weak Kiwi seam-attack (and I think he has what it takes to score against both strong and weak attacks).

The Key Test-match story, I think, may not yet be completely told.

Agreed. If Strauss was to be pushed at any point in the next 12 months, I'd struggle to name a credible alternative at the top of the order. Apart, maybe, from Vaughan moving up a place and Bell playing at 3. But, given Vaughan's fitness record, even that may still see Key in the frame again.

I think he's OK, although a FC average in the low 40's isn't all that special nowadays, given the 'improvement' in county wickets and the standard of county attacks.

 

[Zimdan]

I dont think he's wasted, hes only 26 i think. Look at Hussey for australia, he didnt get a proper start until he was about 29, but thats just how cricket is.

Stuart MacGill is another, would waltz into any other world team but was just born in the Warne era so hardly got a game.

Pity just thats just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[Craig]

Good post for the most part I reckon, but I don't agree with the above comment. He's played some excellent limited over innings this season, perhaps most notably in the 20:20 semi final against Sussex, and whilst he's no great athlete, he's not a liability in the field either. He's never going to be a Bevan or an Afridi in terms of his limited overs ability, but I think it's harsh to say that he's totally unsuited to requirements in that form of the game.

Also think it's worth adding that he's turning out to be quite a shrewd captain by all accounts - he led brilliantly on 20:20 finals day for Kent.

You'll do well to note that performances in Twenty20 mean diddly squat to Richard, especially if it is an attempt to find some relevance to FC cricket or some extent List A.

 

[Richard]

Agreed. If Strauss was to be pushed at any point in the next 12 months, I'd struggle to name a credible alternative at the top of the order. Apart, maybe, from Vaughan moving up a place and Bell playing at 3. But, given Vaughan's fitness record, even that may still see Key in the frame again.

That's just one of several reasons I never want to see Vaughan opening again. Much prefer Bell at six than three too, and always have, even back in 2002 when he was batting three and averaging 27 having scored at 54 at five the previous season.

I think he's OK, although a FC average in the low 40's isn't all that special nowadays, given the 'improvement' in county wickets and the standard of county attacks.

I think he's probably averaged close to 50 from that season onwards, which is still pretty notable.

 

[Richard]

Anyway, given some of the discussion going on here, I have to say that England are in a pretty fortunate position, huh? How great to have at least 4 credible options, plus several younger openers jockeying for position.

 

[wpdavid]

That's just one of several reasons I never want to see Vaughan opening again. Much prefer Bell at six than three too, and always have, even back in 2002 when he was batting three and averaging 27 having scored at 54 at five the previous season.

Yeah, but he was about 20 at the time! Where was he batting for Warwickshire when he made all those runs in 2004?

No, but Key was standing-out even before 2001 when things got easier. I think he's probably averaged closer to 50 from that season onwards, which is still pretty notable.

That surpises me, tbh. Do you know where we can find his season-by-season averages?

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but he was about 20 at the time! Where was he batting for Warwickshire when he made all those runs in 2004?

Three I think. Who knows, though, maybe he might have got going sooner and the hiatus of 2002 and 2003 never happened had he stayed down the order and Dominic Ostler and Trevor Penney kept their places.

That surpises me, tbh. Do you know where we can find his season-by-season averages?

Yep. Looks like I recalled wrong though, he averaged just 26.60 in 1998, 26.96 in 1999 and 20.85 in 2000. Started scoring exactly when the ball stopped swinging. As well as that famous chat with Stewart.

Mind, he's still been pretty impressive and, I'd bet, better than most if not all others. From 2001 onwards he's averaged:
45.75
41.83
37.70
79.00
59.84
36.76 (first season of captaincy)
54.76 - still a few games to go

Can't OTOH think of anyone who might have been better. Strauss or someone could conceivably have been had he not barely played of course.