They could have been great but...

[wpdavid]

You've never watched Family Guy?

No, I really have no idea about this character

 

[andyc]

Glenn McGrath- decided to take up bowling instead

 

[chaminda_00]

Somachandra De Silva, if Sri Lanka had been give Test Status in the 70s

 

[Autobahn]

Chris Lewis- Had the talent but was so inconsisent, a difficult man to get on with, tried to shop some of his team-mates for match fixing, and treated badly to a degree, but it would have taken a mastermind to get the best out of him.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Steve Tikolo
Kenyan

IMO he could have slotted into any ODI side bar Australia from the mid-1990s onwards.

IMO he's a better FC player than OD player. I think he would have had a long and celebrated Test career if he was given the chance.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

IMO he's a better FC player than OD player. I think he would have had a long and celebrated Test career if he was given the chance.

Fair call. I suppose my comment was only based on the fact that he has only played ODI cricket against the top nations.

 

[Pothas]

Has anyone mentioned Devon Malcolm? Obviosuly a brilliant bowler on his day

 

[Goughy]

Has anyone mentioned Devon Malcolm?

Ok, you have got me interested. By what measure could Malcolm have been great and what stopped him being so?

 

[Goughy]

Chris Lewis- Had the talent but was so inconsisent

This has been mentioned so often over the years that it is easy to accept. It is however false.

Lewis was NOT an exceptionally talented cricketer.

He was a very good athlete with a body that suggested ability. However, he was a pretty average Medium/quick bowler and a decent batsman with a number of flaws.

The reputation of Lewis was based on a stereotype of the look and build a good cricketer should have and his natural athleticism.

He got a lot of milage that his talent did not justify.

 

[Autobahn]

Alright maybe not great but certainly much better than some of the excuses england had for all-rounders in those days.

 

[Pothas]

Ok, you have got me interested. By what measure could Malcolm have been great and what stopped him being so?

Well his famous 9 wickets against South Africa showed the brilliant destructive capacity he had but he was totaly inconsistant. I would have liked to see what the modern England regime and Troy Cooley could have done with him.

 

[Goughy]

Well his famous 9 wickets against South Africa showed the brilliant destructive capacity he had but he was totaly inconsistant. I would have liked to see what the modern England regime and Troy Cooley could have done with him.

Would have needed his whole action to be restructured to have shown any sig. development and doing that may have resulted in a loss of pace. He did not properly look where he was bowling and was impossible to be consistent.

He was also inconsistent due to a lack of ability. His ability was being scary fast, but lacked any real guile and skill. McGrath like accuracy cannot be put into a player if it is not there.

There were real flashes of what could happen (eg the SA game mentioned above), but the stars had to have aligned in Jupiter for it to happen.

128 wkts in 40 tests at an average of over 37 is a poor return as he was not hampered by injury etc.

IMO, The only way Devon could have been great is if he was born a far better bowler.

 

[Pothas]

you may be right there but i still think he would have been a much better bowler under the current England set up

 

[C_C]

no i dont expect players to bowl at 110%, but i do expect them to be at at least 80-90%. by and large ability does not go away no matter how much effort you put in, you still can bowl outswingers and reverse swingers regardless even if you bowl marginally below your best pace. waqar was quite obviously a threat regardless of whether he bowled at 85 or 90mph

You are seriously overestimating the quality of county cricket if you think that bona-fide great players put in 80-90% day in and day out. I know for a fact that many superstars play FC cricket as overglorified net practice and as long as they arnt fighting for a spot in the international XI ( ie, their place is secure), they dont give a toss more often than not.

so you've now decide to change your tune and bring in every other fast bowler from the WI side? throwing random names in like Bishop is almost always going to make your argument look less convincing, especially when you consider that he played a whole one series against Hick-coincidentally the same one in which Hick averaged 50 odd after 5 tests(against Bishop,Walsh, Ambrose, and the Benjamins) who were all probably WI best fast bowlers of the 90s. believe it or not in the same period when Hick succeeded against all the other teams at the international level, he averaged 42 against the WI from 10 tests, which is good for any player against such a quality attack, let alone one that supposedly couldnt play pace bowling. not surprisingly in the same period when hick was a failure at the international level he struggled against the WI as well as teams like India who he had succeeded against in the past.

Change my tune ? Is your comprehension still intact ?
I said that Hick was clueless about the goodlength delivery comming in to your ribs or the toe-crushing yorker bowled at great velocity. I named Ambrose and Waqar as they were the two exponents of the art.
Hick simply wasnt good enough for test cricket - he was mentally weak and had holes in his technique which while good enough for FC level, was not good enough for test level against quality opposition.
And while he had a good season or two, that goes for almost any player who's played any length of time. I dont need to remind you that even Keith Arthurton ( the binary man) had a good season or two and so did Sherwin Campbell.
If you play long enough, every dog gets his day. Its just as simple as that.

 

[archie mac]

Ok, you have got me interested. By what measure could Malcolm have been great and what stopped him being so?

According to his bio. it was managements fault, for trying to change his action and not giving him enough encouragement.

 

[Slifer]

I would say Ian Bishop. At his peak he was good enough to push even the likes of Malcolm Marshall very close but injuries messed him up. Also i seem to recall a Kambli from India i dont know the whole story on him (perhaps sumone can enlighten me) but he seemed to be a good bat/potential great.

 

[marc71178]

You are seriously overestimating the quality of county cricket if you think that bona-fide great players put in 80-90% day in and day out. I know for a fact that many superstars play FC cricket as overglorified net practice and as long as they arnt fighting for a spot in the international XI ( ie, their place is secure), they dont give a toss more often than not.

And how exactly do you know this is a fact then?

 

[marc71178]

Alec Stewart - if he hadn't been made wicket keeper

Jack Russell - If Stewart hadn't been made wicket keeper.

 

[C_C]

And how exactly do you know this is a fact then?

Take a guess !

 

[Smudge]

Take a guess !

You're Sonny Shaw?