They could have been great but...

[luckyeddie]

You're Sonny Shaw?

Sandie Shaw, given his knowledge of county cricket.

 

[Smudge]

Ah, of course.

I knew there was always something there to remind me.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think, despite C_C extrapolating the truth slightly, he's correct to an extent. The international players certainly wouldn't approach county (nor their own Domestic cricket) with the same intensity as a Test match.

 

[Matt79]

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.

Still steve waugh said in his autobiography that Malcolm had such a potential upside - to bowl the odd unplayable wicket ball and on his day rip a side up that, whenever the Aussies played England and the English selectors opted for "an accurate medium pacer", everyone breathed a sigh of relief.

Not saying that he was/could have been great - I don't know enough about him (I was a youngster when he played), but just pointing out that if you can't get a great genuine fast bowler, at times an average genuine fast bowler can be more better than a good medium paceer, particularly if you already have several good/great medium pacers. Think Harmison.

 

[Nate]

Neil Pickup

Reason: Lack of talent.

 

[Goughy]

Not saying that he was/could have been great - I don't know enough about him (I was a youngster when he played), but just pointing out that if you can't get a great genuine fast bowler, at times an average genuine fast bowler can be more better than a good medium paceer, particularly if you already have several good/great medium pacers. Think Harmison.

Well this is a different point to the one I was making but I agree with you. A poor very fast bowler who can surprize a batsman is more valuable than an average medium pacer who bores the batsman out.

It is dangerous mentioning fast bowling and Harmison as we will soon be told, by a certain person, for the thousanth time that pace does not take wickets and Harmison is ****.

 

[marc71178]

Take a guess !

Try answering the question.

This is the second time in a week I've asked you a question about "facts" you've posted and you've ignored it...

 

[C_C]

Try answering the question.

This is the second time in a week I've asked you a question about "facts" you've posted and you've ignored it...

I've taked to a few people who are international cricketers - that much should've been obvious.
If a bona-fide international cricketer tells me that the superstars mostly treat FC cricket as overglorified net practice ( unless ofcourse, yer playing the finals or the match actually has rammifications about the championship), i see no reason not to take their words for it.
As per your 90% query- search crickinfo or bbc harder. The report said that it was 91-92% or so efficiency. Which is pathetic - implies atleast 7-8 wrong calls, if not more, per match.

 

[marc71178]

Funny how the BBC today carries a report talking about a figure of 94.8 then isn't it?

I want to see the link to this so called article.

I also find your explanation to be wholly unsatisfactory as it provides absolutely no proof.

 

[Goughy]

I've taked to a few people who are international cricketers - that much should've been obvious.

Out of interest what nationality?

 

[C_C]

Funny how the BBC today carries a report talking about a figure of 94.8 then isn't it?

I want to see the link to this so called article.

I also find your explanation to be wholly unsatisfactory as it provides absolutely no proof.

Like i said- search crickinfo harder. I am not obligated to go digging through their archives to satisfy your curiosity. If you can categorically state tht crickinfo did NOT carry an article stating umpiring accuracy to be around 91-92 %, i shall bother with it during the weekend or so.

And whether you find my explanation unsatisfactory or not, i still maintain that the average test match where 40 wickets falls sees atleast 80-90 appeals during the course of the play.
Even at 94% that means 5-6 wrong calls every match and that is too high a figure to even bother justifying.

 

[C_C]

Out of interest what nationality?

A couple of Pakistanis, a couple of Indians and a couple of Englishmen.

 

[Goughy]

A couple of Pakistanis, a couple of Indians and a couple of Englishmen.

I think you have a point and that is also why there are now so many Australians in County Cricket.

They have overtaken the numbers from other countries as they have a reputation for professionalism and performing at a high-level with a high frequency.

Without a doubt certain players from some countries perform below 100% and are there for practice and money. However, I dont think they impress the club members too much.

 

[archie mac]

I think you have a point and that is also why there are now so many Australians in County Cricket.

They have overtaken the numbers from other countries as they have a reputation for professionalism and performing at a high-level with a high frequency.

Without a doubt certain players from some countries perform below 100% and are there for practice and money. However, I dont think they impress the club members too much.

Okay Goughy pick the team But don't forget about Ian Craig (the next Bradman)

I think you have enough, but what opposition will they play? How about a team of one Test wonders? That is they had one great Test in an otherwise average career, I am thinking Bob Massie and Reg Simpson type players

 

[marc71178]

Like i said- search crickinfo harder. I am not obligated to go digging through their archives to satisfy your curiosity. If you can categorically state tht crickinfo did NOT carry an article stating umpiring accuracy to be around 91-92 %, i shall bother with it during the weekend or so.

No, you're the one quoting from an article that is nowhere to be found at all.

When initially challenged on it, you ignore the question, when asked a second time you tell me to search harder.

And whether you find my explanation unsatisfactory or not, i still maintain that the average test match where 40 wickets falls sees atleast 80-90 appeals during the course of the play.
Even at 94% that means 5-6 wrong calls every match and that is too high a figure to even bother justifying.

For a start 94.8 is nearer 95.

And how come you claim 90% to be 7 or 8 errors, but when it goes to 95% it's still 5 to 6 errors?

 

[C_C]

For a start 94.8 is nearer 95.

And how come you claim 90% to be 7 or 8 errors, but when it goes to 95% it's still 5 to 6 errors?

90% of 80-90 calls = 8-9 bad calls. 95% of 80-90 = 5-6 errors approx.

 

[marc71178]

Try using a calculator again.

And where exactly did this 80-90 come from?

 

[Goughy]

Okay Goughy pick the team But don't forget about Ian Craig (the next Bradman)

I think you have enough, but what opposition will they play? How about a team of one Test wonders? That is they had one great Test in an otherwise average career, I am thinking Bob Massie and Reg Simpson type players

My team from the thread-

"The Could Have Been Great XI"
Emphasis on the great. A lot of guys mentioned could have been very good but I tried to look at the special ones.

Archie Jackson Died
Vinod Kambli Attitude
Bob Cowper Retired Early
Sid Barnes Eccentric
Steve Tikolo Kenyan
Basil D'Oliveria Politics
Ken Wadsworth Died
Stuart MacGill Shane Warne
Bart King American
Ian Bishop Injuries
Bruce Reid Injuries

Also Considered-
Ajay Jadeja, Colin Milburn, Sylvester Clarke, Jack Russell, Somachandra De Silva, Ian Craig, Shane Bond, Angus Fraser, Brett Schultz

A game against players whose average careers are defined by 1 game of genius sounds a good idea. Malcolm against SA would fit the bill.

Lets get this team sorted.

 

[steds]

A game against players whose average careers are defined by 1 game of genius sounds a good idea. Malcolm against SA would fit the bill.

Lets get this team sorted.

Bob Massie is a must for the one-game wonders.

 

[Goughy]

Making a start on the
"Career defined by 1 game XI"

Already mentioned
Bob Massie and Reg Simpson
&
Devon Malcolm

Other possibilites of top of head
Andy Sandham
Jim Laker
Andrew Jones
Narendra Hirwani
Jacques Rudolph .