When You Changed Your Mind About a Player

[Uppercut]

Amla's name should probably pop up in this thread for many one would think.

I think Amla is one who has very obviously improved a great deal. As opposed to one who divided opinion initially before doing something that made some of those people change their minds.

 

[Richard]

Amla's name should probably pop up in this thread for many one would think.

I'm still not absolutely convinced about him but he's certainly very, very well on the way there.

 

[Richard]

I think Amla is one who has very obviously improved a great deal.

As I said though - generally, the reason I personally change my mind on a player is because that player himself has changed.

If the player stays the same, the only reason for changing your mind would be that you were erroneous in your initial judgement. I gave Geraint Jones as an example of where that applied with me, but those sorts of things are fairly rare for any particularly good judge of a cricketer.

 

[Flem274*]

I rarely hate or like players TBH but I change my mind on their calibre all the time. It's inevitable - very, very few players stay the same all their careers.

Like you I thought Iain O'Brien was diabolical (he was) in his first 4 Tests and initially I presumed he was just another useless Kiwi domestic bowler who'd never be remotely good at Tests but I now think he was probably always a pretty decent bowler who just had a shocking time of it in his first few Tests.

Andrew Symonds is the most obvious example I always use - I thought he was an utterly hopeless OD batsman (he was) until THAT innings in WC2003. Obviously I didn't change my mind based on that single knock, but that knock was the start of the mind-changing and it was complete by the end of the WI tour of 2003 and Symonds is now undoubtedly one of the better ODI batsmen of recent times IMO.

Andrew Strauss I've changed my mind on twice now - obviously he started brilliantly and I like everyone had high hopes, but by the end of 2007 I was beginning to think he'd become a waste of space, wanted him dropped and wasn't amused when he was recalled immediately after he was axed. And I was gutted when he saved his place with that easy knock against a fourth-rate bowling attack at the last-gasp at Napier as I thought it'd mean we had to suffer his failures for another 4 or 5 games then. But instead the knock inspired him to completely reinvent himself and go back to playing as he had been originally and now I'm only too happy to have him at the top of the order once again.

Geraint Jones too - backed him to come good right to the very end of his Test career. Only after that forlorn pair did I really contemplate the fact he was just a very, very poor batsman who'd had his best season at the right time and would never have come remotely close to initial selection, never mind retention for 3 years, if he'd had that season at some other time.

I try not to come too hastily to many conclusions so I don't generally tend to jump in and decide a player is brilliant\crap after he's been on the scene 5 minutes but I was perhaps guilty of that with old O'Dire-to-O'Brill-en. Mohammad Asif was another. And I've changed my mind on him more times than you could wish for - first I thought he looked diabolical and a no-hoper, then like the best thing to hit the game since Curtley Ambrose, now currently I think he's a waster of the biggest proportion, and knowing the way of Pakistan I reckon I'll probably have to change my mind again before his time's out.

Oh, and on that note, even I was fooled once - back in 2000 or so - by the "has Shoaib come good this time?" I was wary of it on all subsequent 2456256 occasions, though, and I always turned-out to be right.

Quite impressed at your turnaround on O'Brilliant tbh, thought you might stick to your old opinion like glue and do a bit of a Richard-on-Harmison thing.

On Strauss I agree though 4th rate is harsh? What was the attack again? Soemthing like Southee, Gillespie, Oram, Vettori, Patel? Its not bad, bar Gillespie. Though Southee was poor after the swing disappeared.

Hasim Amla for me, and Paul Hitchcock for the opposite. His record pre-recall was OK and whilst everyone was bagging him I though he might be a mini Chris Harris and be handy, he was horrible though, woops.

Grant Elliott (gun ODI player) and Mitchell Johnson (bowling better than I ever thought he would) are others.

 

[Rant0r]

mitchell johnson

although i still don't rate him as good as dennis lillee having an orgasm over him, he's now there.

bowling wide crap and an inability to swing it had me thinking he was some kind of reality tv show winner.

after the perth spell, which was really a once in a career spell, he has been bowling some real good nuts and a better line, he bowled quite a few bruce reid like deliveries in melbourne.

still needs to fix that seam, although that seems to make him better with the old ball

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Never rated Brett Lee much as a test prospect until he was dropped early in '04. Convinced me during ODIs the following summer that he'd amount to something in the longer form and he became one of my favourites.

Never rated Stuart Clark much either until the South Africa tour where he made his debut. Really was an inspired selection in hindsight.

A few England players in the '05 Ashes spring to mind as well, Simon Jones in particular bowled way better in that series than I imagined he could. Even in the Lords test he was all over the place in some of his spells, but bowled really well later.

Graeme Smith is another one, this summer. Never rated him that highly, seen way too many bowlers work him over and I never admired his temprament or his style that much. Definitely someone who has stood up really well against both England and against us, and could go on to become a great.

 

[Rant0r]

lee is a waste of talent to some extent, but not on a shoaib akthar scale.

 

[_Ed_]

Amla's name should probably pop up in this thread for many one would think.

Not so much so for me, first time I saw him he scored a big ton against us. And then he did the same thing the next time I saw him. So he's always impressed me.

 

[Richard]

Quite impressed at your turnaround on O'Brilliant tbh, thought you might stick to your old opinion like glue and do a bit of a Richard-on-Harmison thing.

O'Brien in his last 5 Tests (or whatever it is) has actually bowled well though. Harmison in 2004 didn't and I was absolutely certain it was only a matter of time before he started being dealt with well again, and it was. What's more, O'Brien had showed at domestic level for years that he was good; Harmison, again, did not.

On Strauss I agree though 4th rate is harsh? What was the attack again? Soemthing like Southee, Gillespie, Oram, Vettori, Patel? Its not bad, bar Gillespie. Though Southee was poor after the swing disappeared.

The attack was Martin, Southee, Elliott, Patel, Vettori. No turn was in the pitch so that negates the fingerspinners completely, Southee as you pointed-out was poor in the second-innings after being excellent in the first-, and Martin, well, just isn't that good IMO. Elliott is a part-timer par-extreme. Oram, of course, missed that game with injury.

 

[GIMH]

O'Brien in his last 5 Tests (or whatever it is) has actually bowled well though. Harmison in 2004 didn't and I was absolutely certain it was only a matter of time before he started being dealt with well again, and it was.

The attack was Martin, Southee, Elliott, Patel, Vettori. No turn was in the pitch so that negates the fingerspinners completely, Southee as you pointed-out was poor in the second-innings after being excellent in the first-, and Martin, well, just isn't that good IMO. Elliott is a part-timer par-extreme. Oram, of course, missed that game with injury.

I always thoguht you felt that he did bowl well in 04, or for 7 Tests of it, and that it was the rest of the time you thoguht he was no good

 

[zaremba]

I always thoguht you felt that he did bowl well in 04, or for 7 Tests of it, and that it was the rest of the time you thoguht he was no good

Try not to get sucked in too deeply to what Richard thinks GIMH - specifically on the subject of GBH - it's not good for your health

 

[Uppercut]

Try not to get sucked in too deeply to what Richard thinks GIMH - specifically on the subject of GBH - it's not good for your health

The Gospel According to Richard is much like the rest of the bible- plenty of solid opinions and advice but it's probably best to ignore the bits you don't agree with.

 

[honestbharani]

Michael Clarke and that catch...

 

[Richard]

I always thoguht you felt that he did bowl well in 04, or for 7 Tests of it, and that it was the rest of the time you thoguht he was no good

Never thought he was that good TBH, though clearly he was better than he normally is.

My main premise has indeed been that aside from those 7 games he's been utterly diabolical, but I've also always maintained that he bowled nowhere near so well in those 7 games as his figures made it appear. And both that he was unlikely to continue to bowl that well, and that even if he did his figures were not going to continue to be that good anyway.

 

[Rooboy]

Ian Healy.

Hung around for two years too many and knew it.

Jimmy Anderson.

Was shockin last Ashes but looks pretty slippery if his length is right, rate him.

Blewett/Law

Kept M.Hussey out of a team he should of been in a decade ago.

 

[sanga1337]

Can't see how Law helped to keep Hussey out of the team considering he only played one test.

 

[Mister Wright]

Can't see how Law helped to keep Hussey out of the team considering he only played one test.

Especially considering Hussey was an opener at the time, and Law replaced Steve Waugh.

 

[Richard]

Can't see how Law helped to keep Hussey out of the team considering he only played one test.

Nor that he played it in 1995/96 and was completely out of the picture by the time anyone first considered Hussey's case with seriousness (which must've been about 1998/99, 1999/2000?).

Law's, what, 7 years older than Hussey?

 

[Richard]

Ian Healy.

Hung around for two years too many and knew it.

Don't know about 2 years too many. Healy was still performing well right up to the Pakistan tour in 1998/99, and obviously he was never going to be dropped nor retire right after that. He was always going to play The Ashes 1998/99 and probably the series in West Indies in 1999 as well. About the most you could've expected was that he took the decision or someone took it for him before the 1999/2000 season started, but he wanted a farewell at his home ground. If he'd known that was going to be denied him, I bet he'd have retired after his obscenely fortunate century there in the 1998/99 opener.

Jimmy Anderson.

Was shockin last Ashes but looks pretty slippery if his length is right, rate him.

Was "shockin" for more than just the previous Ashes - he was "shockin" right up until the summer of 2008.

 

[GIMH]

Unfair. He mixed good and bad prior to 08, in 08 he mixed he good and great