Who is the best upcoming player?

[Burgey]

Of the others Asif looks great - beyond his years in maturity.

I meant that in the cricketing sense of course.....

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Its interesting that you state that Pietersen is a certain starter, hence cant be amongst the 'up and coming' and then include mohammad Asif, whos probably the first bowler on the pakistan team sheet in both forms of the game, on your list

There are so many seamers in Pakistan that Asif is not a certain starter, especially when it comes to Pakistan. A bad series and he could be out in the cold again.

EDIT: Besides, I never said Pietersen can't be up-and-coming, my point purely spoke of a definition of established being more than matches played.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Broad is very good agree

Is he really very good? Hasn't really done anything to indicate it. He may look good, but surely he can't be counted on a list like this yet.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Why don't you define what "up-and-coming" means for all of us? Certainly don't seem very sure of it yourself based on the players you listed there.

In what way is my list uncertain? Up-and-coming refers to a player who is clearly talented and has displayed it strongly, but is not yet established. In the case of Michael Hussey, he's been around for over a decade and has compiled more runs than most of my list combined. There's no way he can be considered up-and-coming when he finally gets his chance at international level and does well with it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In any case, you can't say that Monty deserves a spot less than the waste of space Mahmood.

Because Mahmood doesn't spin it much? Mahmood is, contrary to popular belief, playing as a fast bowler. It's not so simple to say Monty the spinner > Mahmood the pacer, therefore Monty in the team. It's about balance of a side.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Pietersen and Hussey are well-established in my book. I would say Bravo too, but it wasn't that long ago he was left out of a test against Australia, so I guess Bravo is still up and coming, and if that's the case he's there alongside Asif.

He was almost sacked earlier this year.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Some earlier posts compared Pietersen's and Richards' records at the same stage of their careers and said they were almost identical. These things can be deceptive - I remember Jimmy Adams averaging 70 after 18 tests. Pietersen's a good player but hasn't had the time to be worked out yet. Of course, he may not be that easy to work out in the long run.......

Adams wasn't actually worked out though. He got a severe blow to the head and changed entirely as a batsman. Was never the same.

I think Pietersen is one of those batsmen who you know how to get him out, but it's not quite as simple as knowing.

 

[adharcric]

In what way is my list uncertain? Up-and-coming refers to a player who is clearly talented and has displayed it strongly, but is not yet established. In the case of Michael Hussey, he's been around for over a decade and has compiled more runs than most of my list combined. There's no way he can be considered up-and-coming when he finally gets his chance at international level and does well with it.

I guess it came out wrong, I wasn't really attacking your list but rather questioning your definition of 'up-and-coming'. For example, Bell's had 20-25 ODIs and tests and Bravo's been around for a while now. In a sense, Yuvraj is up-and-coming because he's turning into a star finally. Someone like Cosgrove is up-and-coming but hasn't really had international action yet. Can they only make the list if they've impressed at the international level itself, as opposed to at the domestic/u19 levels like guys like Chawla, Rashid and Richardson?

 

[tooextracool]

There are so many seamers in Pakistan that Asif is not a certain starter, especially when it comes to Pakistan. A bad series and he could be out in the cold again.

EDIT: Besides, I never said Pietersen can't be up-and-coming, my point purely spoke of a definition of established being more than matches played.

Personally i think Asif has done enough to be established in the Pakistan side, he's been brilliant in every series since his return.
Pietersen maybe considered established, but to be honest the logic of him being a certainity in the side when all 3 of Cook, Collingwood and Bell have performed more consistently than him all winter and during the summer, is somewhat baffling. If Asif has competition amongst pace bowlers in Pakistan then surely Pietersen should have competition from those 3 + the likes of Owais Shah, Mark Butcher, Ed Joyce and Rob Key all of whom deserve to get extended opportunities in the England side.

 

[tooextracool]

I'll give you Giles being more useful in ODIs than Monty, but as for the other two I'm not fully convinced that they deserve a spot as sole spinner on the team. They both bat well, but from what I've seen Dalrymple looks distinctly ordinary with the ball. Yardy looks to have potential with the ball, but I don't think we've seen enough of him at this level to make a judgement. Anyways, as Giles' fitness is up in the air, I don't think I would be too comfortable going with only one decentish spinner, especially on pitches that might turn more.

In any case, you can't say that Monty deserves a spot less than the waste of space Mahmood.

Mahmood wouldnt be in the side if any of Anderson, Harmison or Flintoff were fully fit IMO. The point though is that spinners that play ODI cricket have to be multi-skilled because unlike pace bowlers they are less likely to be performing in all conditions.

 

[tooextracool]

Who would have thought England had half the up and coming players in the world?

Most people actually, Englands batting reserves are undoubtedly the best in the world IMO. Its one of the reasons why we have someone whos averaged 40 odd in the last 4 years as well as a player who top scored on debut not even being in the squad. And the bowling isnt half bad either if you consider how many bowlers we're missing ATM.

 

[silentstriker]

Most people actually, Englands batting reserves are undoubtedly the best in the world IMO. Its one of the reasons why we have someone whos averaged 40 odd in the last 4 years as well as a player who top scored on debut not even being in the squad. And the bowling isnt half bad either if you consider how many bowlers we're missing ATM.

Averaging 40 in test cricket as a specialist batsman would be cause for dropping on a lot of teams (except NZ).

44-45 is pretty much expected of a specialist batsman these days.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I guess it came out wrong, I wasn't really attacking your list but rather questioning your definition of 'up-and-coming'. For example, Bell's had 20-25 ODIs and tests and Bravo's been around for a while now. In a sense, Yuvraj is up-and-coming because he's turning into a star finally. Someone like Cosgrove is up-and-coming but hasn't really had international action yet. Can they only make the list if they've impressed at the international level itself, as opposed to at the domestic/u19 levels like guys like Chawla, Rashid and Richardson?

But Bell could conceivably be axed for the first next Test England plays, and he's only just recently gotten a proper run in ODIs. In that way I still consider him to be up-and-coming. Yuvraj is a certain starter for India in ODIs if he's fit. At best he'd be up-and-coming in Tests, though I'm not convinced by his Test capabilities. My definition of up-and-coming would be anyone I see as talented enough to succeed at international level, but isn't a first team regular as yet.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Personally i think Asif has done enough to be established in the Pakistan side, he's been brilliant in every series since his return.
Pietersen maybe considered established, but to be honest the logic of him being a certainity in the side when all 3 of Cook, Collingwood and Bell have performed more consistently than him all winter and during the summer, is somewhat baffling. If Asif has competition amongst pace bowlers in Pakistan then surely Pietersen should have competition from those 3 + the likes of Owais Shah, Mark Butcher, Ed Joyce and Rob Key all of whom deserve to get extended opportunities in the England side.

Doesn't matter if other batsmen are doing it better than Pietersen. Pietersen will be a sure pick ahead of them because of the way he does it. The energy and attitude he brings to the England lineup is more than Bell, Collingwood or Cook do. If you ask any Australian bowler to name the dangermen in the English lineup, I assure you that Pietersen's name will come ahead of those three.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Averaging 40 in test cricket as a specialist batsman would be cause for dropping on a lot of teams (except NZ).

44-45 is pretty much expected of a specialist batsman these days.

New Zealand, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, South Africa all have "undroppable" batsmen with sub-45 averages in their first XIs.

 

[Beleg]

New Zealand, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, South Africa all have "undroppable" batsmen with sub-45 averages in their first XIs.

The only undropable batsmen in the Pakistani are Inzy, MoYo and Younis, none of whom have sub-45 averages.

Unless, you are counting Akmal as a batsmen, and he's far from being undropable.

 

[silentstriker]

New Zealand, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, South Africa all have "undroppable" batsmen with sub-45 averages in their first XIs.

Undroppable batsman in SL are Sangakarra, and Jayawardene. Jayasurya was undroppable, and he does average less, but he is very much an exception.

In any case, my point is that averaging 40 is below par for a specialist batsman and you can't use that to say anything about English reserves.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In any case, my point is that averaging 40 is below par for a specialist batsman and you can't use that to say anything about English reserves.

An average of 40 is great for a reserve batsman. I'd think a team would be very healthy if they could rely on a reserve to score a good half-century or so at least most times out. And an average of 40 represents a player who is either very consistent or capable of big scores. Both are respectable for a backup position.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Most people actually, Englands batting reserves are undoubtedly the best in the world IMO. Its one of the reasons why we have someone whos averaged 40 odd in the last 4 years as well as a player who top scored on debut not even being in the squad. And the bowling isnt half bad either if you consider how many bowlers we're missing ATM.

Sorry, but who do England have in their batting reserves that compare to someone like Jaques? England's bowling reserves (excluding spin, obviously) are certainly better than Australia's at the moment, but there's no way their batting is. There are players who can't make the Australian test batting lineup at the moment who would make any other team in the world. I don't think you can say that about England.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sorry, but who do England have in their batting reserves that compare to someone like Jaques? England's bowling reserves (excluding spin, obviously) are certainly better than Australia's at the moment, but there's no way their batting is. There are players who can't make the Australian test batting lineup at the moment who would make any other team in the world. I don't think you can say that about England.

After MacGill, Australia don't really have any quality spin reserves. And the way I see it, both England and Australia have crap bowling reserves in general.