Test XI of players who never really fulfilled their potential

If you had to make a test XI, out of players who never really fulfilled their potential, who would you go for?

this is mine:

1.Marcus Treschothick ( i know its not really his fault, however there was so much potential there, and he is proving it in f/c cricket) (just for you hodge

2.Hershcelle Gibbs: was always more inconsistent in test cricket, and seemed to get in quite a bit of trouble

3.Ravi Bopara: has the talent, but seems to always waste the chances he gets given

4.Rob Key: i know he bats higher, but i had to squeeze him in...So much talent, but could never transform it to international stage

5.Graeme Hick: scored so many f/c runs, but once again couldnt transform it to international stage

6.Michael Bevan: very good ODI player, had the talent etc, to make it in test cricket but never did

7.James Foster: One of the best gloveman in world cricket...however batting lets him down...good player but sadly couldnt get enough runs

8.Nathan Bracken: Yet again, very good ODI player, played a bit of test cricket, started off decnetly, but couldnt find much consistency, and thus was a wasted talent in test cricket

9.Tino Best: had everything..pace, good shortball, and bowled well in f/c cricket...but couldnt transform it to international stage

10.Sreesanth: pace, aggression however radar lets him down, tries very hard has natural talent, but gets wound up too easily and thus just ends up spraying it everywhere

11.Shoaib Akhtar (to a certain extent) very good bowler, very quick. however injury controversy etc...meant he didnt get to play much test cricket and a real shame for him and pakistan.

Good list thought I'd disagree with Gibbs, he was usually good in tests.

What about Jerome Taylor? Had some awesome spells including 5-11 against England but injuries meant he never got a good run in the side. Can't even get in Jamaica's team these days though did secure a BPL contract so I'm interested to see how he does there.

As for batsmen I'd have in included Ramnaresh Sarwan. Another player with loads of talent and was brilliant in the 09 series vs England where he got a score of 290. Test average of 40 isn't bad but his ODI average of 43 suggests he could have done better in test matches. Hasn't played any cricket since losing his place in the WI team last year after a poor run of form and fitness concerns

1. Marcus Treschothick

2. Hershcelle Gibbs

3. Vinod Kambli

4. Carl Hooper

5. Graeme Hick

6. Roger Harper

7. Kamram Akmal

8. Ian Bishop

9. Steve Harmison

10. Andre Nel

11. Mohammed Asif

CF - good and interesting article.

Two England openers to throw in the mix with just three Test caps between them are Mark Lathwell and Andy Lloyd.

Somerset's Lathwell was certainly talented but over hyped and overly nervous. Cast aside after two Tests and retired from the game before he was 30.

Warks' Lloyd was struck on the bonce by a Malcolm Marshall short ball and ended up in hospital about half an hour into his Test debut. Never played Test cricket again. The only player to have opened the batting for England and never been dismissed.

Got to include Ramps. Outstanding batting at county level over many years including averaging 100 two seasons in a row! But was always too up tight in tests and despite quite a few opportunities only showed few glimpses of what he could have done.

[quote="guildfordbat"]CF - good and interesting article.


[/quote]

i think freddie flintoff must be in there due to injurys, possibly the best england player over the last 15 years

I think that the inclusion of Gibbs and Tresco is a little harsh - they both had complete enough careers in which they averaged 40+. I also feel that Key's Test career pretty much reflects his ability - he was never destined to be a great or even an England regular. If we restrict it to the last 15 years or so I would personally prefer:

1. Matthew Elliott (Australia)
2. Wasim Jaffer (India)
3. Graeme Hick (England)
4. Vinod Kambli (India... Ok, he averaged 50+, but he would have been part of the great batting line-up if he hadn't gone off the rails)
5. Mark Ramprakash (England)
6. Michael Bevan (Australia)
7. Geraint Jones (England... I really think he could have solved the 'keeping issue before form deserted him and he was superseded as he was both an effective batsman and gloveman in his first 18 months or so)
8. Harbhajan Singh (India... Was once tipped to go past Murali and Warne, now on the scrap heap)
9. Mohammad Amir (Pakistan... May yet redeem himself)
10. Shane Bond (New Zealand)
11. Nathan Bracken (Australia)

CF - as this is such a good and interesting article , I'll make a couple more suggestions.

Two slowies this time. One you'll know very well. I'll be amazed if you or hardly anyone else has heard of the other.

Australian leg spinner Stuart MacGill was a very fine bowler and certainly had success. However, he was unlucky enough to largely be playing at the same time as Shane Warne, one of the world's all time greats. This undoubted cost him a number of Test appearances and even more Test wickets.

Despite playing for the West Indies between 1972 and 1979, slow left armer Raph Jumadeen made only twelve Test appearances. He was never overly threatening but was a neat and tidy bowler; shown perfecly by his debut Test match bowling figures against New Zealand of 64-31-64-1. Unfortunate to play much of his career at a time when the West Indies were developing and concentrating on a four man pace attack. His bad luck as regards limited opportunities also extended to his batting. Normally a number 11 batsman, he only had four completed Test innings. In one of those where he went in as a nightwatchman at number 4 he scored a half-century.

"5.Graeme Hick: scored so many f/c runs, but once again couldnt transform it to international stage

6.Michael Bevan: very good ODI player, had the talent etc, to make it in test cricket but never did"

There is a common factor/reason for Hick and Bevan not quite making it at a test match level and that is to do with a weakness to deal with the nasty short ball delivered by a quality fast bowler. In Hick's case, his nemesis was Curtley Ambrose who kept on examining and probing every single area of his batting technique every single time he came into bat for England during his test debut in 1991. In Bevan's case, his nemesis was probably Darren Gough who bowled a skiddish type of short ball which Bevan just couldn't handle.

another name to throw in for the middle order must be stuart law

played one test innings , made 50odd not out and never got another chance because of the strength of the aussie team at the time, always a solid player domestically and would have probably got into any other national team at the time

Rich1UK - Law really falls into the category of players who weren't given a proper chance. I think there's quite a few of the names already mentioned who were given a reasonable opportunity but didn't manage to do themselves justice.

One player I would nominate from a few decades ago would be Frank Hayes of Lancs. Scored a debut century but then went downhill and finished with a test average of about 15.

"An elegant, stylish batsman who promised much when he announced his arrival in the England team with 106 against the West Indies at The Oval in 1973, Frank Hayes was unable to overcome the nerves that beset him on major occasions. He played eight more Tests, but apart from his debut century, aggregated only 138 runs from his other 16 innings. Unfortunate to play all his nine Tests against a powerful West Indies side, he remained at county level a player of obvious class."

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Rich1UK - Law really falls into the category of players who weren't given a proper chance. I think there's quite a few of the names already mentioned who were given a reasonable opportunity but didn't manage to do themselves justice.

One player I would nominate from a few decades ago would be Frank Hayes of Lancs. Scored a debut century but then went downhill and finished with a test average of about 15.

"An elegant, stylish batsman who promised much when he announced his arrival in the England team with 106 against the West Indies at The Oval in 1973, Frank Hayes was unable to overcome the nerves that beset him on major occasions. He played eight more Tests, but apart from his debut century, aggregated only 138 runs from his other 16 innings. Unfortunate to play all his nine Tests against a powerful West Indies side, he remained at county level a player of obvious class."

Evening Corporal - As he didn't get further opportunity, Law didn't fulfil his Test match potential and so Rich is right to include him. Conversely, I would suggest that those who got loads of opportunities and failed overall were probably over hyped in the first place and ultimately shown not to be good enough at Test level.

With less than ten Tests to his name, I do fully agree with you about Lancs' Frank Hayes. Very similar example from a few years earlier is Yorks' Jack Hampshire. Century on debut against the Windies at Lord's but little thereafter and discarded after eight Tests with an average below 27.

yeah i suppose it depends on how you apply the criteria , whether they never fulfilled their potential because they failed in the opportunities they were given , because they just weren't given the opportunities in the first place or even because injuries never allowed them to do so

simon jones could fall into that last category

is steve finn destined to fall into the second ?

another current bowler who could be considered is mitchell johnson

What about these other England players such as Brian Close, Tim Robinson, Graeme Fowler, Phil Tufnell, the late Graham Dilley, Neil Foster, Gladstone Small, Derek Pringle, David Capel, Phil DeFreitais, Chris Lewis, Geoff Miller, Mark Ealham.

i dont think most of them had that much potential to fulfil tbh

i think most achieved all they were able to with the talent they had

I agree that any list depends on what criteria are being used. I would say that the most interesting list would cover players who:

* were given a reasonable opportunity at test level; and
* failed to deliver anything like consistently good performance; and
* the reason for that failure is interesting (eg all in the mind) rather than simply that they never had the ability in the first place.

I would certainly include Ramps in such a list. Agree with Rich that Mitchell Johnson is in danger of joining the list...

Afridi - a good eye, all the shots, excellent bowler/fielder and all the brain of a retarded ostrich

djkbrown2001 wrote:
1. Marcus Treschothick

2. Hershcelle Gibbs

3. Vinod Kambli

4. Carl Hooper

5. Graeme Hick

6. Roger Harper

7. Kamram Akmal

8. Ian Bishop

9. Steve Harmison

10. Andre Nel

11. Mohammed Asif

sorry mate but Nel never had potential.

What about Phil Hughes?

Aside from ones already side I will add James Hildreth (slight controversy as he is still playing, and never recieved a test cap) because he always seem destined to take an England cap after having an awesome season, but then the next season would not produce and slip from the England radar. Then a season or 2 after that would then have another blistering season as in 2010? then led the Lions and was tipped to be first reserve during 2011 if someone slipped up but wrecked his chances with a very poor start to the season.

biltongbek wrote:

djkbrown2001 wrote:
1. Marcus Treschothick

2. Hershcelle Gibbs

3. Vinod Kambli

4. Carl Hooper

5. Graeme Hick

6. Roger Harper

7. Kamram Akmal

8. Ian Bishop

9. Steve Harmison

10. Andre Nel

11. Mohammed Asif

sorry mate but Nel never had potential.

Yes he did for starring down at a batsmen!

Was more like a little puppy trying to growl, but all that came out was a little yelp.

There is a massive difference between Bevan and Hick: Bevan wasn technically incapable of dealing with the short ball, whereas Hick was perfectly capable of doing so technically but couldn't hack it mentally.

I am as usual a little bemused by this notion of "potential". It is a bit like the word "talent" in that we all think we know what it means, but actually it means very little. The point is mental toughness is every bit as much a natural ability as perfect technique. So someone who wasn't mentally up for test cricket never really had the potential to be successful there, to the same extent as someone who's technique was flawed.

Anyway, assuming we give to the word "potential" the meaning which we usually associate with it, I like guilford's shout on Lathwell, who had bags of talent (sorry!) but never made it at the top (or really first class) level, although the England set-up at the time is also partly to blame for this. Ditto someone like Matthew Maynard really should have been a very good test player. Is it harsh to argue Gower and M. Waugh? Certainly their ability suggests they should have been the best players of their generation, at least for their country. With them though it was a question of work ethic, and the genuine interrogation is whether they would have been able to play quite so well (on the occasions they did) had they had the work ethic to do their talent justice.

The second categorisation is that of those who enjoyed limited opportunity due to unnaturally good competition. So MacGill, Law, Martin Love, probably half a dozen Australian players from the 00s and of course West Indians from the 80s (Looking at the australian side, which is of course "my time", you could argue Andy Bichel, David Hussey, Brad Hodge, Michael Di Venutto, Chris Rogers, all of whoom's prime coincided with fractionally better players; it's hard to judge how good they would have been). Perhaps chief amonst this category are wicket-keepers: after all, you can only ever have one keeper in your side...

Mike Selig wrote:I am as usual a little bemused by this notion of "potential". It is a bit like the word "talent" in that we all think we know what it means, but actually it means very little. The point is mental toughness is every bit as much a natural ability as perfect technique. So someone who wasn't mentally up for test cricket never really had the potential to be successful there, to the same extent as someone who's technique was flawed.

Mike - that's a fair point. But for practical purposes it's probably helpful to distinguish between the highly specialist physical/technical ability to score runs and take wickets at the highest level and the more generic characteristic of mental toughness, (presumably equating to very high levels of singled minded concentration, determination and such like). So, if one is looking at who has the capability to play test cricket as a batsman I would have thought it made sense to look first at who as top class "eye" and technique to prosper against the best bowlers and on difficult pitches; and then, from the no doubt limited numbers identified, you would go for the subset of those who you thought combined that ability with high level mental toughness.

Or to put it another way, while no doubt only a small minority of UK population have the attribute of "mental toughness", we are probably talking about some 100,000s of people, maybe even into six figures. But, the ability to bat like David Gower is surely restricted to a very much smaller number....

If I wre to do an XI it would be:

Gayle
Trescothick
Sarwan
Kambli
Ramprakash
Afridi
Zulqarnain Haider
J.Taylor
Bishop
MacGill
S.Jones

Unless Amir makes a comeback he'd definitely be in there too.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:I am as usual a little bemused by this notion of "potential". It is a bit like the word "talent" in that we all think we know what it means, but actually it means very little. The point is mental toughness is every bit as much a natural ability as perfect technique. So someone who wasn't mentally up for test cricket never really had the potential to be successful there, to the same extent as someone who's technique was flawed.

Mike - that's a fair point. But for practical purposes it's probably helpful to distinguish between the highly specialist physical/technical ability to score runs and take wickets at the highest level and the more generic characteristic of mental toughness, (presumably equating to very high levels of singled minded concentration, determination and such like). So, if one is looking at who has the capability to play test cricket as a batsman I would have thought it made sense to look first at who as top class "eye" and technique to prosper against the best bowlers and on difficult pitches; and then, from the no doubt limited numbers identified, you would go for the subset of those who you thought combined that ability with high level mental toughness.

Or to put it another way, while no doubt only a small minority of UK population have the attribute of "mental toughness", we are probably talking about some 100,000s of people, maybe even into six figures. But, the ability to bat like David Gower is surely restricted to a very much smaller number....

Fair point: I suppose mental toughness applies to all sports, whereas as you point out cricket specific skills obviously don't. But I do think it is somewhat misleading to talk about someone with the "potential" to be a test player if he wasn't mentally tough enough. Maybe we should talk about "technical potential" to be clearer. Or maybe I should just keep quiet and accept we know what we mean so it doesn't matter.

GG wrote:If I wre to do an XI it would be:

Gayle
Trescothick
Sarwan
Kambli
Ramprakash
Afridi
Zulqarnain Haider
J.Taylor
Bishop
MacGill
S.Jones

Unless Amir makes a comeback he'd definitely be in there too.

Very unfair to include West Indian speed merchant Ian Bishop as a player who didn't fullfill his potential. Prior to getting a very serious back injury which curtailed his test career from the early 1990's, Bishop was a very quick bowler similar in pace probably to Michael Holding when Holding himself was in his prime. After Bishop overcame his back injury, he had to remodel his bowling action slightly which meant that he lost some of his pace but he still managed to play a few more tests for the West Indies before it finally ended around 1998. His final overall test bowling career average of 17 suggests that he did fullfill his potential despite that serious back injury.

i dont think macgill can be in there....he took nearly 250 test wickets, its not his fault he didnt fulfill his potential, he couldnt play because warnie was ahead of him..

What about Bryce McGain and Xavier Doherty?

no they are just awful.

Has anyone mentioned Simon jones?

Can you include Sarwan? He had a fantastic career played 83 games and average 41.

djkbrown2001 wrote:
9. Steve Harmison

10. Andre Nel

11. Mohammed Asif

Would put Brett Schultz in instead of Nel.

Ramprakash?

Mal Loye? Had a decent first class record and was a special one day player, but didn't take his chance against Australia.

Strauss
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Morgan
Prior
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Panesar

kwinigolfer wrote:Strauss
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Morgan
Prior
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Panesar

to a certain extent i would put ojha in here now.

Galted wrote:

djkbrown2001 wrote:
9. Steve Harmison

10. Andre Nel

11. Mohammed Asif

Would put Brett Schultz in instead of Nel.

Brett Schultz eh. What a promising pace bowler he was when he first made his debut for SA in 1993. Injuries and loss of form meant that SA rarely had the chance to use both him and Allan Donald together sharing the new ball. Although if I do recall, Schultz did manage to play a test alongside Donald V England at the Wanderers in 1995 when Graeme Hick made that century in the first day's play. Also making his test debut in that same test match was a certain young ginger haired fast bowler by name of Shaun Pollock. SA later on in that decade had another promising young pace bowler coming through in the tall red haired David Terbrugge. He made a impressive start to his test debut V West Indies in 1998 when he took 4 wickets including the prize scalp of Brian Lara who was clean bowled by Terbrugge. After that test series somehow Terbrugge disappeared of the face of the earth. In the early millennium decade around 2002/2003, SA had another promising fast bowler in the black youngster M. Ngam who was nicknamed Black Lightning by the press and other media pundits probably because his bowling action was modelled exactly on that of the senior SA pace bowler Allan Donald. Anyway Ngam was very impressive during his test series debut with his ability to generate extreme pace that it looked like he was going to play for SA for many years to come and take over Donald's mantle as SA's premier fast bowler. Sadly however he too also disappeared from the test scene like Terbrugge did.

Chris Rogers

gboycottnut wrote:

GG wrote:If I wre to do an XI it would be:

Gayle
Trescothick
Sarwan
Kambli
Ramprakash
Afridi
Zulqarnain Haider
J.Taylor
Bishop
MacGill
S.Jones

Unless Amir makes a comeback he'd definitely be in there too.

Very unfair to include West Indian speed merchant Ian Bishop as a player who didn't fullfill his potential. Prior to getting a very serious back injury which curtailed his test career from the early 1990's, Bishop was a very quick bowler similar in pace probably to Michael Holding when Holding himself was in his prime. After Bishop overcame his back injury, he had to remodel his bowling action slightly which meant that he lost some of his pace but he still managed to play a few more tests for the West Indies before it finally ended around 1998. His final overall test bowling career average of 17 suggests that he did fullfill his potential despite that serious back injury.

But if he hadn't got injured he could have been an ATG so through no fault of his own he didn't fulfil his potential.

cricketfan90 wrote:i dont think macgill can be in there....he took nearly 250 test wickets, its not his fault he didnt fulfill his potential, he couldnt play because warnie was ahead of him..

I'm not saying its his fault but imagine how many test wickets he could have had had it not been for Mr Warne

Schultz

Not sure Shoaib should be there as he has got a pretty good Test record.But apart from that,fine team CF.

@ gboycottnut

Not familiar with Terbrugge but remember Ngam. Body wasn't capable of holding up to rigours of international cricket as a result (apparently) of poor diet due to poverty in his childhood.

GG wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

GG wrote:If I wre to do an XI it would be:

Gayle
Trescothick
Sarwan
Kambli
Ramprakash
Afridi
Zulqarnain Haider
J.Taylor
Bishop
MacGill
S.Jones

Unless Amir makes a comeback he'd definitely be in there too.

Very unfair to include West Indian speed merchant Ian Bishop as a player who didn't fullfill his potential. Prior to getting a very serious back injury which curtailed his test career from the early 1990's, Bishop was a very quick bowler similar in pace probably to Michael Holding when Holding himself was in his prime. After Bishop overcame his back injury, he had to remodel his bowling action slightly which meant that he lost some of his pace but he still managed to play a few more tests for the West Indies before it finally ended around 1998. His final overall test bowling career average of 17 suggests that he did fullfill his potential despite that serious back injury.

But if he hadn't got injured he could have been an ATG so through no fault of his own he didn't fulfil his potential.

cricketfan90 wrote:i dont think macgill can be in there....he took nearly 250 test wickets, its not his fault he didnt fulfill his potential, he couldnt play because warnie was ahead of him..

I'm not saying its his fault but imagine how many test wickets he could have had had it not been for Mr Warne

still cant say he didnt fulfill his potential, because to a certain degree he did.

CF90

Have you heard of a former Essex player by the name of Chris Gladwin?

He was a player with a big future in test cricket but he never even played a test.

I'd like to put his name down.

Staying with Essex

Mark Waugh.

A very talented player but IMO should have averaged nearer 50 than 40. Maybe I'm being a tad harsh but he could have been a real great player.

Stella wrote:CF90

Have you heard of a former Essex player by the name of Chris Gladwin?

He was a player with a big future in test cricket but he never even played a test.

I'd like to put his name down.

Staying with Essex

Mark Waugh.

A very talented player but IMO should have averaged nearer 50 than 40. Maybe I'm being a tad harsh but he could have been a real great player.

yes i have heard of him, and i vert much agree with you.

Tendlkar,

Great first 20 years of his interntaional career but the thast one has been a real let down. He couldve acheived one more century at least.

Darren Lehmann

cricketfan90 wrote:

GG wrote:I'm not saying its his fault but imagine how many test wickets he could have had had it not been for Mr Warne

still cant say he didnt fulfill his potential, because to a certain degree he did.

Yes he only fulfilled his potential to a certain degree, hence my point about not fully playing to his potential.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Tendlkar,

Great first 20 years of his interntaional career but the thast one has been a real let down. He couldve acheived one more century at least.