Test XI of players who never really fulfilled their potential

First topic message reminder :

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.

Vinod Kambli

Stella wrote:Vinod Kambli

completely agree, many classed kambli as better than the likes of dravid, etc right at the start of his career, however he just seemed to fade away.

Matthew Elliott
Stuart Law
Greg Blewitt

cricketfan90 wrote:

Stella wrote:Vinod Kambli

completely agree, many classed kambli as better than the likes of dravid, etc right at the start of his career, however he just seemed to fade away.

Anyone who ever saw Kambli as a youngster would tell you this guy was more talented than Tendulkar, Sadly, for India and cricketing fans around the World, the limelight went to his head, unlike Tendulkar whom has shown he can handle the burden.

Demon Racer wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:

Stella wrote:Vinod Kambli

completely agree, many classed kambli as better than the likes of dravid, etc right at the start of his career, however he just seemed to fade away.

Anyone who ever saw Kambli as a youngster would tell you this guy was more talented than Tendulkar, Sadly, for India and cricketing fans around the World, the limelight went to his head, unlike Tendulkar whom has shown he can handle the burden.

Didn't they share a stand of about 650 when they were schoolboys?

Stella wrote:

Demon Racer wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:

Stella wrote:Vinod Kambli

completely agree, many classed kambli as better than the likes of dravid, etc right at the start of his career, however he just seemed to fade away.

Anyone who ever saw Kambli as a youngster would tell you this guy was more talented than Tendulkar, Sadly, for India and cricketing fans around the World, the limelight went to his head, unlike Tendulkar whom has shown he can handle the burden.

Didn't they share a stand of about 650 when they were schoolboys?

Something like that, the other kids must've been gutted!

Bored sh.tless probably

probably already listed but Finn will have to be in this list regardless really of how he does I feel, as what was it youngest englishman to 50 test wickets? with that statistic you feel he will never live up to the potential his career has/had.

Another player from IND, young leg spinner called Chavla, He played a Test against ENG and 1 against SA, don't think I've ever seen him again.

hodge wrote:probably already listed but Finn will have to be in this list regardless really of how he does I feel, as what was it youngest englishman to 50 test wickets? with that statistic you feel he will never live up to the potential his career has/had.

Wouldn't it better to wait and see first? He's 22 years old!

agree liver

GG wrote:

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.

The same could be said about Don Bradman who achieved a lot in his 20 odd years of international cricket from 1928 to 1948, but come the crunch time of his last ever test innings at the Oval in 1948 he started firing blanks.

What about the big show SA born Kevin Pietersen. When he first burst onto the test scene he looked like a batsman who was going to go on and dominate every single bowling attack around the world. Sadly though, one watershed moment seemed to have changed everything for him and that is in the 2007 test series V West Indies where having scored a century or a double century in an innings, one of the West Indian bowlers managed to deliver a really nasty bouncer which hit him on the side of his helmet and knocked it right off. Since that that moment, Pietersen just hasn't been the same player as he was before he got hit.

Totally agree about Kambli.He could have been better than Sachin according to their coach Ramakant Achrekar.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Totally agree about Kambli.He could have been better than Sachin according to their coach Ramakant Achrekar.

, shame that he seemed to fade away.

Hick and Ramps must top the list in that their overall first-class form was OUTSTANDING but their Test form decidedly modest.
Don't think you can include Mark Waugh and Gower in this list as they both had very good Test records. Tresco's Test record is also excellent and the pity here is that he should, by now, have been far and away England's most successful batsman in terms of runs scored.
May have missed him in previous posts but is Chris Lewis - currently being detained during Her Majesty's pleasure I believe - in the list.

Sir Fred

Interesting call on Chris Lewis - was always considered to have a great deal of natural talent but very rarely (if ever) fulfilled the promise that the commentators claimed was there. I think many now realise that:
1 - While the physical ability may have been there, there was very little between his ears and
2 - He was probably a bit over-hyped anyway.

I'd suggest Dominic Cork could be considered - while he was a reasonably effective Test bowler, (130 wickets at just under 30), his early Test career hinted at potential to at least be Stuart Broad type of bowler who batted effectively - a final career average of 18 and a highest score of 59 suggests he never quite fulfilled that.

What about Derek Pringle who when he first played for England around 1982, many people felt that at last here was a promising all-rounder who could one day take over the mantle from the great Ian Botham as England's premier all-rounder batting at number 6.

Has Alex Tudor or Glenn Chapple been mentioned? Both never really fulfilled their potential for different reasons.

test XI..... the thread is hampo..

chapple didnt play tests..

What about that west indian guy andy ganteaumey - scored 112 in his only innings never picked again

wouldnt say he didnt fulfill his potential..

thats not his fault.

Would either of Ishant Sharma or Erfan Pathan qualify for this?

Sharma, for all the hype, has a shocking record.

Pathan seemed to get the yips, but to me seemed the better bowler.

Demon Racer wrote:Would either of Ishant Sharma or Erfan Pathan qualify for this?

Sharma, for all the hype, has a shocking record.

Pathan seemed to get the yips, but to me seemed the better bowler.

Quite possibly. Both were hyped early on - an indication of the size of the hype surrounding Ishant when he burst on to the scene is that in the intro to his 2009 book of the 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' Christopher Martin-Jenkins states that it is too early to include "rising forces such as Mitchell Johnson, Lasith Malinga and Ishant Sharma".

Shelsey93 wrote:

Demon Racer wrote:Would either of Ishant Sharma or Erfan Pathan qualify for this?

Sharma, for all the hype, has a shocking record.

Pathan seemed to get the yips, but to me seemed the better bowler.

Quite possibly. Both were hyped early on - an indication of the size of the hype surrounding Ishant when he burst on to the scene is that in the intro to his 2009 book of the 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' Christopher Martin-Jenkins states that it is too early to include "rising forces such as Mitchell Johnson, Lasith Malinga and Ishant Sharma".

Ishant's hype was based on a couple of spells to Ponting. IMO he's to frail and mentally weak.

cricketfan90 wrote:test XI..... the thread is hampo..

chapple didnt play tests..

Sorry CF, thought you meant players who had the potential but never fulfilled it, Chaps would certianly fit in there.

Tudors a shoe in for me, as possibly is Robert Croft.

Big difference here between players who were - from their career figures - obviously very fine performers (Hick, Ramps) and those who, let's face it, did well even to get into the England team.
Robert Croft, you could argue, OVER-performed. IMO he was never gonna be anything more than a useful fringe-of-the-team Test player. Pringle was marginally better, but not much more so and did well to get as many caps as he did.

What about Dean Headley, although obviously his unfulfilled potential was down to a career ending injury.

Just thought of Ben Hollioake, such a disaster too loose a player like him at 24.

There seem to be about 3 or 4 different types of players being suggested:
1 - Those who showed talent at FC level, but struggled with the step up to Test level: Hick, Ramprakash etc

2 - Those whose careers were curtailed by injury or outside events: Headley, Tudor, Simon Jones

3 - Those who were unlucky to be behind an even better player in the selectors' thinking: McGill, Blewett

4 - Those who lacked the brains or motivation to keep going: Kambli, Phil Tufnell, Chris Lewis.

dummy_half wrote:There seem to be about 3 or 4 different types of players being suggested:
1 - Those who showed talent at FC level, but struggled with the step up to Test level: Hick, Ramprakash etc

2 - Those whose careers were curtailed by injury or outside events: Headley, Tudor, Simon Jones

3 - Those who were unlucky to be behind an even better player in the selectors' thinking: McGill, Blewett

4 - Those who lacked the brains or motivation to keep going: Kambli, Phil Tufnell, Chris Lewis.

Well summed up.

I bet there are a fair few Aussies in your third category.

i wouldnt say phil tufnel lacked brains- yeah motivation for sure lol

Corporalhumblebucket wrote: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...

From earlier in the thread..... I agree with what I think Dummy / Stella may be implying - that debate has become a bit unsatisfactory on this thread because people are talking about very different things.

dummy_half wrote:There seem to be about 3 or 4 different types of players being suggested:
1 - Those who showed talent at FC level, but struggled with the step up to Test level: Hick, Ramprakash etc

2 - Those whose careers were curtailed by injury or outside events: Headley, Tudor, Simon Jones

3 - Those who were unlucky to be behind an even better player in the selectors' thinking: McGill, Blewett

4 - Those who lacked the brains or motivation to keep going: Kambli, Phil Tufnell, Chris Lewis.

In my opinion a player not fulfilling their potential is one in categories 1 and 4 (i.e. where it was their fault). Those in 2 and 3 were simply not given the chance to become superstars for whatever reason. I would argue Tudor was more category 4 than 2.

Shelsey93 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:There seem to be about 3 or 4 different types of players being suggested:
1 - Those who showed talent at FC level, but struggled with the step up to Test level: Hick, Ramprakash etc

2 - Those whose careers were curtailed by injury or outside events: Headley, Tudor, Simon Jones

3 - Those who were unlucky to be behind an even better player in the selectors' thinking: McGill, Blewett

4 - Those who lacked the brains or motivation to keep going: Kambli, Phil Tufnell, Chris Lewis.

In my opinion a player not fulfilling their potential is one in categories 1 and 4 (i.e. where it was their fault). Those in 2 and 3 were simply not given the chance to become superstars for whatever reason. I would argue Tudor was more category 4 than 2.

Agree there. It is sad that Tudor never developed further as a test cricketer after making that stunning ashes test debut V Australia in 1998 where he took a couple of the major top order Aussie batsmen. Tudor that day looked like he was going to become the new Ian Bishop.

i hate bopara, evrytime he gets in i feel that if i go away for 10 minutes he would be out by th time i get back

Was Derek Pringle an "under-achiever" or a county pro (sort of) who was elevated to Test level prematurely, erroneously and repetitively?
If he'd been Derek Pringle from Andover Sec Mod instead of Cambridge Uni, it's almost certain he'd've strived as a middle-of-the-road County pro, never to receive one England Cap, let alone 30.

One perticular South African was Nanite Haywrad, or better known as wayward Hayward.

He played 16 test for SA taking 54 wickets. But he never seemd to be able to have enough control.

This was written about him in 2007.

Nantie Hayward started out as a tearaway, red-headed fast bowler with attitude and a haphazard run-up. Since then he's undergone a blond rinse and sorted out his run-up, but the attitude remains. He still wants to bowl fast and sees no point whatsoever in making friends with batsmen. In the long term, Hayward is clearly seen as the successor to Allan Donald as the spearhead of the South African attack. He has genuine pace, the ability to get bounce and abundant energy. When all these are properly harnessed, he can be a fearsome opponent. He toured England with South Africa in 1998, but it was a largely unhappy trip for the fast bowler. He never quite came to terms with English wickets and lost his rhythm and run-up midway through the tour. Question marks surfaced over his willingness to heed advice and for a while it seemed possible that his undoubted potential might go unrealised. However, he started taking wickets left, right and centre and forced his way into the team for the second Test against England. It was an auspicious debut. He took 4 for 75 in conditions, which suited the batsmen and impressed with his willingness to keep running in under a hot sun. However, after 14 Tests, the last of which was against Pakistan in January 2003, it was revealed that he had signed a deal with Worcestershire which precluded him from being released for international matches. At the time, he said he agreed to the contract because he had not been consistently selected in the national squad, and had therefore given up hope of future selection. But after a rethink, he declared himself available again in June 2004, and was immediately picked for the tour of Sri Lanka later that year. He only managed four wickets in two Tests during that tour and faded out of national reckoning. In April 2007 Hayward signed on as one of Ireland's overseas players for the Friends Provident Trophy, and also played for the Kolkata Tigers in the Indian Cricket League at the end of the year. He, however, returned to the South African fold after opting for CSA's amnesty offer

There are a number of Saffers that could be put in Dummy's category 2.

Richards
Pollock
Rice

And many more.

Stella
I hadn't even considered the SA 69 team under that heading, but of course you are entirely correct. You could perhaps also make a case for some of the current / recent Zimbabwe players and maybe some of the various West Indians and Pakistani players who have fallen out with their Boards.

Kwini is absolutely spot on in his assessment of Pringle - he was selected because he had done well as the captain of the Cambridge University side, not because he was an outstanding player. Probably one of the last selections that was so entirely and blatantly old fashioned of going for the 'good chap' rather than the best available player.

Dummy

Some of the West Indian and Pakistani players would surely be in category 4

Stella wrote:There are a number of Saffers that could be put in Dummy's category 2.

Richards
Pollock
Rice

And many more.

I believe that this following South African side taken from players between 1978-1983 could have seriously challenged the great West Indian side at that time as the best cricket team in the world.

1 Barry Richards
2 Jimmy Cook
3 Kepler Weesels
4 Graeme Pollock
5 Peter Kirsten
6 Mike Proctor
7 Clive Rice
8 Ray Jennings
9 Garth Le Roux
10 Vincent Van der Biji
11 Denys Hobson

Hobson's being a leg spinner could have been a significant factor in any outcome of a test series between these 2 great sides as the West Indies if there was any cink/fallibility in their armour, it was against quality leg spin bowling.

Shelsey93 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:There seem to be about 3 or 4 different types of players being suggested:
1 - Those who showed talent at FC level, but struggled with the step up to Test level: Hick, Ramprakash etc

2 - Those whose careers were curtailed by injury or outside events: Headley, Tudor, Simon Jones

3 - Those who were unlucky to be behind an even better player in the selectors' thinking: McGill, Blewett

4 - Those who lacked the brains or motivation to keep going: Kambli, Phil Tufnell, Chris Lewis.

In my opinion a player not fulfilling their potential is one in categories 1 and 4 (i.e. where it was their fault). Those in 2 and 3 were simply not given the chance to become superstars for whatever reason. I would argue Tudor was more category 4 than 2.

Returning to my earlier point on the subject I would say someone in categories 1 and 4 never had the potential to be better in the first place, but accept that in this case there is not much debate to be had.

I would add category 5 (which is similar to 2): those whose game was significantly unenhanced by outside influences (e.g. coaching, management, etc.): I would say Tuffnel and Hick belong far more to this category.

i thought tuffers was in the i smoke to much weed camp

Ryan Sidebottom could also be a candidate for this side.

what about Mike Gatting, who at one time early on in his first class career looked like the finest batsman that Middlesex have produced since the days of Denis Compton.

Mike Selig wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:There seem to be about 3 or 4 different types of players being suggested:
1 - Those who showed talent at FC level, but struggled with the step up to Test level: Hick, Ramprakash etc

2 - Those whose careers were curtailed by injury or outside events: Headley, Tudor, Simon Jones

3 - Those who were unlucky to be behind an even better player in the selectors' thinking: McGill, Blewett

4 - Those who lacked the brains or motivation to keep going: Kambli, Phil Tufnell, Chris Lewis.

In my opinion a player not fulfilling their potential is one in categories 1 and 4 (i.e. where it was their fault). Those in 2 and 3 were simply not given the chance to become superstars for whatever reason. I would argue Tudor was more category 4 than 2.

Returning to my earlier point on the subject I would say someone in categories 1 and 4 never had the potential to be better in the first place, but accept that in this case there is not much debate to be had.

I would add category 5 (which is similar to 2): those whose game was significantly unenhanced by outside influences (e.g. coaching, management, etc.): I would say Tuffnel and Hick belong far more to this category.

I've certainly no issue with these categories - five at the last count as above. I would emphasise that the categories aren't all mutually exclusive and that some players certainly fall into more than one. Interested to see recent references to former England and Surrey paceman Alex Tudor. Bodily injuries (category 2) certainly played their part in limiting his career. However, many Oval regulars always considered him to be plagued with self doubt (strong shades of category 4), particularly as regards his own fitness levels, and believe that to have also played a significant part.

Today Tudor coaches youngsters at the Oval. Given he seemed incapable of ridding himself of his mental unreadyness for competitive cricket and, going back to an earlier point made by Mike that such a player therefore never had the true requisite potential, I think with some sadness that his current role is the one that makes most effective use of all that he brings to the table and probably suits him best.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:There seem to be about 3 or 4 different types of players being suggested:
1 - Those who showed talent at FC level, but struggled with the step up to Test level: Hick, Ramprakash etc

2 - Those whose careers were curtailed by injury or outside events: Headley, Tudor, Simon Jones

3 - Those who were unlucky to be behind an even better player in the selectors' thinking: McGill, Blewett

4 - Those who lacked the brains or motivation to keep going: Kambli, Phil Tufnell, Chris Lewis.

In my opinion a player not fulfilling their potential is one in categories 1 and 4 (i.e. where it was their fault). Those in 2 and 3 were simply not given the chance to become superstars for whatever reason. I would argue Tudor was more category 4 than 2.

Returning to my earlier point on the subject I would say someone in categories 1 and 4 never had the potential to be better in the first place, but accept that in this case there is not much debate to be had.

I would add category 5 (which is similar to 2): those whose game was significantly unenhanced by outside influences (e.g. coaching, management, etc.): I would say Tuffnel and Hick belong far more to this category.

I've certainly no issue with these categories - five at the last count as above. I would emphasise that the categories aren't all mutually exclusive and that some players certainly fall into more than one. Interested to see recent references to former England and Surrey paceman Alex Tudor. Bodily injuries (category 2) certainly played their part in limiting his career. However, many Oval regulars always considered him to be plagued with self doubt (strong shades of category 4), particularly as regards his own fitness levels, and believe that to have also played a significant part.

Today Tudor coaches youngsters at the Oval. Given he seemed incapable of ridding himself of his mental unreadyness for competitive cricket and, going back to an earlier point made by Mike that such a player therefore never had the true requisite potential, I think with some sadness that his current role is the one that makes most effective use of all that he brings to the table and probably suits him best.

Nasser Hussain said very much the same about Tudor. He was constantly claiming he had a "niggle" but nobody could really find much wrong with him. Nass talks of a time when he just about cracked and said to him "either you're injured and you can't play, or you're fit and you can bowl, now decide". The point is not so much that Tudor was "inventing" his niggles (that would be simplistic): I think as you point out he was always doubtful of his own abilities, so would take any slight thing which didn't "feel right" and use it as an excuse. A perfect illustration of how the top level is so much about mental strength.

Good to see he's involved in coaching.

Glad to see my broad-brush categories have been useful in extending the discussion - Mike's additional cotegory is a useful additional consideration, as there are some players who do seem to get messed about by the coaches and selectors (Chris Read perhaps being another to fall at least in part into that category, although it is also arguable whether he ever really had the talent to step up to International level as a keeper-batsman, despite a solid batting record at County level). Clearly these categories are not mutually exclusive, and it would often be the marginal players who would also be messed about by the selectors.

Be interested to see where people would place Jack Russell in these categories - not quite good enough (i.e. cat 1), behind a better player in the selector's opinion (i.e. cat 3 - as clearly Stewie was a far better batsman and an acceptably good keeper, compared with Russell being a fantastic keeper and at best a Test number 7 or 8 batsman), or someone who was primarily messed about by the management and selectors (Mike's additional category 5)?

The stories about Alex Tudor are interesting - perhaps he was just the sort of player that was only happy to perform when fully fit, and so wouldn't play through even minor niggles. Could have been a confidence thing, or perhaps a psychological issue that he had broken down several times when starting games with minor injuries, and so had mentally convinced himself that it would happen again.

What about Martyn Moxon, who has been the one and only finest batsman to have been produced by Yorkshire since the playing days of the great Geoffrey Boycott.