I'm starting this thread to highlight many players who had, or have, the talent, but over their career have failed to live up to their talent and early promise.


Tim Paine - as a batter many who have played against him in the FC scenario and appraise his talent as a  technician from the commentary box think he should have scored far more runs.  Many think he is currently one of the best technicians in the current Aussie team and should be batting higher up the order. Only has one FC century - a double century. He has scored a Test 92. At times early in his career he played as a  specialist batter,  opening for Tasmania.


Alex Doolan - has played 4 Tests. From when I've seen him play in many  Shield games live, he looks like Mark Waugh, displaying great elegance and stylish shots all around the wicket. When he gets going  he takes attacks apart. Struggles to concentrate for long periods if  pinned down and is poor at scoring singles and rotating the strike.


James Faulkner - from former Shield payers in the members, all say he has all  lot of time to play his shots as a batter.  He has also scored very few FC centuries. He is finished   as a FC bowler with his body struggling to cope with injury.


Callum Ferguson - I've always thought he looks very composed at the wicket, then he inexplicably gets out!


Kumbli - the Indian batter who emerged at the same time as Tendulkar. Looked like he was going to be a great, but  international bowlers worked him out.


Stuart Saunders - Tassie leg spinner of the past. Looked like a Test bowler for a season or two, then lost his ability with the ball and scored late order runs instead.

Matthew Elliot - looked like a classy Test opener for a season or two then inexplicably faded to become a modest Shield player.


Jofra Archer- he has been inconsistent so far. Test cricket is a huge  test of sustained performance  at a much higher level than anything the has experienced in FC cricket and all his limited over international cricket. He looks to be bothered by factors  like wind, colder weather, etc, whereas   seasoned pros like Broad and Anderson, bowl well in many different  conditions on a range of pitches.


Mark Waugh - even though he had a Test average of something like 43, many thought he had the talent to have a much higher average. Some claim he had concentration issues.


Will Pucovski - is a fabulous player to watch. Currently, he is arguably  the best technician we have as a batter. Unfortunatetly, none of the cricket experts have been around when I've seen him bat live, apart from one who said he looked awful against a sustained short pitched barrage from the genuine Sri Lankan quick, whose name escapes me, but bowls over 140 kph. I missed it.


Puck is very young and could develop yet.


Sanga - he has rave reviews, but I've never seen him make any runs live. He has always failed to deliver.  Sanga is still very young though.



Which other underachievers are there?  

Wow. Calling Archer an underachiever? I cannot agree. He's allowed to have a bad test, esp after two good ones and winning the world cup!

The two most famous English examples are Ramprakash and Hick. 

I am trying to think of NZ examples, but most the time our weak players just weren't upto intl cricket at Australian levels, or never given sufficient chance to which really only happened to Heath Davis and Colin Munro (in tests). Munro's is forgivable, cos he was robbed of chances by a strong team, and when Nicholls got chosen over him, many in the public were upset, but its hard to argue with Nicholls now.

The most obvious example of NZ wasted talent is Jessie Ryder, whose drinking got him dropped, dropped and never selected again. Jeff Wilson going to rugby was an utter waste depending on how much you like cricket vs rugby. But then this list would expand to players who never played top cricket if I include all the School boys and u19s who chose rugby over cricket.

For India it is Sanjay Manjekrar, and currently Suresh Raina for all formats. Rohit Sharma in tests has been underachieving too. Ishant Sharma has been one of the best bowlers in the world for the last 2 years, so one could question his lack of achievements before then I guess.

On the flip side, right now Henry Nicholls is an over achiever. I never thought he would break the top 10 batting list in tests, let alone top 5. CdG is an overachiever in tests. Looks innocuous and totally unsuited to test cricket, but he averages 40 with the bat, 31 with the ball, cannot argue with those numbers.  Mark Richardson is the most famous NZ overachiever, tail end spin bowler at FC, dropped and came back as a test opening batsman with a respectable mid 40's career average for tests.

Jason Holder is a total over achiever, now scoring dbl centuries while ranked 4th in the world for bowling at barely 125/130km/h.

Sam Curran is in someways both an over achiever and under achiever. Not sure how I'd peg him. He was the star cricketer of last year, and he isn't in the team any more. He is a curious case for a cricketer. Everyone knows how important he was in England beating India and SL. But there's no place for him even after Woakes is dropped. I would say most would see Sam Curran as an over achiever, but I do believe he will return as a batting allrounder at some point. Its just difficult for him to get past Stokes.

Kumara may have the been the SL quick. He was bowling at upto 150k to NZ a few weeks ago.

Why would Archer and Pucovski make the list? Ones 24 the others 21

I am more concerned how much this speed gun and media will annoy Archer. Paddy Cummins bowls a lot in the 130's when we all know he can hit 150. Rabada does the same. He can wind it up and unleash hell all day if he thinks its the right way top go on a certain pitch. Or he can bowl gently 130. Bumrah does tend to keep his pace up, though sa far in his career, but that may also change. 

Hadlee got a media barrage when he switched to his shorter run up to prolong his career. But he became a more consistent bowler off the shorter run up and reduced pace. McGrath bowled much slower than his max pace by choice. 

Yesterday, Archer's last spell, was his fastest. But I think people need to be mindful, that bowlers have different gears. And sometimes they value control more than pace.

Pucovski is a 'potential' under achiever.

After I watched him bat live at Bellerive in January, he oozed class and technique. He looked to me to already be the best batter in the country, given Smith's unorthodox technique.

I can't believe Puck failed to deliver  in the England A tour. In the Aus Eleven v Sri Lanka, he looked superior to all other Aussie batters, even Patterson who scored twin tons.



Archer - because he is  already being touted as world class after barely playing any Tests.  We have seen inconsistent performances from him.




Matt Renshaw -  could  be another.

In overseas Tests in recent  times, Renshaw really batted time. He also looked to have a cast iron defence. Given where he was at 20 - 21, he is in danger  of never recapturing  that sort of form. ATM he has been dropped from his county side!

Ramprakesh and Hick in particular are underachievers!

Starc was even more effective than Archer at the WC, yet he can't get a Test place for Aus.

Limited over cricket is much easier and less challenging to test  a player's ability.

Was Starc more effective, though? He didn't bowl a superover to win the thing. He just took more tail end wickets. 

I really don't think limited overs cricket is easier, its a different skill set, one is focussed more of containing batsmen, as against getting them out in tests.

Boycott could never do what Dre Russ/Buttler do, does that really make Boycott a superior cricketer to Dre Russ/Buttler?

But Archer has currently bowled in 5 innings of test cricket, 13 wickets at 21. I can't fathom right now how he has underachieved at all. 

As usual you've raised some very good points, Paddles.

Limited over cricket is a different skill set, but requires only a very short prod of time in terms of comparative concentration and physical stamina. Hence,  Test cricket is the ultimate test of a team's ability over 4-5 days.

Before one series in Australia, one journo suggested Test cricket is a great contest, because over 5 days it is virtually impossible for the inferior team to win the game. Superiority nearly always prevails.  

At the time it resonated with me, because Australia had just been knocked out of a soccer World Cup elimination  game in 1997, by Iran, who most thought were the inferior side and  less deserving to go to the World Cup finals.

IMO , and nearly all older former FC cricketers, Boycott, who was usually a slow accumulator of runs, was a decidedly superior batter to Buttler or Dre Russ as limited over performers. His impregnable defence was like a wall. He either left the ball or too often it hit the middle of his bat. All Aussies who played against the legendary Boycs were in awe of him. This guy could really bat time.

The modern version of Boycott is the great Indian batter, Pujara. His contribution went a long way to winning the series in Australia for the first time by India last season.

Interesting to read this.

Thanks.

It was Kumara.

He was the second fastest bowler I saw bowl at Bellerive  in red ball cricket after Riley Meredith.

Interesting Kumara hit 150 kph.

I read years ago, that a  batting average in NZ is commensurate with one 10 runs higher in Aus, because the pitches here are easier for batting.

English players concur  that it is easier for batting in Aus than their home pitches when they get used to the extra bounce.

Gday all,
jaszyjim - Would Agar fall into this list?

Not in the last 5 years here at all.

NZ and Aus are both flat roads. We just get a lil bit more swing with the new ball for Boult and Southee.

I can get you the recent stats. NZ and Aus are the flattest around...

Buttler is an ODI freak. He may not bat time, but he can score 80 off 35 balls like its easy.,.. Gavaskar and Boycs could never do that. Boycott regularly praised McCullum as doing things he never ever could.

The thing is once you change the rules of the game, some of preferred and desired skills and talents change. Its a different game after all. It shares a lot of the same skills, for sure, but its a different game. 

I think ODI cricket is the most skilful form of cricket. Cos it requires both skills of test and t20. Its a constant challenge, where 200 can be defended and 430 run down. In far less overs than test.

Thanks for the update!

Also, English players claim the heat in Aus tires bowlers out more quickly, making it easier for batters.

Although when they play the rare  Test  in Tas, it is similar to the Christchurch and Wellington climate.

...

Have you been smoking something, Paddles? 

It is as though you  have responded to a completely different  comment! 

I said English cricketers think it is easier batting in Oz than England. 

And Wellington and Christchurch  have a similar climate to Hobart . 

Not smoking something. But replied to a totally different post. 

I made that post weeks ago. 

I don't know why it is here. 

Wellington is a massive road and always has been... every batsman globally used to love Adelaide and Wellington... just bat all day - and half the next...

I don't understand what that Smith post is doing in this thread though tbh...

Christchurch is very dry. It has a wind come in off the plains that dries it out. Historically it is NZ's fastest, bounciest and driest pitch. But the pace and bounce encourages Canterbury to make NZ's premier fast bowlers often despite a smaller population to Auckland. The farms down there have massive irrigation systems. So games in ChCH depend on when they're being played. But its not bad for batting at all.

Dunedin is wet and juicy. Any trundler down there can be deadly. Its typically the worst pitch for batting these days. Eden Park is a road unless there is humidity, then it swings around. 

Most our pitches are currently roads in general though. NZ backs its batsmen and swing bowlers.

Informative post, mate.

Huge chance for Archer tonight to be the saviour of English cricketing pride. Losing Anderson after 4 overs, and subsequently the test, Archer debut'd in the second. Curiously chastised after an excellent debut and second test, with a paltry showing in just his 3rd test, Archer took 6/62 in the second innings in the 5th test to set the game up for England. 

His batsmen did not let him down, and have given him a 4th innings score to bowl at. 

With current series and career stats of:

overall

4

7

140.0

32

380

22

6/45

8/85

17.27

2.71

38.1

2

0

Archer has started his test and odi career both now with an absolute storm. 

With player of the series likely to be going to Smith, and fairly so, Stokes so far has overshadowed what Archer has contributed for England. Which is a lot of wickets. At a cheap price. Excellent opportunity for Archer to tie the series for England, and get man of the match. He also has an outside chance, very slim, of overtaking Cummins for series leading wicket taker. With Anderson out, unsurprisingly he is of course already England's lead wicket taker for the series, despite only having played 4 of the 5 tests. 

Shane Watson?

Although, what we wouldn't have given for an opener with 35 batting average and 33 bowling average this last tour.

Very good odi player, but never reached his potential in test cricket where he probably wasn't a bone fide opener. Could have been anything though, showed great promise originally (too many injuries?) 

The injuries stopped him bowling as much as the captains at times wanted. But I think there was too much expectation placed on him for his batting. You compare his record to Flintoff's, arguably Watson has the better record - just without those Botham, Flintoff, Stokes moments of legendary brilliance. But consistency. Watson was a bona fide good test player. And for mine, he is ATG ODI player - no doubt - - he'd be in the running to my make best World XI.

But Australian fans and selectors in tests expected Watson to average 55+ with the bat. And be Kallis. But Kallis was an exceptional batting talent. Playing an allrounder, you really have a good one if their batting average exceeds their bowling average which Watto did comfortably evenw ith his batting average of 35 (Which is what Stokes averages too). And he was more than good as a 5th bowler. Watson is at his best when he has a license to go hard at the ball and club it. He wasnt getting that license regularly for the Aus test team which was fighting for matches like not felt since the 1980's. His SR was far too low batting, as he had to be become like Steve Waugh instead of being himself with a license. We all know for a fact, that allowed to unleash, Watson has as much batting power as Ben Stokes. We see it in the IPL every season. Colin De Grandhomme has manged a 39 average, cos he gets that licence a lot (hence a ridiculous test strike rate in excess of Gilchrist, and even the original madman, Afridi). Had Watto walked out at 4/400, he would have tonked the ball to a declaration score, and made many easy runs. 

I think when the hangover started to kick in as Aus finally migrated from being one of the two best teams in history, to losing to SA regularly a home, and losing away in England regularly, then not even really competing vs SL and Pakistan away anymore, that players were made scapegoats. I think Watson is definitely one of these. I don't think he underachieved. I think he did well. 

Look how long post Warne and McGill, it took Aussie fans to accept Lyon. Lyon is never going to be considered a great Australian spinner. Warne, McGill, Tiger, Grimmet, Benaud are miles ahead, even the likes of Mallet have a vastly superior record. But for the most part he is finally accepted by the public now. But it took a long time.

Fair enough, some truth in that. He did do well, though somehow I never felt he really reached what he could have either with bat or ball in test cricket. Injuries slowed his bowling down to where he became a very useful fourth quick.
Very useful with someone like Johnson in your attack.
The way he was maligned over the drs was a bit unfair also. Heard Chris Rogers say he had a part in that. In one famous instance Watson was ready to depart and only challenged because Rogers urged him to lol. Yet Watson copped it from the fans.

Michael Slater. It’s a shame his battles with his mental health got in the way of his test career. 

Good call. Exceptional batting talent. Used to love his stroke play. But he still achieved a lot. Arguably he delayed Hayden's start for nigh half a decade and stopped him from getting some ridiculous huge numbers.

Yeah, he really did. And then when Mitch Marsh came in, the fans were like, dang, we'd rather have Watto back. 

It took a while for the Aussie fans to accept, that the team which built impressively from 1986/87 under Border, to WC winners 1987, Ashes winners 1989, ODI champs in WI in early 90's without winning the test series, to drawing the WI test series in Aus in 1992/93, 1993 Warne's demo jobs in England systematically became the force the Steve Waugh then Pointing captained. And there was this expectation that everyone should be the best in the world if they played for Australia. When that golden generation retired, Aus fans took it hard. Cos they had been excellent for 20 years. Deano had been dropped in 1993. Hayden couldn't make the team for 6 years. Hussey had come in late and looked like a superstar. Why is there not a wicket keeper averaging 50 now? Why are there not 7 batsmen in the team averaging 47+. Why is there not a spinner averaging mid 20's. Why is the lead seamer not averaging 22? (Though Harris and Clark were pretty damn awesome when they played).

I think the fans took it tough. And really understand what WI fans went through after their golden generation of quicks all dried up. They still had Gayle, Lara, Chanderpaul, even Sarwan and Adams - but they had no quality seamers - after being blessed with 10+ of them for 25 years. Croft, Syl Clarke, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Bishop, Walsh, Ambrose, Patterson, Marshall, suddenly they had no bowlers. And their team was limp. Despite more than enough batting. So they chopped and they changed for an age. Now with Holder, Roach and Gabriel, they stuck by them, and are now getting better results. The irony is - they now have no batting. Timing is everything right?

I watched the rise of Australian cricket before my very eyes from the dark days of the 1980s. And it was a thing of beauty. Both for the batsmen and the bowlers. And good players missed out. Really good players. But everyone else has their own academies and training institutes now. The secret to your success wasn't kept secret. And everyone copied it. 

That is a fair assortment DC and a fair assessment. Tho betting Paddles will have you for adding Archer to the list. Yes Puck has to overcome his deficiencies against the short ball.. mental or otherwise. It may spoil what promises to be a fine Test career.

Sangha is still 19 or may have just turned 20.. a mere baby. Sangha remains along with the little master Tendulkar the youngest batsmen to score a century against an English touring side.

I maintain the media put too much expectation on players before they even reach senior level. I have heard Sangha interviewed and he has a smart, level head.

 I know not who the Blues batting coach is but he needs to do more work on a solid red ball technique with these youngers guys.. like Edwards and Sangha who are trying to make their way in top class senior cricket.

I dunno of any more DC.. you have covered most all of them. I can recall a couple of bowlers that never lived up to their early promise. Scott Muller was one. Is he the bowler that Warne said "can not bowl, bat or field" and was overheard by the on field microphone. A couple of quicks that showed promise but found the pathway clogged in my state and found they had to go interstate were Brendan Drew and Greg Rowell. Both under achieved.

Depends on what you look at when looking at the term underachieved. Scott "can't bowl, can't field" Muller would probably fall into the category of not given a fair go. His 2 tests he took 7/258 @ 36.85 which looks to be poor but I can think of worse returns that have continued to be re-selected. In those two particular matches against Pakistan in 1999, Glenn McGrath only returned 7/300 @ 43 so you could say Muller gave a better return than McGrath so maybe he should have been given more opportunity. Muller's strike rates in those tests was 49 which is Scott Muller, he was brilliant with the new ball in hand at shield level but at test level was first change behind McGrath and Fleming and rightfully so, but it did negate his effectiveness. Glenn McGrath's SR in those 2 tests was a whopping 81. So I think he would definitely fall into the not given a fair go category more so than an underachiever category

Greg Rowell wasn' t too bad. When he came to Qld he just had too many to fight off to get a start, McDermott, Tazelaar, Rackemann, Kasper, Bichel, Muller etc so he left for Tasmania where I think he did well. Brendon Drew a name from the past, but I totally agree major underachiever, averaged 40 at FC level and played quite a few games.

But here is a few I'd classify as test underachievers in recent times, Ed Cowan, Nathan Bracken, Philip Hughes, Moises Henriques, Copeland (probably falls into the not given enough opportunity), Michael Bevan, Dirk Whellam, but the biggest of all John Dyson.