why do some good batsmen fail?

[Mard]

what is the exact reason why good batsmen fail at test cricket?

Batsmen like Graeme Hick, Nick Knight, Michael Bevan, Neil Fairborther etc....

they were clearly all good batsmen, but why did they fail at the highest level?

 

[fredfertang]

A problem between their ears

 

[Mard]

A bit harsh on Michael Bevan IMO. Unless you are talking specifically about Tests?

i clearly said tests. all of these players were very good in ODI's

 

[PhoenixFire]

My bad.

In the case of Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash, I think that the problems were certainly mental ones, they both had the talent and techmique to surivive at Test level.

I'm not sure that you should class Hick as a 'failure' at Test level either.

 

[NUFAN]

Why do birds suddenly appear?

 

[BoyBrumby]

My bad.

In the case of Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash, I think that the problems were certainly mental ones, they both had the talent and techmique to surivive at Test level.

I'm not sure that you should class Hick as a 'failure' at Test level either.

An average of 31 & small change pays scant tribute to his abilities, really, so as harsh as the word is, I think his test career ultimately was.

With Hick I've read many theories of varying plausibilty from a lack of mental strength, through a weakness against top-class pace bowling to his stagnation in the county game whilst he underwent his qualification period for us.

With Ramprakash it's almost harder to explain away; he has an intensity and hunger that the diffiedent former Rhodesian appeared to lack but his test record is even worse. It's possible he was too focussed and unable to play his natural game. His needing 11 (I think) innings to move from 99 to 100 centuries spoke volumes about this issue.

 

[Swervy]

I'm not sure that you should class Hick as a 'failure' at Test level either.

He wasn't shocking, but he was far from great, in fact, he was merely average, which when you consider the expectations of him in the late 80s, even at ODI level (despite his success), he was a disappointment.

 

[PhoenixFire]

In comparison to every other Test player that has ever played, Hick was merely average, 31 isn't dreadul or a 'failure' but it isn't particulaly good, obviously.

I'd say he was more of a failure to himself and by his lofty standards, he should/could have done much better for himself.

 

[The Masterplan]

Hock

 

[Richard]

He wasn't shocking, but he was far from great, in fact, he was merely average, which when you consider the expectations of him in the late 80s

If someone expects you to average 60 and you instead average 50, you are not a failure nor merely average.

Nor was Hick's Test-match case a closed-and-shut one. He was of times a massive failure, and of other times he had good success. The suggestion that an average of 31 meant he was the same thing all through his Test career is, well, simply wrong.

 

[Richard]

what is the exact reason why good batsmen fail at test cricket?

Batsmen like Graeme Hick, Nick Knight, Michael Bevan, Neil Fairborther etc....

they were clearly all good batsmen, but why did they fail at the highest level?

A problem between their ears

Why do birds suddenly appear?

I think Rob (NUFAN)'s comment sums it up. Being "a good batsman" isn't a black-and-white case. It's a scale, a continuum.

Bevan, Knight, Hick, Fairbrother and many others were excellent batsmen at domestic level but weren't at Test. There is no one hard-and-fast reason.

Regarding "problems between the ears", well, myself I'd say that what's between the ears is all part of being a good batsman. The mental talents are as important as the physical ones - more so sometimes.

The four batsmen "Mard" names, well, they were all different.
Knight was a pretty straightforward case of technical deficiency. He wasn't aware enough of where his off-stump was which meant he often played defensive shots at deliveries most left-handers should and would leave. This inevitably meant he nicked a hell of a lot of balls that would be harmless to better players. This deficiency was not sufficiently bad, however, to make him fail at domestic level or in ODIs, where he was one of the best openers you could wish to see.

Hick and Bevan, well they were both incredibly complicated. There's no doubt that at times they had their problems with the short-ball, but equally there's no doubt that these were not problems they did not eventually manage to sort-out. In the end, technical issues with the short-ball contributed to short-term failures but the longer-term ones were much more to do with temperamental weakness. Bevan was also unfortunate that there were a great many other excellent batsmen at his time which meant he got far fewer opportunities than most would.

Fairbrother, well, he was straightforward enough too - he was just too aggressive. He drove at anything and everything. In the ODI game, this made him a fabulous player; in Tests it made him a sitting-duck for good seamers (and there were plenty of those in his time). Fairbrother (and Knight for that matter) might well be far better players had they debuted after 2001.

 

[SJS]

As in corporate management, you finally end up reaching your level of incompetence.

You keep on looking 'good' till you have reached that level - from street. to school, to club, to grade, to first class to Test. At times a bright coach or a smart observer will notice that you have an issue which will prevent you from going beyond a level but the score card is not smart. It does not evaluate/differentiate between quality and 'quality' till the quantity does it.

 

[Richard]

That's nicely put.

BTW what's with the red avatars of late?

 

[Perm]

Pride and loyalty.

CW Red (H)

 

[wpdavid]

Fairbrother, well, he was straightforward enough too - he was just too aggressive. He drove at anything and everything. In the ODI game, this made him a fabulous player; in Tests it made him a sitting-duck for good seamers (and there were plenty of those in his time). Fairbrother (and Knight for that matter) might well be far better players had they debuted after 2001.

That's not really what happened to Fairbrother though. Looking at the scorecards, there were a lot of dismissals to spinners and a few lbw's to the seamers. To me that suggests a suspect defence rather than a plethora of edges to attempted drives.

Incidentally, looking at the 1990 series against NZ, Hadlee is recorded as "Sir .."
Do we know of any other instances of knights actually playing test cricket?

 

[Richard]

That's not really what happened to Fairbrother though. Looking at the scorecards, there were a lot of dismissals to spinners and a few lbw's to the seamers. To me that suggests a suspect defence rather than a plethora of edges to attempted drives.

That's odd, as Fairbrother was always an excellent player of spin (like his teammates Atherton and Crawley). 4 out of his 9 Tests in which he batted did come on the subcontinent I suppose (and I'd always thought this was for exactly that reason). In his 4 in England and 1 in New Zealand the only spinner who got him out was John Bracewell, which is perhaps a bit surprising given his prowess against spin.

A weakness on the drive doesn't have to result in slip catches though - it can be lbws. Driving too much leaves you as vulnerable to inswinger as it does to outswinger.

I guess the only way to say for certain would be to find some footage of his Tests in England, and that'd take quite some effort.

Incidentally, looking at the 1990 series against NZ, Hadlee is recorded as "Sir .."
Do we know of any other instances of knights actually playing test cricket?

Nah, I'm almost certain Hadlee is unique. Can't remember where I read it but I'm sure I have.

 

[wpdavid]

That's odd, as Fairbrother was always an excellent player of spin (like his teammates Atherton and Crawley). 4 out of his 9 Tests in which he batted did come on the subcontinent I suppose (and I'd always thought this was for exactly that reason). In his 4 in England and 1 in New Zealand the only spinner who got him out was John Bracewell, which is perhaps a bit surprising given his prowess against spin.

A weakness on the drive doesn't have to result in slip catches though - it can be lbws. Driving too much leaves you as vulnerable to inswinger as it does to outswinger.

I guess the only way to say for certain would be to find some footage of his Tests in England, and that'd take quite some effort.

I didn't see all of it, but my impression wasn't one of him regularly falling to attacking shots. Most of them were very early in his innings,of course, although I know that doesn't conclusively prove anything.

As for the spinners, I suppose there's a massive gap between the sort of stuff he was pummelling in CC games and Kumble, Qadir and the other guys he faced in the subcontinent; plus the situation was far more pressurised.

Point taken about driving too much & lbw's btw.

 

[SJS]

That's nicely put.

BTW what's with the red avatars of late?

Its to show the solidarity of the CW Reds

 

[Swervy]

If someone expects you to average 60 and you instead average 50, you are not a failure nor merely average.

Nor was Hick's Test-match case a closed-and-shut one. He was of times a massive failure, and of other times he had good success. The suggestion that an average of 31 meant he was the same thing all through his Test career is, well, simply wrong.

erm...but he didnt average 50.

 

[Richard]

The point is expectations are fairly irrelevant to whether someone is a success or failure - I wasn't saying Hick averaged 50 amazingly enough, I was using a hypothesis. Succeeding or failing is different to living-up to or not living-up to people's expectations of you, as many such expectations are far too demanding.