Intangible Players

Nominate one player who you feel was much more valuble than their stats would suggest.

I'm going to nominate two cos I started the thread......

Jonty Rhodes - 2532 runs @ 35.66 with only 3 centuries in over 50 tests. A mediocre test batsman, according to his stats, but provided a level of fielding that few could emulate.

Jeff Thomson - 200 wkts @ 28.00 Scared the **** out of the opposition and gave Australia a psychological advantage before the teams walked onto the field.

Thomson's stats are skewed because he had two careers. One great career before his shoulder was farked, and a serviceable, workmanlike, journeyman career afterwards.

I'll nominate Geoff Marsh. Unimpressive stats but played in hard times, Australia was in the depths of despair when he was first chosen, and he had to contend with the West Indians at their peak, and Hadlee. Offered leadership and fine fielding as well as gritty batting.

Okay then.
How about Mike Brearley - 1442 runs @ 22.88 with 0 hundreds. Is his captaincy
overstated? Possibly. However, he was undoubtably skilled and
especially successful as he could motivate and cajole Botham into
heroics like no other could.

Brearley was certainly more valuable than his stats ... that wouldn't be hard.

Martin Weston - Wesso played for Worcestershire in the 80s and early 90s. He had two scoring shots - the cut and the shovel shot over mid-wicket, and was a purveyor of gentle medium-paced little swingers, and yet he often popped with an important wicket or a valuable 30 or 40. An unsung hero.

From an english point of view Mike Atherton, such a better player than his final stats suggest, and Graham Thorpe, has a very good average but i dont think it quite reflects his importance to the team, He always seemed to save his best performances for when england where in trouble and he was so often the guy who kept his head and saw us home when everyone else was floundering.

lardbucket wrote:Thomson's stats are skewed because he had two careers. One great career before his shoulder was farked, and a serviceable, workmanlike, journeyman career afterwards.

No-one has bowled faster in my lifetime than Thommo - of that I'm sure.

I'd second that vote for Thorpe - his record - 6000 runs at 45 is good, but he was better than good. The absolutely heartbeat of England's team.

Anything England acheived in the 90s / early 00s it was down to Thorpe.

The first away series win in ages in NZ - Thorpe's twin centuries set it up. Only 'live' win over Aus 87-05, it was down to Thorpe / Hussains epic partnership, victory in the dark in Karachi - Thorpe, series win in Sri Lanka - Thorpe dragged England over the victory line single-handedly, his 200* in NZ to draw the series. England's revival under Vaughan was started by Thorpe's comeback century to square the series against SA, the 8 wins in a row and the two matches England looked like losing were won because of Thorpe's centuries, then the away wins in SA - Thorpe's match saving knocks in the 2nd & 5th Tests and WI - Thorpe top scored at Trinidad and his 119* (out of 226) at Bridgetown was an absolute masterclass to win the series.

So pretty much every series England won (bar maybe SA in 98) and Thorpe was the absolute pivot. How many matches did Lara and Tendulkar win off their own bat? Not too many, the argument being they never had the support in the team around them. Well neither did Thorpe - England were mediocre for much of the time he played, yet he managed to win 32 Tests against serious opposition and I reckon about 15 of those you can completely forget about without Thorpe's contribution.

He suffered more than most with injuries and personal crises - Thorpe's lowpoints - missing tours of SA in 99, and Aus in 98 & 02 always seemed to coincide with lowpoints for England, and all their most memorable victories - Edgbaston 97, Karachi, Colombo, Oval 03, Bridgetown x2, he was right in the thick of it.

Ray Illingworth.

From an Indian point of view, I think Javagal Srinath fits. 236 wickets @ 30 apiece in 67 tests isn't exemplary, but he was the lone soldier of Indian pace bowling for a good many years without any support either from the other end and on dust-bowls of Indian pitches. Made seam-bowling cool again, after Kapil Dev's influence had waned on gennext.

ganguly

Ganguly is no untouchable

not bad lardy

though i dont know where the whole ganguly-royalty angle came in. must blame boycott

I thought it stemmed from his County stint.

Perhaps County Player has some inside information.

with the likes of flintoff in the team ganguly probably came across as someone of great culture and fine upbringing

The One wrote:with the likes of Flintoff in the team the other ten players and the team driver all probably came across as having great culture and fine upbringing

true

lardbucket wrote:

The One wrote:with the likes of Flintoff in the team the other ten players and the team driver all probably came across as having great culture and fine upbringing

true

Well played, sir.

MC Hammer.

Bump.


What's the opposite of an "intangible player"? Ganguly would be a prime example.


Whereas Andrew Symonds surely ticks all the boxes for a guy whose whole is more than the sum of his parts.