When did County cricket last produce a truely great player?

Apart from Mike Hussey...

Mark Ramprakash . . .

G Hick

A Strauss

BNLG...at least at county level

Boof

T Moody...Slaw

and for bodyline's benefit - bichel - the straight swinger

Kevin Pietersen. The guy was an off spinner who slogged a few at number 9 when he first came to Notts in 2000. 4 years later he was being talked about as the most exciting English batting talent since Gower.

Henry wrote:Kevin Pietersen. The guy was an off spinner who slogged a few at number 9 when he first came to Notts in 2000. 4 years later he was being talked about as the most exciting English batting talent since Gower.

just like slaw

horace wrote:
just like slaw

Oh totally. I mean slaw played one Test for Aus, whereas KP scored the the joint most runs in ODIs after 50 games with Sir Viv and the second most runs after 25 Tests, behind DGB. The comparison couldn't be more accurate.

Batfink Begins wrote:

horace wrote:
just like slaw

Oh totally. I mean slaw played one Test for Aus, whereas KP scored the the joint most runs in ODIs after 50 games with Sir Viv and the second most runs after 25 Tests, behind DGB. The comparison couldn't be more accurate.

pleased you agree

Dermot Reeve

horace wrote:pleased you agree

Oh joy.

Hick was not really a product of county cricket. Pietersen has still a bit to prove.

Gooch, Botham, Willis and Gower all emerged at the end of the 70s. Gower was the latest of them so he gets the guernsey.

The disturbing thing is that these players appeared 30 years ago and even the 70s produced no others. The procuction line of great players ended 40 years ago.

I suppose Ramprakash could still get there if given 4 or 5 years of test cricket. I'm not betting on it.

I suppose you could call Alec Stewart a 'great' in the way he scored the most runs in the 90's mainly being a wickie as not many have averaged that much as keeps. But not really I suppose. Thorpey was world-class but not great, the same goes for Bobby.

The trend is worrying, mind you, this tendency to turn impressive young players into dissappointing mature players infects the other british games. Take Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney for example ... awesome as youngsters and should have become greats but both have become merely "good" players. OK, Rooney has time on his side but I'd be suprised if he ever does fulfill his early potential.

To become a great in any game you need to have truckloads of self-confidence. In the UK we don't like (or trust) very confident people so we tend to knock the stuffing out of them so they come down to "our level".

Batfink Begins wrote:I suppose you could call Alec Stewart a 'great' in the way he scored the most runs in the 90's mainly being a wickie as not many have averaged that much as keeps. But not really I suppose. Thorpey was world-class but not great, the same goes for Bobby.

Stewart is an interesting case. He was far from being a great keeper. He was only an average batsman when he kept so there is no sense in which he was a great all-rounder. When he didn't keep he was almost a great batsman. He was a good captain.

However, there was something inspirational about him. When its all added together you could say he was a great "cricketer", in the same sort of way that Pelham Warner was.

Michael Owen is still in line to be called a great. He bangs them in for fun for England when fully fit. Only his injuries have limited his progression. But even then, he will probably become England's all time top goalscorer with ease.

[quote="ten years after"]

Batfink Begins wrote:I suppose you could call Alec Stewart a 'great' in the way he scored the most runs in the 90's mainly being a wickie as not many have averaged that much as keeps. But not really I suppose. Thorpey was world-class but not great, the same goes for Bobby.

Stewart is an interesting case. He was far from being a great keeper. He was only an average batsman when he kept so there is no sense in which he was a great all-rounder. When he didn't keep he was almost a great batsman. He was a good captain.

However, there was something inspirational about him. When its all added together you could say he was a great "cricketer", in the same sort of way that Pelham Warner was.[/quote]

Or indeed, Douglas Jardine.

If a players chances of becoming a great is destroyed by injury, is it county crickets fault? Of course, im talking about Andrew Flintoff here.

Granted, this thread is a case of Zim being Zim and trying to wind up some English fans, but I dont think that County cricket is a major factor in England not producing a whole bunch of Lara's, Tendulkar's, and Warne's. After Australia's Pura Cup, 1st division County Cricket is the best standard of domestic cricket in the world.

All things considered, England have had a pretty successful cricket team in the last 7 years, and if the team has been successful without many superstars, then I think that is a CREDIT to the domestic system, rather than a black mark against it.

[quote="Merlin"]

ten years after wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:I suppose you could call Alec Stewart a 'great' in the way he scored the most runs in the 90's mainly being a wickie as not many have averaged that much as keeps. But not really I suppose. Thorpey was world-class but not great, the same goes for Bobby.

Stewart is an interesting case. He was far from being a great keeper. He was only an average batsman when he kept so there is no sense in which he was a great all-rounder. When he didn't keep he was almost a great batsman. He was a good captain.

However, there was something inspirational about him. When its all added together you could say he was a great "cricketer", in the same sort of way that Pelham Warner was.[/quote]

Or indeed, Douglas Jardine.

Except Jardine might be considered one of the all-time great test match captains (even on the basis of that one series).

Henry wrote:If a players chances of becoming a great is destroyed by injury, is it county crickets fault? Of course, im talking about Andrew Flintoff here.

After Australia's Pura Cup, 1st division County Cricket is the best standard of domestic cricket in the world.

If county cricket is any good, how come averaging 100 in it for two years is not considered a qualification to play test cricket?

I'm not sure that the Shield is all that good nowadays either. The best players just don't take part.

On the other point you are right, injury may well have robbed Flintoff, Gough and Vaughan of greatness. This does mean there is some hope I suppose.

For me, if you're going to allow Willis and Gower, then you have to have Goughy and Thorpe in there as well.

We tend to glorify the England players of the 80s for some reason when they were actually even less succesful than the 90s lot. Admittedly Gower was more pleasing on the eye than Thorpe - but Thorpey played a hell of a lot of match-winning innings for England. While Gough gave so much effort for the cause, and his record against the best teams of the 90s was better than Willis in the 80s (namely vs the Windies), even if his career record is slightly - and only slightly worse.

Flintoff must have scaled close to the hights of Botham as well. Both suffered from injuries which have reduced their effectiveness. Perhaps as it stands Beefy just had a slightly longer peak period.

If county cricket is any good, how come averaging 100 in it for two years is not considered a qualification to play test cricket?

Couldnt that also be applied to the likes of Lehmann, Law, Siddons, and Bevan in Australia?

I assume you're reffering to Ramprakash. Well, he's 38 years old, and his time has passed. I have a theory that he is playing as well as he is now because he's not TRYING to get back into the England team anymore. He knows his time has come and gone, and he's enjoying himself a lot more now, and consequently he's more prolific now than he ever was in County cricket. It's always been mental with Ramps. All the talent in the world, but he was never able to find a good place mentally.