Mercurial XI

[Rachael]

All sorts of good nominations so far.. but I'm astonished to see no mention of VVS Laxman... and I thought someone would be having a go at Gower (and possibly Mark Waugh) by now. I'm not entirely convinced on these because (as the Wisden profile notes) "Gower always seemed to play the same – beautifully, until the moment he made a mistake" and "Critics took issue with Waugh's apparent loss of concentration at times and his capacity to occasionally succumb to lazy-looking shots".

On the other hand... they say of Gower "Sometimes, the mistake was put off long enough for him to play an innings of unforgettable brilliance" and of Waugh "The weakness was on show most evidently during his disastrous 1992-93 tour to Sri Lanka when he scored four successive Test ducks, but it would be hard to find a player more difficult to contain when in full flight".

My provisional XI (based on nominations to date) might read: Sehwag, Hayden, Gower (c), Mark Waugh, Laxman, Hooper, Sangakkara (wk), Harbhajan Singh, Abdul Quadir, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar

I reckon that XI could, on it's day, murder pretty much any actual XI in the history of the sport... and would still not inspire confidence if picked to tackle the current Aus lot!

[Zainub]

Does anyone remember Dion Nash, Kiwis quick, career plagued (sp?) with injuries, but I happened to be a real fan of his once upon a time.

[Andy Mellon]

Ah yes, Dion Nash. I agree with you Zainub; he had something about him. Was he mercurial though? I have to say I remember him performing well against England with bat and ball in something like 96/97 and I think he played for Middlesex (though I might be getting mixed up with David Nash?). I didn't follow cricket so avidly then, so I'm not sure if the good performance in England was a one-off indicative of mercurial talent or whether he had a good, solid - if somewhat curtailed - career.

And in answer to Rachael. I had thought of Gower; but decided that although he was associated with what could be described as a mercurial talent, this was a somewhat harsh description

[Zainub]

I don't remember too much to honest. I was really small back when I was his fan, I think from what I'm recalling I liked him from the time I saw him playing for NZ in the 1999 World Cup. I'll try and look up his profile and see what I can get.

[Zainub]

OK, you were right Andy. Not exactly mercurial, but an under achiever nevertheless.

Cricnfino profile by Don Cameron

Dion Nash, a solidly-built right-hander, burst onto the international scene with 11 wickets and a half-century in his fifth Test and his first at Lord’s in 1994. But a series of back injuries so interrupted Nash’s progress that what looked like being a stirring career as allrounder and captain was cut off in its prime. When Stephen Fleming was injured during the 1998-99 home season Nash took over the captaincy against South Africa, and while the Test series was lost, Nash’s aggressive on-field leadership impressed those critics who found Fleming’s captaincy style too laid-back. The New Zealand team has also lacked Nash’s hard-minded attitude: he was never afraid to assert his rights in the middle. His favourite and most spectacular stroke was the straight-drive, although as injuries restricted his footwork, he developed a muscular back foot drive through the covers.

And he did played Middlesex Andy. Made 729 runs in 32 tests at an average of 23 (best of 89*) and also took 93 wickets at 28. Also played 81 ODIs in which he made 624 runs at 15 and took 64 wickets at 40 (run rate 4.6)

Player page : http://content.cricinfo.com/newzeala...yer/38008.html

And I’m also going to nominate Romesh Kuluwithrana, for those who are struggling to recall he was Sri Lanka’s wicket keeper cum pinch hitting opener through the 90s, and retired last season after bad patch with the bad that he simply could not recover from. He and Jayasuriya once formed one of the most dangerous opening partnerships in the one-day game, their flamboyant style of batting was particularly crucial in Sri Lanka's maiden (and to-date only) world cup title in 1996. This guy was an efficient man behind the stumps and a small, crafty little character batting wise, on his day he could hit the ball as hard as anyone I’ve seen. When it wasn’t his day, he’d get out playing some very ugly shots indeed.

[Paoli]

Romesh, thankyou for that one. One of the more mercurial players.

VVS Laxman, I guess you could say that, but I credit it as much to a bad run with the selectors as well. David Gower, never saw him.

Mark Waugh? You could say mercurial, but you have to remember, in his last 18 months of test cricket, he never scored more than 90 and thus had a bad run.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Sehwag, Hayden, Gower (c), Mark Waugh, Laxman, Hooper, Sangakkara (wk), Harbhajan Singh, Abdul Quadir, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar

You say based on nominations, who nominated Laxman and Waugh? And I thought Hayden may have been mentioned only once? THe likes of Slater and Gayle were nominated numerous times.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Paoli69

You say based on nominations, who nominated Laxman and Waugh? And I thought Hayden may have been mentioned only once? THe likes of Slater and Gayle were nominated numerous times.

I nominated Laxman and Waugh... and the former selection I will defend: the guy is increasingly infamous for only looking interested when he's seeing the ball well and able to dominate. Give him a situation in which he's not going to be able to score at 3-4 or more an over and he suddenly looks as if he wants to be anywhere but there... and consequently less useful than Chris Read or Paul Collingwood (who do at least try!).

Gayle's omission I'll also defend: he just ain't good enough. I started off with Abdul Qadir and Waqar Younis and was looking for an XI of players of that callibre. Gayle doesn't deserve mention in the same breath. Slater may do... just about.. but if Sehwag and Hayden are eligible as openers he's got some tough competition :-)

I'm not sure about several on the list and remain hopeful that more nominations will follow: I can't believe that Waqar Younis has NO other contenders for the "most mercurial cricketer of all time" award!

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I can't believe that Waqar Younis has NO other contenders for the "most mercurial cricketer of all time" award!

I nominated him!! In fact, he was 2nd behind Shoaib Akhtar on my list.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Gayle's omission I'll also defend: he just ain't good enough. I started off with Abdul Qadir and Waqar Younis and was looking for an XI of players of that callibre. Gayle doesn't deserve mention in the same breath.

Fair enough.

But then how do you pick Hooper?

Ok. I know Gayle opens and Hooper was not, by first choice, an opener. Essentially though, they were their team's batting allrounder. But if Gayle doesn't deserve to be mentioned in that breath neither does Hooper.

After the same amount of matches

TEST BATTING

Gayle 50 matches, 3364 runs, 7 centuries, 18 fifties, average 40.04
Hoops 50 matches, 2405 runs, 4 centuries, 12 fifties, average 31.23

ODI BATTING

Gayle 116 matches, 4142 runs, 10 centuries, 23 fifties, 38.71 average
Hoops 116 matches, 2238 runs, 1 century, 10 fifties, 29.31 average

TEST BOWLING

Gayle 50 matches, 480.4 overs, 31 wickets, 1 5wkt haul, average 37.41
Hoops 50 matches, 966 overs, 50 wickets, 2 5wkt hauls, average 51.80

ODI BOWLING

Gayle 116 matches, 619.3 overs, 95 wickets, 3 4wkt hauls, average 30.56
Hoops 116 matches, 779.4 overs, 112 wickets, 1 4wkt haul, average 29.66

[Milo]

Hooper, when on form, had the ability to play every stroke against any bowler - when all other members in the team were struggling. Anyone who saw his 178* at St Johns when he was late cutting Waqar Younis' big in swingers off the front foot would not disagree.

Gayle, in contrast is a very ilimited player. His array of strokes is far less complete. On good surfaces and when in good form he is very very difficlut to bowl to. This is not because he has any mercurial talents however. He never makes the game look anywhere near as easy a Carl did, he does not play with the same effortless grace and certainly doesn't gift his wicket away the way Hooper used to.

Hooper is the biggest under achiever I have ever seen, but I have been fortunate enough to see him reach a level that even the greats have never touched. Certainly the most frustrating player to have in your team (he used to offer up a mixture of class and crass - more of the crass unfortunately) but mercurial nonetheless.