He was definitely better than his average suggests. He should easily have been a proper Zim great, but his legacy is one of, left wanting. He should really have been our AVG 40+ test batter and 35+ ODI/T20 batter, but he never fully achieved his potential.
His mindset, for me, sums up ZC for so long. Being content with 'ok'
If Hamilton should have averaged 40 plus in Tests, what about BT, Ervine & Raza?? Batting in the Top 3 in Tests definitely takes a few runs off your average.
Hamilton's ODI numbers are definitely disappointing
He was definitely better than his average suggests. He should easily have been a proper Zim great, but his legacy is one of, left wanting. He should really have been our AVG 40+ test batter and 35+ ODI/T20 batter, but he never fully achieved his potential.
His mindset, for me, sums up ZC for so long. Being content with 'ok'
If Hamilton should have averaged 40 plus in Tests, what about BT, Ervine & Raza?? Batting in the Top 3 in Tests definitely takes a few runs off your average.
Hamilton's ODI numbers are definitely disappointing
You're not wrong. Definitely feel our top players need to be in the same bracket. Standards are for all, not some.
My only counter would be that their averages are not horrible considering they part of a system that failed them in every single way. They went moments without pay and even were at loggerheads with ZC to the point that they would have been dropped or punished for small little things. They still performed even without any sort of infrastructure or set up network to help them.
Hammy is a product of our best ever production system. He is a product of the old ZC and had all the right coaching, infrastructure, set up etc. He made a test century on debut as a teenager. We don't see anything like that anymore in Zim. So he definitely had all the right support and talent even at that age. He then just plateaued or even dropped and didn't bother to reach any sort of height.
You're not wrong. Definitely feel our top players need to be in the same bracket. Standards are for all, not some.
My only counter would be that their averages are not horrible considering they part of a system that failed them in every single way. They went moments without pay and even were at loggerheads with ZC to the point that they would have been dropped or punished for small little things. They still performed even without any sort of infrastructure or set up network to help them.
Hammy is a product of our best ever production system. He is a product of the old ZC and had all the right coaching, infrastructure, set up etc. He made a test century on debut as a teenager. We don't see anything like that anymore in Zim. So he definitely had all the right support and talent even at that age. He then just plateaued or even dropped and didn't bother to reach any sort of height.
Masakadza averaged 30 (and it was closer to 25 against top sides). To say he should have averaged 40, gives him a 25% bump which is massive. My opinion was HM was a notch below Taylor and Williams. Might be even a notch and half lower, because even Ervine and Raza are a notch below Taylor and Williams.
Masakadza averaged 30 (and it was closer to 25 against top sides). To say he should have averaged 40, gives him a 25% bump which is massive. My opinion was HM was a notch below Taylor and Williams. Might be even a notch and half lower, because even Ervine and Raza are a notch below Taylor and Williams.
His quality, his ability, his potential...he should have averaged 40. What he was, was not what he should have been. Simple
Yea Mazakadza could have been an all time great. He had so much potential and time. He played the ball so easily through the covers. The whip through mid wicket was a trademark shot too. He's obviously respected around the world as a very good batter for Zimbabwe in the post flower era, but he could have been regarded as just as good as Andy
Yea Mazakadza could have been an all time great. He had so much potential and time. He played the ball so easily through the covers. The whip through mid wicket was a trademark shot too. He's obviously respected around the world as a very good batter for Zimbabwe in the post flower era, but he could have been regarded as just as good as Andy
Yea Mazakadza could have been an all time great. He had so much potential and time. He played the ball so easily through the covers. The whip through mid wicket was a trademark shot too. He's obviously respected around the world as a very good batter for Zimbabwe in the post flower era, but he could have been regarded as just as good as Andy
Even Kohli isn’t regarded as being as good Tendulkar (in Tests and overall). I can’t see anyone who averaged 25-30 being compared to a guy who averaged 50 in Tests.
Even Kohli isn’t regarded as being as good Tendulkar (in Tests and overall). I can’t see anyone who averaged 25-30 being compared to a guy who averaged 50 in Tests.
You're missing the point. We're not talking about what he achieved and his stats say, we're talking about what he COULD have achieved based on his potential and talent.
Even Kohli isn’t regarded as being as good Tendulkar (in Tests and overall). I can’t see anyone who averaged 25-30 being compared to a guy who averaged 50 in Tests.
You're missing the point. We're not talking about what he achieved and his stats say, we're talking about what he COULD have achieved based on his potential and talent.
But couldn’t that be said of most guys? There’s quite a difference between averaging 30 and averaging 40.
I did get one right though...in 2010 I saw Regis Chakabva and thought he'd turn out to be a very solid player for Zimbabwe...and sure enough he's just behind the Big 4, and I think almost everyone would agree to that.
I see that Hamilton has completely disappeared from your reality.
Just realised that everyone has gone on a well trodden tangent since I made this remark. All I wanted to highlight here was a response to "Regis is and sure enough just behind the Big 4" comment, completely ignoring the much better career numbers of Hamilton, who was a contemporary of all these guys.
