I had a long think about this and I realised it's the wrong question.

Initially I thought about discussing the theme of talent. What is talent? Can you train talent? I think you can. I also think that without 'natural' talent you need to work all the harder to improve. if you miss out on training when you are younger then it's all the harder to make up for it when you are older. Also we all have a genetic limit to how far we can go. you can reach that limit through hard work and the right training (the 10,000 hour rule) but you can never exceed it.

So in my case, I could point to my younger years when I started playing late (14) and didn't get the right practice or enough of it. I started coaching at age 18 and so my focus was split even then. I could say if only I knew at age 14 what I knew now I would be playing much higher level cricket. I might suggest my 'natural' talent is education, spreading ideas and coaching not playing. But that would be nothing but justification and speculation.

The real answer is: Comparing yourself to others is not the way forward.

The important part is to make improvements within yourself. For example, I am certain I am a better player than I was when I started writing this site. I am also certain there are players that are better than me. There always will be. Unless you are Bradman, there will always be a better batsman than you. Same for any other skill.

So my answer is this: I'm not going to worry about OTHERS are better than me, I'm just going to worry about how I'm going to be better than myself. Something I have done the last 3 seasons as a player and coach.

I urge everyone else to do the same.

but if someone aspires to be a pro, he must compare himself (to be in the national team)to others. Whats the way forward for him?

Same answer: Keep improving against yourself. The more you improve the higher standard you will play.

I agree with David! Players should be trying to be the best player they can be, not better than someone else! You should be trying to focus on your own "controlables" - and you certainly cannot control someone else's talent or success! You can control your diet, your training intensity, your fitness, your attitude to hard work etc.
The 10,000 Hour Rule can make you the best player you can be, BUT IT CANNOT MAKE YOU BETTER THAN THAT!
At the end of the day, if you want to be a professional cricketer, you must train as professionally as you can. Leaving as little as possible to luck. If you have the talent to get "on the dance floor", then you must PERFORM when you are presented with opportunities. Performing well at these times is all about preparation, ability and luck - AND THE HARDER YOU TRAIN, THE LUCKIER YOU GET!

So train hard, focus on continual improvement, and take the opportunities as and when they arise. And remember - dream...believe...achieve! And be happy at the end of the day that you have done everything you could to reach your goals. If you can do that - you are already a sucess!

Yeah I agree. Also have a look at this article exploring the roles of natural talent & deliberate practice in success. A must read.

I really wouldn't delve into this too much. At the end of the day, you need not have played cricket at a high level to know an insane amount about the sport and how to coach individuals. I suggest you look at the best sprinting coach in the world Stephen Francis. As for why David isn't as good, he hasn't put enough hard work and deliberate practice into the game. The same reason every single one of us isn't an international cricketer.

David I'm not sure if I agree with you on that, Warne was mainly regarded as a batsman when he as playing cricket at school level and started bowling leg spin at about 18/19 years of age. Personally I don't think it matters at what age you start something, I started bowling left arm wrist spin when I was 13 and I excel at it now. I suppose natural talent is one of the biggest factors, but also your work ethic and the amount of practice you are able to execute and the quality of that practice. I do agree that you should'nt compare yourself to others as every person has a unique style that works for them. There are some situation where you should compare yourself to others of similar ability for example if you want to know how many runs do players of your age usually get or how many wickets etc. Having said that I also believe that there is no "normal" batting average or bowling average, it all depends on your technique and what your spesific function in the team is and your ability to perform the task at hand. And as far as I'm concerned you're "sucessful" even if you got 0 runs and 24 runs of an over so long as you did your best and improved and learned something. Shane Warne is once again the perfect example, just look at his debut figures (1-150) no one would describe this as a success!! They would say it is a failure, but if he didn't fail, he would never succeed. You learn the most valuable lessons from failures, not successes.

Warne is a very unique case actually. He played a lot of back garden cricket with his brother and was (probably still is) incredibly competitive. Warne probably didn't clock as many hours in youth but has a champion's personality. In fact, his brother nearly killed him by firing a spear gun at him when he was losing in back garden cricket to him to give you an insight into how they played their cricket. Warne couldn't fathom losing to anyone; he wouldn't have any of it if someone were to best him. Ponting said Warne is the most competitive cricketer he knows. Warne also had Ellen Winner's 'rage to master', he wanted to master leg spin and be the best he could possibly be and therefore invested a ridiculous amount of practice into it. Also, you might find that when Warne was young he injured his legs (I think) and so he had to go around with his belly resting against a trolley parellel to the ground. The only way he could move was by using his hands and that is thought to have done his wrists and shoulders wonders. Warne may well be an anomaly; a very very unique one at that too.