Most over rated players

[Richard]

see...exactly what i expected from you...are you sure he had even one bad series? of course no one can average 50+ in all the series he plays in but 30s and late 20s are really poor averages for a top order batsman and this guy has pretty low averages strewn all over the place, at the beginning, at the end, in the middle, every where you look....your excuses notwithstanding...and as for "unimportant" series, i'd included every series he played in there, you are making some really biased judgement calls as to what is important and what is unimportant, fine...while we are at it, let's just weed out all the series in which he failed and he will probably average in the 70s or 80s....

That's just not fair and you know it. No-one is ever going to succeed if they're half-fit. It's completely pointless chastising Atherton for failing in Zimbabwe and in Australia in 1998\99. Those series mean nothing. That's totally different to weeding-out all series where he averaged less than such-and-such - it's acting after the event, whereas weeding-out series where he was injured is doing it before - the lack of fitness happened before the games were played, the scores were put into the book afterwards.

A series where you average 29, say, is not terribly bad if you've got 3 or 4 surrounding it where you're averaging 40 or 50. It's only once you play a full series and average in the low 20s where you've really done badly. No-one is ever going to average 40+ in every series, I'll say it again. To say someone hasn't achieved the consistency because they failed to do that is to miss the point. Virtually no batsmen in the 1990s ever managed such a thing. Atherton, when fully fit, between June 1990 and December 2000, was as consistent, IMO, as you could ask anyone bar someone from the very, very top drawer (Tendulkar, Lara, Stephen Waugh, Dravid, etc.) to be.

An average in the late 30s after 90 odd tests doesn't make anyone a world class player...sometimes there are players who are wasted talents, in Nasser's case, he actually overachieved for his average of 37.18....

As I say - an overall career average, especially for someone who's played as many as 90 Tests, is no way to judge a player. It's far, far too simplistic and doesn't take account of any number of things that need to be taken account of.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

Dude, pull the other one.
Sehwag is an over-rated flat track bully who merely took some time to be found out.
If you look at his 11 hundreds as an opener, only one of them (iirc) has been made against what can be called a great fast bowler, or a great attack (and even that was in India). The rest has been making hay whilst the sun shines on mediocre bowlers on mediocre tracks - nice work if you can get it.

Nope. Not really.

His hundreds in SA,Eng,Pak,Aus all came against good attacks. They definitely were not mediocre. Or do you mean Aus,Eng,SA have flat tracks?

They are not just hundreds, they are very big hundreds indeed.

 

[shortpitched713]

Paul Nixon.

 

[Fiery]

Paul Nixon.

Don't agree. He's way too fond of the reverse sweep for my liking but he played well in the WC

 

[shortpitched713]

Don't agree. He's way too fond of the reverse sweep for my liking but he played well in the WC

Can't see anything that he genuinely does well. His batting is very hit or miss as evidenced by his average and strike rate. His keeping is better, but it really isn't that hard to be an improvement on Geraint Jones. Solid behind the stumps without doing anything special.

I feel there are better prospects in England now, with guys like Pothas and Foster, for overcooked seniors like Nixon to be getting any more chances.

 

[Fiery]

Can't see anything that he genuinely does well. His batting is very hit or miss as evidenced by his average and strike rate. His keeping is better, but it really isn't that hard to be an improvement on Geraint Jones. Solid behind the stumps without doing anything special.

I feel there are better prospects in England now, with guys like Pothas and Foster, for overcooked seniors like Nixon to be getting any more chances.

Probably but at least he brought a bit of "mongrel" to the England team and showed more ticker than most

 

[shortpitched713]

Probably but at least he brought a bit of "mongrel" to the England team and showed more ticker than most

Agree with that, but in the end you can't get by on that alone at this level.

 

[Fiery]

Agree with that, but in the end you can't get by on that alone at this level.

Andre Nel does

 

[Smudge]

The guy played like he was born with a cricket bat in one hand and a ball in the other

I hope he wasn't - labour would have been hell for his mother.

 

[Anil]

That's just not fair and you know it. No-one is ever going to succeed if they're half-fit. It's completely pointless chastising Atherton for failing in Zimbabwe and in Australia in 1998\99. Those series mean nothing. That's totally different to weeding-out all series where he averaged less than such-and-such - it's acting after the event, whereas weeding-out series where he was injured is doing it before - the lack of fitness happened before the games were played, the scores were put into the book afterwards.

A series where you average 29, say, is not terribly bad if you've got 3 or 4 surrounding it where you're averaging 40 or 50. It's only once you play a full series and average in the low 20s where you've really done badly. No-one is ever going to average 40+ in every series, I'll say it again. To say someone hasn't achieved the consistency because they failed to do that is to miss the point. Virtually no batsmen in the 1990s ever managed such a thing. Atherton, when fully fit, between June 1990 and December 2000, was as consistent, IMO, as you could ask anyone bar someone from the very, very top drawer (Tendulkar, Lara, Stephen Waugh, Dravid, etc.) to be.

now you really have to make up your mind on the fitness point...you bring it up in the beginning, i addressed that a couple of posts back and then you turned around and said it hardly registered as a factor in his career, now that i bring up some unfavourable stats, you once again make a hue and cry about his lack of fitness...

also if someone averages 20 or 30 in one series and 50 in the series preceding and succeeding it, they've still failed in that series...another thing, the guy has had a few continuous failures as well, not just one or two here and there in between successful runs, otherwise obviously he wouldn't have ended up averaging in the late 30s...yet another thing, i never said he didn't have any successful series against good teams, i just said he wasn't consistent enough and that is clear from his career track record....

one more thing, i don't understand why you keep bringing tendulkar, lara, waugh et al into the discussion, at no point was i comparing him to all-time greats, now that would be totally ridiculous....

As I say - an overall career average, especially for someone who's played as many as 90 Tests, is no way to judge a player. It's far, far too simplistic and doesn't take account of any number of things that need to be taken account of.

i saw the way you split up his career into 3 parts in another thread , the highest point of his batting career was a stretch where he averaged in the early 40s or something right? truly magnificent!

 

[SJS]

1. Dhoni
2. Shane Watson
3. Harmison
4. Dilhara Fernando
5. Dwayne Smith
6. Langeveldt
7. Harbhajan
   

 

[JBH001]

Nope. Not really.

His hundreds in SA,Eng,Pak,Aus all came against good attacks. They definitely were not mediocre. Or do you mean Aus,Eng,SA have flat tracks?

They are not just hundreds, they are very big hundreds indeed.

No, I meant mediocre (or at best competent) attacks - though, now that you raise it, flat tracks do play a role in some those knocks as well, often in combination with cannon fodder bowling. In fact only one (perhaps two) of those 11 hundreds as an opener came against a quality fast bowling attack, and that was at home (actually both were).

I had a brief look at his hundreds, to reacquaint myself with something I have not looked at in a while, and here is a brief rundown of his hundreds as an opener:

106 vs Eng in Eng against Hoggard/Harmison/Flintoff/Cork (2002)
-Note that Hoggard was perhaps the best of this lot at that time (actually still is), but had not yet matured into the bowler he would become, Harmison had just started, Flintoff (at that time) was just awful, and Cork was near the end of his career. Overall, I would rate this a mediocre attack - not what the England attack would become for a brief while.

147 vs WI in India against Dillon/Collins/Cuffy.
-I think nothing more needs to be said. I would rate this a poor attack.

130 vs NZ in India against Tuffey/Butler
-Again, rubbish, and another poor attack.

195 vs Aus in Aus vs Lee, Bracken, Williams (2003/2004).
- Lee, especially at this time, was merely competent (and in any case, he has never imo been a top flight test class fast bowler), Bracken was starting out and was rubbish because, iirc, he could not bend the ball back at that time, and I do not even remember Williams, whoever he was. Overall, a mediocre attack.

309 vs Pak in Pak against Akhtar, Sami, Ahmed.
- I dont rate Akhtar (too much of a "5 overs and I'm done for the day" bowler) but he had been bowling well, sporadically (not surprisingly), upto that series. However, he had a poor time in that series, which was tbf high scoring, and iirc, he tried hard in that series (or was that next series versus India in Pakistand?). Sami is just crap, and Ahmed was blighted by problems with his action, and iirc, this was the only test of that series Ahmed played in before being ejected. Overall, a mediocre attack.

155 vs Aus in India against McGrath, Gillespie, Kasper.
- A great knock against one of the best attacks of recent times. However, at home.

165 vs SA in India against Pollock and Ntini
- A good attack I think, especially as Pollock had been in good form, and Ntini reasonable form coming into this series. Neither of them though had good series in India. However, I do not want to split hairs, so yes, a good attack, but again, at home.

173 vs Pak in India against Sami and Hasan.
- Rubbish. A poor attack.

201 vs Pak in India against Sami and Razzaq.
- See above.

259 vs Pak in Pak against Akhtar and Hasan
- This time a mediocre attack, but in a series which involved iirc really flat tracks.

180 vs WI in WI against Collins and Taylor.
- Another Sehwag special against a poor attack.

As I said, I see Sehwag as a flat track bully, or a poor attack bully. In my opinion (it may be that I am biased as I am a bit of a classicist when it comes to opening bats) he does not have the technique to be a quality opening batsman.

The fact that he did so well for a considerable period of time was that it took a while for him to be found out, as well as the fact that the current era serves up a proportionately high number of tracks which provide little seam or swing movement, and a dearth of quick bowlers able to make the ball seam and swing. When either (or both) of these latter points are brought into play, Sehwag is found out as an inadequate opening batsman.

 

[thierry henry]

Please name the "crappy" bowlers on this list

and also note that his isn't the worst average

LOL

Thanks Fiery, you've actually proved my point for me beautifully

The two crappy bowlers on that list are the two with, by a margin, the worst averages

Sobers

and

Vettori

I don't even know if I need to post in your Vettori thread now, you've made 2 points for me in one

 

[ramkumar_gr]

No, I meant mediocre (or at best competent) attacks - though, now that you raise it, flat tracks do play a role in some those knocks as well, often in combination with cannon fodder bowling. In fact only one (perhaps two) of those 11 hundreds as an opener came against a quality fast bowling attack, and that was at home (actually both were).

I had a brief look at his hundreds, to reacquaint myself with something I have not looked at in a while, and here is a brief rundown of his hundreds as an opener:

106 vs Eng in Eng against Hoggard/Harmison/Flintoff/Cork (2002)
-Note that Hoggard was perhaps the best of this lot at that time (actually still is), but had not yet matured into the bowler he would become, Harmison had just started, Flintoff (at that time) was just awful, and Cork was near the end of his career. Overall, I would rate this a mediocre attack - not what the England attack would become for a brief while.

147 vs WI in India against Dillon/Collins/Cuffy.
-I think nothing more needs to be said. I would rate this a poor attack.

130 vs NZ in India against Tuffey/Butler
-Again, rubbish, and another poor attack.

195 vs Aus in Aus vs Lee, Bracken, Williams (2003/2004).
- Lee, especially at this time, was merely competent (and in any case, he has never imo been a top flight test class fast bowler), Bracken was starting out and was rubbish because, iirc, he could not bend the ball back at that time, and I do not even remember Williams, whoever he was. Overall, a mediocre attack.

309 vs Pak in Pak against Akhtar, Sami, Ahmed.
- I dont rate Akhtar (too much of a "5 overs and I'm done for the day" bowler) but he had been bowling well, sporadically (not surprisingly), upto that series. However, he had a poor time in that series, which was tbf high scoring, and iirc, he tried hard in that series (or was that next series versus India in Pakistand?). Sami is just crap, and Ahmed was blighted by problems with his action, and iirc, this was the only test of that series Ahmed played in before being ejected. Overall, a mediocre attack.

155 vs Aus in India against McGrath, Gillespie, Kasper.
- A great knock against one of the best attacks of recent times. However, at home.

165 vs SA in India against Pollock and Ntini
- A good attack I think, especially as Pollock had been in good form, and Ntini reasonable form coming into this series. Neither of them though had good series in India. However, I do not want to split hairs, so yes, a good attack, but again, at home.

173 vs Pak in India against Sami and Hasan.
- Rubbish. A poor attack.

201 vs Pak in India against Sami and Razzaq.
- See above.

259 vs Pak in Pak against Akhtar and Hasan
- This time a mediocre attack, but in a series which involved iirc really flat tracks.

180 vs WI in WI against Collins and Taylor.
- Another Sehwag special against a poor attack.

As I said, I see Sehwag as a flat track bully, or a poor attack bully. In my opinion (it may be that I am biased as I am a bit of a classicist when it comes to opening bats) he does not have the technique to be a quality opening batsman.

The fact that he did so well for a considerable period of time was that it took a while for him to be found out, as well as the fact that the current era serves up a proportionately high number of tracks which provide little seam or swing movement, and a dearth of quick bowlers able to make the ball seam and swing. When either (or both) of these latter points are brought into play, Sehwag is found out as an inadequate opening batsman.

The list misses out Sehwag's knock of 105 on debut against Pollock, Hayward,Ntini and co at Bloemfontein in 2001/2002.

If I were to follow the set theory, the union of all the bowlers would have formed the nucleus of the bowling of all teams over the last decade. Does that mean, whoever scored hundreds during this period should be rated lowly?

I never subscribe to this theory of flat track bully thing. International cricket is international cricket wherever you play , however should be redefined as International cricket without zim and ban at test level. You can't just belittle a player's achievement over a period of time just by this single phrase, i believe.

And I believe he is the most successful batsman outside the subcontinent for quiet sometime now for India , perhaps just behind Dravid. He is one of the rare Indian batsmen who posess more shots on the back foot. Coming to his technique,who cares whether he hits the ball in the air or not? Arvind De Silva hit the ball in the air so often but still did that elegantly. There are so many others around anyway to satisfy the purists.

I am sure he would come out with flying colors when he tours England this year and Australia for the test series. But still, this mediocre attack thing will come back to haunt me for sure....

 

[tooextracool]

How many quick, bouncy turners did he honestly play on? They're not especially common, particularly in England.

Most of the times he failed against spinners was on slow, low turning pitches.

Stewart failed against any bowler on slow turning wickets. He failed on slow wickets period. It wasnt his technique against spin, which wasnt the worst- he used his feet well and got to the pitch of the ball, it was the fact that he liked pace on the ball. Any random bowler that could take the pace of the ball on a slow wicket caused him problems, even the likes of Prabhakar on the 92-93 tour, who went as far as begging the umpire for another over before tea in 3rd test of the series, going on to dismiss him in that over.
AFAIC Stewart has scored enough runs against the likes of Warne and Murali both of whom could turn the ball on glass to prove that hes not poor against spin. He was poor against them on a slow, turning wicket. The closest thing that he had to a weakness against spin was not being able to pick Shane Warne's flipper which is hardly a crime, and not being able to pick a bowler doesnt make you the worst player of spin.

 

[Pup Clarke]

1. Dhoni
2. Shane Watson
3. Harmison
4. Dilhara Fernando
5. Dwayne Smith
6. Langeveldt
7. Harbhajan
   

I think you'd struggle to find people who rate Fernando or Dwayne Smith TBH.

 

[Fiery]

LOL

Thanks Fiery, you've actually proved my point for me beautifully

The two crappy bowlers on that list are the two with, by a margin, the worst averages

Sobers

and

Vettori

I don't even know if I need to post in your Vettori thread now, you've made 2 points for me in one

Of the 51 bowlers in THAT LIST there are only 13 spinners - plus Sobers who bowled in both categories.

The names make a very impressive reading. Here thay are in the order of bowling averages.

Muralitharan, M*
Grimmett, C V
Warne, S K
Underwood, D L
Benaud, R
Kumble, A *
Bedi, B S
Gibbs, L R
Chandrasekhar, B S
Saqlain Mushtaq*
Harbhajan Singh*
Abdul Qadir
Vettori, D L*

To be last in that list is no disgrace for Vettori. To be included in it is an honour for him.

I'll use SJS's post to argue this for both players

 

[Richard]

Stewart failed against any bowler on slow turning wickets. He failed on slow wickets period. It wasnt his technique against spin, which wasnt the worst- he used his feet well and got to the pitch of the ball, it was the fact that he liked pace on the ball. Any random bowler that could take the pace of the ball on a slow wicket caused him problems, even the likes of Prabhakar on the 92-93 tour, who went as far as begging the umpire for another over before tea in 3rd test of the series, going on to dismiss him in that over.
AFAIC Stewart has scored enough runs against the likes of Warne and Murali both of whom could turn the ball on glass to prove that hes not poor against spin. He was poor against them on a slow, turning wicket. The closest thing that he had to a weakness against spin was not being able to pick Shane Warne's flipper which is hardly a crime, and not being able to pick a bowler doesnt make you the worst player of spin.

Stewart did not fail against all bowlers on slow pitches. Yes, he was better with as much pace on the ball as possible, but that doesn't mean he couldn't play slower ones.

Stewart did indeed score some runs against Warne and Muralitharan - but he also failed against them and others who turned the ball, and not just because he couldn't (like most) pick the variations.

However, I've not undertaken any special analysis of the pace of the pitches involved.

 

[Richard]

now you really have to make up your mind on the fitness point...you bring it up in the beginning, i addressed that a couple of posts back and then you turned around and said it hardly registered as a factor in his career, now that i bring up some unfavourable stats, you once again make a hue and cry about his lack of fitness...

No, I don't - I said what I said very carefully - the occasions where he was not fit (which DID exist) deserve to be removed from the equation when assessing his career, because they were in a very small minority, but they did make quite a difference to his average, and they did give the false impression of inadaquecy.

also if someone averages 20 or 30 in one series and 50 in the series preceding and succeeding it, they've still failed in that series...another thing, the guy has had a few continuous failures as well, not just one or two here and there in between successful runs, otherwise obviously he wouldn't have ended up averaging in the late 30s...yet another thing, i never said he didn't have any successful series against good teams, i just said he wasn't consistent enough and that is clear from his career track record....

one more thing, i don't understand why you keep bringing tendulkar, lara, waugh et al into the discussion, at no point was i comparing him to all-time greats, now that would be totally ridiculous....

If someone averages 20 in a series, they've failed. If someone averages 30 (or so), they haven't. They've not done outstandingly well, but they haven't failed as such. Therefore I don't consider his series where he averaged 31, 29, 35, 32, 33, 28, 35 as failures as such, just times where he didn't set The World alight.

I bring up Tendulkar etc up to illustrate the point that those who it's fair to compare him to will always have series where they average 28-35 sort of thing, and that to have series like that is not failure, only once you average in the low 20s (or less) have you failed, and only then is it a blip on your radar.

i saw the way you split up his career into 3 parts in another thread , the highest point of his batting career was a stretch where he averaged in the early 40s or something right? truly magnificent!

There were 2 extended periods where he averaged in the 40s - which is good - and one shortish one where he averaged in the low teens.

In other words, he was a fine player for most of his career.

 

[shortpitched713]

1. Dilhara Fernando
2. Dwayne Smith
   

Who exactly rates either of these two?

Edit: pup beat me to it.