Cricket's most over rated players

[Perm]

Nor can you speak for 'people'.

Quite a few 'people' do that and it seems to be a standard practice on these forums. I can understand if you don't want to, but it just weakens your argument IMO.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've decided it for myself, you can make your own mind up, but you said what you said, and as I say - I thought that was the best part of your attitude to the matter.

There's too many said, said's and say's in that sentence.

I'm using a wealth of previous information gathered to decide for myself it doesn't really matter.

 

[Richard]

Nor can you speak for 'people'.

He can, though. It's all too common to see articles which involve some statistical analysis and deduct Bangladesh games. Never before in Test history have we had a side that so badly skewed career averages off their axis.

Many people do it, and those who still attempt to maintain that Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka is indeed as worthy of Test status as New Zealand vs West Indies are now in a (in my experience fairly small) minority.

 

[Richard]

There's too many said, said's and say's in that sentence.

I'm using a wealth of previous information gathered to decide for myself it doesn't really matter.

So why do you continue to argue that Bangladesh games should be included in Test stats?

 

[Son Of Coco]

So why do you continue to argue that Bangladesh games should be included in Test stats?

Because, as I said...it doesn't really matter! The difference it makes is miniscule.

 

[Richard]

Because, as I said...it doesn't really matter!

But it does, though, that's the thing. There was a time when Mohammad Yousuf's Test average was raised 6 whole runs by the erroneous inclusion of Bangladesh in them. That's huge. It does, very much, matter in some cases.

 

[Perm]

Because, as I said...it doesn't really matter! The difference it makes is miniscule.

No, it's not. Statistics against Bangladesh can really skew a batsman or bowlers stats, take a look at Jacobus Rudoph, Daniel Vettori, Michael Vandort.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Quite a few 'people' do that and it seems to be a standard practice on these forums. I can understand if you don't want to, but it just weakens your argument IMO.

Not at all, what weakens your argument is including these 'people' in your opinion...but anyway. It looks like I'm up against the board!

 

[Richard]

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Where does selectivity on stats end though. I will freely admit that NZ were whipping boys in the early days of NZ's international cricket era. Does that mean that runs scored against NZ in the early days should be stricken from the record? Should the first decade of 'test' cricket for each country not be included in the 'test' record?

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, it's not. Statistics against Bangladesh can really skew a batsman or bowlers stats, take a look at Jacobus Rudoph, Daniel Vettori, Michael Vandort.

And you've compared them against the differences made to every other player and then worked out whether due to the number of games played they'd actually be considered to be statistically significant have you?

It takes more than sitting down and looking at a few strange stats to decide whether it's important or not. I certainly haven't done this, and I doubt you have either. Just looking at the players where it's made seemingly a big difference is not using stats correctly.

 

[Perm]

Not at all, what weakens your argument is including these 'people' in your opinion...but anyway. It looks like I'm up against the board!

How does it weaken my argument? It's standard practice across both these forums and cricinfo articles to look at the statistics once you have removed Bangladesh.

 

[Johnners]

Now, setting aside the obvious irony of a man lauded by the Australian media as cricket's next great all rounder despite failing to score a hundred or take a 5 wicket bag in either form of the game after more than 5 years in the Australian team, being asked to name the most overrated players in international cricket, do you agree with him? Who else have been the overhyped underachievers of the modern game?

The fact that he's been involved with the Australian team for 5 years and not yet taken a 5-fer of Century is irrelevant tbh. He's had 3 chances in the test team, and with bowling being the weaker facet of his game, it'd be unreasonable to expect him to have taken a 5-fer when the Aust attack has contained players of the calibre of Warne & McGrath. And how many specialist batsmen, let alone allrounders, score a century in their first 3 tests?

As for the ODI's, fair enough he's blown 2 chances for a century whilst opening, but apart from that he'd be hard pressed to score centuries batting at 6 or lower.

 

[Richard]

Where does selectivity on stats end though. I will freely admit that NZ were whipping boys in the early days of NZ's international cricket era. Does that mean that runs scored against NZ in the early days should be stricken from the record? Should the first decade of 'test' cricket for each country not be included in the 'test' record?

Nah, no way. NZ were abysmal in the 1930s and 1950s, but just about everyone else has been deserving of the status when given it. I do, happily, exclude NZ from records in said decades, but the need to do that only occurs when you think about it as, unlike Bangladesh, they didn't play so often as to be an obvious blight on the integrity of the game at the top level.

But Ind, WI, Pak, SL and Zim all had plenty of top-quality players at the outset of their Test-playing days, and fully deserved the promotion, and were not outclassed (were bottom of the pile, yes, but that's hardly a surprise) when given it.

 

[Perm]

And you've compared them against the differences made to every other player and then worked out whether due to the number of games played they'd actually be considered to be statistically significant have you?

It takes more than sitting down and looking at a few strange stats to decide whether it's important or not. I certainly haven't done this, and I doubt you have either. Just looking at the players where it's made seemingly a big difference is not using stats correctly.

No, I haven't done that. But a lot of people will look at Michael Vandort's record and think "****, he's a pretty good player to be averaging 50 in Test cricket", without actually realising that almost all of those runs were made against a weak Bangladesh side and do make a huge difference to his Test record.

 

[Richard]

And you've compared them against the differences made to every other player and then worked out whether due to the number of games played they'd actually be considered to be statistically significant have you?

It takes more than sitting down and looking at a few strange stats to decide whether it's important or not. I certainly haven't done this, and I doubt you have either. Just looking at the players where it's made seemingly a big difference is not using stats correctly.

Whether or not it makes a big difference is not really the issue in question. It's very simple, in fact:

Bangladesh are not good enough to be playing Test cricket. Most games, they get annhailated. Therefore, a game against them should not be a Test-match.

That really is all there is to it. Therefore, whether player performance be good or poor, strong or weak, I do not include Bangladesh games when I consider Test cricket.

 

[Son Of Coco]

How does it weaken my argument? It's standard practice across both these forums and cricinfo articles to look at the statistics once you have removed Bangladesh.

I don't think I originally referred to you...I was referring to 'your' as a collection of people, not specifically you.

I'm not really concerned with what's standard practice whereever it might be, to be honest.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Whether or not it makes a big difference is not really the issue in question. It's very simple, in fact:

Bangladesh are not good enough to be playing Test cricket. Most games, they get annhailated. Therefore, a game against them should not be a Test-match.

That really is all there is to it. Therefore, whether player performance be good or poor, strong or weak, I do not include Bangladesh games when I consider Test cricket.

That's fine Richard, you can do that, as that's your opinion.

I forgot I came back into a boys club here.

*Attempting to conform*

 

[Johnners]

I feel that some may be confusing people getting excited about the potential in players with the actual 'rating' of them. Also Tests and ODIs should be specified ie with Lee, he may be overrated in Tests but I reckon he is quite underrated, by some at least, in ODIs. And this topic has been done a thousand times tbh.

Wholeheartedly agree, annoys the heck out of me when people fail to recognise Lee's fantastic ODI record, and then try to justify overrating him because of his "poor economy rate" despite the fact that it's quite good by todays standards.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Nah, no way. NZ were abysmal in the 1930s and 1950s, but just about everyone else has been deserving of the status when given it. I do, happily, exclude NZ from records in said decades, but the need to do that only occurs when you think about it as, unlike Bangladesh, they didn't play so often as to be an obvious blight on the integrity of the game at the top level.

But Ind, WI, Pak, SL and Zim all had plenty of top-quality players at the outset of their Test-playing days, and fully deserved the promotion, and were not outclassed (were bottom of the pile, yes, but that's hardly a surprise) when given it.

SAF weren't too great at the start of their test history and whilst India and West Indies had a few decent players, they weren't up to the same standard that we'd expect.

Frankly, if there's a need for stats, unless I'm desperate to prove someone else wrong, I'll use the 'test average' regardless.... No ****ing about trying to go through filters and things like that then.... Much easier