• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Cricket's most over rated players

HeathDavisSpeed

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Clapo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lee is not overrated. He's quick... Not as quick as HDS, but maybe he can have BLS instead

Fast Medium < Fast < BLS <<<<< HDS

<<<<<<<<<<<WHOOOOOOOOOOSSHHHHHHH<<<<<<<<<<<<
 
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Clapo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, Lee is one of the best ODI bowlers around.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
HeathDavisSpeed said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think they were. As I say, not good enough to come in and be the best in The World, but good enough to hold their own, unlike Bangladesh.

As for SA, yes, they too didn't deserve Test status in the 1880s and 1890s, but that's the 19th-century, and even Aus-vs-Eng in the 19th-century I tend to count as completely separate to 20th-century-and-beyond.
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
Click to expand...
I hate that, TBH. Overall career averages rarely tell you much about a player, especially if the career is lengthy.

You need some more in-depth breakdowns.
 
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Stats are vital when trying to prove a point IMO. Obviously you can't form a proper argument based purely on numbers, but they can be of great help.
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Perm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Other's will look at it and go "Who the #$% is Michael Vandort!?" :happy:

Edit: He played 8 tests Richard...whoops, I mean Perm :blink:

I would hope more people would ask questions like "Why did he get dropped after 8 tests when averaging 53!?"

I don't think 8 tests in enough to base any statistical opinion on personally. This is what I'm talking about when I say I think it mostly evens itself out over time. If you are good enough to have a lengthy test career then you will inevitably play the good teams a number of times as well. Looking at the statistic as a pure number doesn't take everything else into account, it's why aimlessly quoting stats is meaningless. A bloke who averages 53 in 8 tests, but maybe played 5 against Bangladesh, is an anomaly at that stage in his career.
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Haha, were you? Whoops...

Don't think I ever suspected you, though, you have far more wit and intelligence than that dimwit ever has.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Perm said:
Totally agree, Lee is one of the best ODI bowlers around.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I think people tend to underrate him because Ponting for some stupid reason uses him at the death where he gets hammered.

A few I feel are under rated

Roger Twose
Chris Harris
Heath Streak
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Twose certainly, massively so. Magnificent ODI player for quite a while, but virtually never mentioned even in NZ circles.

Bit like Knight, really.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Haha, yeah, remember that now.

Matt will be ashamed of himself, I'm sure. I apologise on his behalf - the two of us (along with a good 10 or 15 others) hate the guy so much we sometimes pick on innocent bystanders in our crusade to oust him.
 
HeathDavisSpeed

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Richard said:
Haha, yeah, remember that now.

Matt will be ashamed of himself, I'm sure. I apologise on his behalf - the two of us (along with a good 10 or 15 others) hate the guy so much we sometimes pick on innocent bystanders in our crusade to oust him.
Click to expand...
Haha. Doesn't bother me at all. Not much does really, and if that was the worst thing I'd ever been called in my life then I'd have a much higher opinion of the general public. Believe me, you get called a lot worse on the cricket field. Sadly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top