SS "Most overrated batsmen of all time: All of them"

[Ikki]

Not sure if he turned it around per se, it's more like Australians are good players of spin and the pitches don't really help him much. Most spinners get hit around too in Australian conditions and vs. Australian players.

Australians are good players of spin but I wouldn't think they are that much better than a S.African Test side? That's why the difference is quite big. These are the domestic players, who are very good, but I would not think that good. I'll tell you one thing though, it's given me even more appreciation for his record at home.

I really don't think its a real big deal anyway as firstly, I only like looking at Test records to judge a player, and it really only comes into play when trying to compare performances to the best of the best and trying to guess how he would do vs. Australia or something. Generally, I personally ignore people's domestic records once they have had a decent run at the international level, and I think that's the way to go.

I agree with you. I just think it's incorrect for someone to go around saying something that is not true. And I like not looking like an idiot - i.e. mentioning that Warne actually did well in Australian domestic Cricket.

 

[Ikki]

Pretty well known that Warne was never a very good domestic player, that's part of the reason why he's so good (imo, anyways), because he was able to lift when it mattered, on an international level and within that level itself. It's why people like me rate him so highly, that extra level he was able to rise to, for the occassion (though not getting involved in the Warne vs fast bowler debate, I'll take them both please ).

Yeah, that trait is something about Warne that I think sets him apart. But damn, we are talking one major difference here. Night and day, man. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

 

[Richard]

Pretty well known that Warne was never a very good domestic player, that's part of the reason why he's so good (imo, anyways), because he was able to lift when it mattered, on an international level and within that level itself. It's why people like me rate him so highly, that extra level he was able to rise to, for the occassion (though not getting involved in the Warne vs fast bowler debate, I'll take them both please ).

Good at international and domestic > good at international and poor at domestic.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people sometimes try and talk up a player based on a poor domestic record.

 

[Richard]

Lohmann didn't play enough tests or against enough countries for a proper comparision.

Nah, he would've done - but Lohmann played in the 19th-century, when pitches were notably different to those of the 20th-century (and 21st-).

No point, for my money, in comparing the greats of the 19th- and 20th- centuries.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but which matches and which scenarios? You cannot figure this out through Statsguru and even reading ball-by-ball match comments won't give you the same appreciation.

If it's stats, the it'd fail to explain why so many people rate Lillee as a better match-winner than Marshall, for example.

I place little value on who considers who this or that if the term "matchwinner" is overtly involved. Matchwinners are falsely recognised on 20 occasions for when they're accurately recognised so. It's a term almost always used to try and give someone more credit than they deserve.

 

[social]

Good at international and domestic > good at international and poor at domestic.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people sometimes try and talk up a player based on a poor domestic record.

Or alternatively, it never ceases to amaze me how some people sometimes try and talk up a player based on a good domestic record

Mr Hick, come on down

 

[Richard]

Believe it or not, domestic cricket doesn't cease to exist when a player plays Test cricket. Hick's Test-match hopelessness from 1996 onwards doesn't change his phenomenal performances at domestic level. And any other poor Test batsman whose domestic record is poor or mediocre isn't fit to lace Hick's boots.

 

[Ikki]

When talking about Test cricket, you only talk about Test cricket. If you're comparing two batsmen: one averaging 51 and another 55, but the former averaging 7 more runs in the domestic cricket it doesn't make the former a better Test cricketer. In fact, even if they were equal in Tests and one was better in domestic it doesn't make one better than the other.

In short, it is largely irrelevant. This is just nonsense:

Good at international and domestic > good at international and poor at domestic.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people sometimes try and talk up a player based on a poor domestic record.

 

[Richard]

Indeed. But if one is seeking to separate two Test cricketers who are similar, domestic cricket of the same form is the logical thing to look at.

Equally, to praise someone for a poor domestic record simply baffles logic. Either praise one for a good domestic record or ignore a poor one.

 

[Ikki]

Indeed. But if one is seeking to separate two Test cricketers who are similar, domestic cricket of the same form is the logical thing to look at.

Equally, to praise someone for a poor domestic record simply baffles logic. Either praise one for a good domestic record or ignore a poor one.

Who praised a poor domestic record?

 

[Richard]

Gelman did.

Pretty well known that Warne was never a very good domestic player, that's part of the reason why he's so good (imo, anyways)

 

[Ikki]

Gelman did.

I can't speak on his behalf but I don't think he was praising Warne's domestic record as he was praising how much better his Test record is and how it's amazing he's such a success at Test level.

 

[pasag]

Indeed. But if one is seeking to separate two Test cricketers who are similar, domestic cricket of the same form is the logical thing to look at.

Equally, to praise someone for a poor domestic record simply baffles logic. Either praise one for a good domestic record or ignore a poor one.

Huh? Don't put words in my mouth, I praised his ability to step up to the plate when it mattered, an attribute you refuse to acknowledge in your square and dreary view of cricket.

 

[Jono]

Pretty well known that Warne was never a very good domestic player, that's part of the reason why he's so good (imo, anyways), because he was able to lift when it mattered, on an international level and within that level itself. It's why people like me rate him so highly, that extra level he was able to rise to, for the occassion (though not getting involved in the Warne vs fast bowler debate, I'll take them both please ).

This has nothing to do with the spin vs. fast bowler argument, which is stupid, but how do you reckon his domestic team-mates felt about that?

A person who plays well when he wants to because its an important match, or there is a big crowd etc. or someone who plays well all the time?

 

[Top_Cat]

This has nothing to do with the spin vs. fast bowler argument, which is stupid, but how do you reckon his domestic team-mates felt about that?

A person who plays well when he wants to because its an important match, or there is a big crowd etc. or someone who plays well all the time?

It's both, really; Warne was definitely able to rise to the occasion but he didn't slack off for Vic either. His lack of success was really quite early in his career when blokes like Mark Waugh took two tons off him. His captain, Dean Jones, wasn't really spin friendly, either.

 

[JBH001]

KaZoh0lic said that Warne/Murali are on the same league as someone like Malcolm Marshall...to me its not even close, and I bet I'd win a lot more games with Marshall than Warne/Murali.

They are certainly comparable, imo. I dont know if Kaz is saying that they are better, or that they are in a similar vicinity (as happens when you compare the top echelon of cricketers) which seems more likely, but to say that they are not even close is going too far, I think. I would easily and unhesitatingly place Warne and Murali in the top bowlers of all top, with maybe only Barnes, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, and Lillee ahead of them.

 

[JBH001]

But in a test match, once the ball is 20-25 overs old, I can safely say that 4 spinners of Warne/Murali caliber are as good as 4 bowles like Marshall/Lillee if not better.

Think I may have to agree with this. Suggested as much in the other thread you put up.

 

[JBH001]

And as Silfer said, Warne struggled against countries, so does Murali. Warne himself is averaging close to 35 in the Aussie domestic scene, while Murali's struggles vs. Australia are well known. They both also struggled against India.

But thats because the Australian batsmen (FC and test) are extremely under-rated players of spin. Both Murali and Warne have similar methods of attack when it comes to bowling, and Australia (and India) have handled them best because they refuse to let themselves be dictated to and dont let Warne and Mural have their own way (its really the only way to play them, if you have the skill level to). I would also hazard that the aura of Warne was less so in Australia (familiarity breeds contempt after all) and this would mean that Warne was less able to impose himself on the opposition (as Murali also found).

Australian pitch conditions may also have hindered Warne although I think this argument (as mentioned by Kaz many times) overstated. As I have said before, Australia has produced arguably the three greatest leg spinners of all time along with a number of good 'lesser' spinners. Therefore the argument that Australia is not conducive to spin argument is, I think, flawed, or at least suspect. Hence I dont think that Warne has (comparatively) had the mountain to climb that Indian quicks or quicks in India, for example, have traditionally had. Nevertheless, the fact that he has had few surfaces that directly assist him (like perhaps and most famously the SCG) as a spin bowler is certainly something to keep in mind.

Marshall (and the other top five or so), comparatively, have almost no weaknesses.

If you take:

Marshall vs. W/M (Warne or Murali) at their best (or vs. sides they do their best)
Marshall vs. W/M at average (or vs. sides they do their average)
Marshall vs. W/M at lowest (or vs. sides they do badly)

Marshall comes out ahead in all three categories - both statistically and when you watch the games (though obviously latter is an opinion).

Fair points. Although I note Marshall had plenty of support, but then Hadlee did not and his record versus all comers is also (iirc) impressive. However, I must add that the ability to bowl at unsettled batsmen is worth a huge advantage when being compared to spinners as it means that a good quick is 'ahead' of a spinner with similar skills. But this later point may be a tautology as after all, that is among the main attributes of a fast bowler - that he has the new ball and is able to bowl at two new batsmen. So to say that this unfairly favours a fast bowler is a little silly.

Good thread, by the way.

 

[Ikki]

They are certainly comparable, imo. I dont know if Kaz is saying that they are better, or that they are in a similar vicinity (as happens when you compare the top echelon of cricketers) which seems more likely, but to say that they are not even close is going too far, I think. I would easily and unhesitatingly place Warne and Murali in the top bowlers of all top, with maybe only Barnes, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, and Lillee ahead of them.

My friend, if you've read the other thread (Pace attack vs. Spin attack) I mentioned that I think they are very close. Warne/Murali are in the Marshall/McGrath class. Whether they are better or not is as generic of a question as asking whether McGrath or Ambrose is better. But to say one is not even close for me is going too far.

 

[Jono]

It's both, really; Warne was definitely able to rise to the occasion but he didn't slack off for Vic either. His lack of success was really quite early in his career when blokes like Mark Waugh took two tons off him. His captain, Dean Jones, wasn't really spin friendly, either.

That's not what I'm asking though TC.

Pasag specifically said that the fact that Warne would lift in important matches is why he's rated so highly. Let's ignore the fact its Warne, and go the hypothetical AFL player.

I'd rather a Nathan Buckley who would do it for his team every match, rather than a Brendan Fevola, who when motivated, will absolutely dominate, but at other times is absolutely cold.

Consistency > rising to the occasion when it 'really' matters. I don't think you can argue that.

What is obviously better, is someone who can do both, but my main point is Warne rising to the occasion may make him great, but the fact, if true, that he didn't perform at domestic level is hardly a reason for his greatness. That's what I heavily disagree with in Pasag's statement.