Cricketweb's 5 most unfairly treated players

[Pothas]

Who really overrates England players though?

I think most England fans on this forum are very aware that we are a fairly mediocre team with few very top class cricketers. The only players I can think of that may be overated by England fans are Flintoff (for obvious and understandable reasons) and perhaps Anderson.

 

[GIMH]

I think Flintoff is unfairly treated on this forum, sure there may be some who think he's the messiah (*raises hand*) but a lot of people just say, averages 31 and 32, crap, just hype.

 

[morgieb]

People who just happened to be good after September 16, 2001 at 3:41pm.

. So, so true.

 

[Ikki]

People who just happened to be good after September 16, 2001 at 3:41pm.

 

[Uppercut]

Stuart Broad and Nathan Hauritz copped some serious flak for some very decent performances during the Ashes.

Mike Hussey in one-dayers is another one.

 

[morgieb]

Broad & Hauritz have been rank for most of their careers and it won't take a couple of good tests to change that. Need to perform consistently.

 

[zaremba]

I was very sneery towards the selection of Onions when he first played for England, and was very rude about Hauritz before the 1st Test. Like most people, I'm a fickle bastard and very often wrong.

In terms of CW's treatment of England players, a few whipping boys have been identified, unfairly imo. Prior, Bell and Broad in particular. They haven't always performed that well but they don't deserve the "byword for crapness" status that they have often been given.

Saj Mahmood is, I suppose, another, but I can't say that the slagging has been unfair because I'm one of those who's had the misfortune to see him bowl

 

[Uppercut]

Poor treatment on CW is often a backlash against overly favourable treatment elsewhere. Bell isn't the worst batsman in the world, but neither is Jonathan Trott, and the fact that Bell was continually recalled despite being so mediocre whilst Trott was left standing in Birmingham with his dick in his hand for years really grates people. Sometimes the backlash goes too far for sure, but there's generally a good reason for it in the first place.

That said, I picked up on Nathan Hauritz and Stuart Broad because I think they were especially hard done by. Hauritz, because he came out in the Ashes and performed perfectly well, proving a lot of people wrong and a lot of people on CW just bull****ted about how he was lucky and they were really right all along.

Broad, because he steamed in all day long in blinding heat in the West Indies when the chips were down. Meanwhile those who people called for to replace him- Harmison and Sidebottom- bowled pure crap and looked like they didn't want to be there. It really didn't sit right with me.

 

[marc71178]

Poor treatment on CW is often a backlash against overly favourable treatment elsewhere. Bell isn't the worst batsman in the world, but neither is Jonathan Trott, and the fact that Bell was continually recalled despite being so mediocre whilst Trott was left standing in Birmingham with his dick in his hand for years really grates people.

To be fair with that scenario though, I doubt many, if any, people would've had Trott in the Test team prior to this summer.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Stuart Broad and Nathan Hauritz copped some serious flak for some very decent performances during the Ashes.

Broad wasn't largely critcised after he actually performed well. He was rightly rubbished over the first 3.5 tests because he was exactly that.

 

[Uppercut]

To be fair with that scenario though, I doubt many, if any, people would've had Trott in the Test team prior to this summer.

Yeah, fair.

It's just indicative of unfair treatment on the part of the selectors though. There's a lot of promising batsmen around desperate for a chance at the highest level, and you never know how someone will perform unless you throw them a chance. But players like Bell (and Harmison) just keep on getting recalls when they haven't performed at all at the highest level and no one remotely expects them to. Frustrating tstl.

 

[grecian]

Would have to agree with Prior in tests but he can go **** off in ODI's please.
Trescothick is harshly treated by many IMHO
Paul Harris
Nathan Hauritz actually most finger-spinners

and controversially Steve Harmison Don't get me wrong I'd be happy if he'd never played for England again, but at best he was a very potent fast bowler who could get out decent players on very flat pitches. The way we sometimes talk about him around here, you'd think he was Derek Pringle reincarnated.

 

[Uppercut]

Would have to agree with Prior in tests but he can go **** off in ODI's please.
Trescothick is harshly treated by many IMHO
Paul Harris
Nathan Hauritz actually most finger-spinners

and controversially Steve Harmison Don't get me wrong I'd be happy if he'd never played for England again, but at best he was a very potent fast bowler who could get out decent players on very flat pitches. The way we sometimes talk about him around here, you'd think he was Derek Pringle reincarnated.

The Harmison of old is only harshly treated by Richard really. I don't think there's anyone else who agrees with him, but we don't generally say anything good about Harmy circa '05 because Richard's guaranteed to pop up out of nowhere to have a rant about how wrong we are and we can't really be bothered with the hassle.

The Harmison of the past few years deserves all the flak he gets IMO.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Richard's guaranteed to pop up out of nowhere to have a rant about how wrong we are and we can't really be bothered with the hassle.

Not sure how a **** with 70k posts can "pop up out of nowhere".

 

[grecian]

The Harmison of old is only harshly treated by Richard really. I don't think there's anyone else who agrees with him, but we don't generally say anything good about Harmy circa '05 because Richard's guaranteed to pop up out of nowhere to have a rant about how wrong we are and we can't really be bothered with the hassle.

The Harmison of the past few years deserves all the flak he gets IMO.

Well that's the problem isn't it "All that is necessary for evil to triumph.......".

Yeah but guess you are right in the end. It's essentially the same problem as Bell though, more the selectors fault for persistently picking them, I guess. There have certainly been worse bowlers and batsmen who have turned out for England in the last few years.

 

[silentstriker]

People who had good but not great states before September 16, 2001 at 3:41pm, when compared with worse players with better stats after September 16 2001 at 3:41pm.

 

[zaremba]

Can someone explain the 16th Sept 2001 reference for me please?

 

[The Sean]

Can someone explain the 16th Sept 2001 reference for me please?

See Dickinson, Richard I'm Never Wrong - A Complete Record of My Opinions About Cricket pp. 463-829 inclusive

 

[zaremba]

See Dickinson, Richard I'm Never Wrong - A Complete Record of My Opinions About Cricket pp. 463-829 inclusive

I left my copy at home, under my pillow. Can you remind me precisely which theory is being referred to?

 

[The Sean]

I left my copy at home, under my pillow. Can you remind me precisely which theory is being referred to?

Well no doubt Rich will fill you in with as much detail as you like when he gets back, but he is generally of the opinion that in late 2001 pitches flattened out and bowling stocks (particularly of the pace variety) became weaker to such an extent that it's virtually impossible to take batting averages after that point seriously, particularly in comparison to batsmen that came before them in the '80s and '90s. He is also of the opinion that players like Ponting, Kallis and Dravid were almost entirely assisted in their increased averages since that point by the aforementioned change in conditions and not really by anything as pesky as "improving" or "peaking."

Others in these parts, while acknowledging that the past decade has been a good time to be a batsman and that there are some rather inflated averages out there, have not wished to write off some of the truly great players of this era quite so easily.