Cricketweb's 5 most unfairly treated players

[Pratters]

So you believe he can score at a S/R of 80 in tests now do you? In tests the bowlers bowl outside the off stump and you can't score at a S/R of 80 except if you have a very aggressive inning.

 

[Zinzan]

Hey, look, my own default position as an English sports fan is resigned pessimism, so you're preaching to the converted, but it'd be madness to pretend the Ashes series was all wine and roses.

Fine point that, not even close to the quality of cricket played in the '05 Ashes by either side for me.

 

[Zinzan]

They're missing Broad, Flintoff and KP though. That's their three best ODI players for me.

More to the point, they cop unheard of criticism whether they're playing badly or not. The abuse they're getting now is nothing compared to what they got during the ODI series in the West Indies. "England are worse than Bangladesh in ODIs" and all that. And they ****ing won that series!

Even without those 3 players, criticism of the them in this ODI series to date has been well & truly justified. In fact it's been deserved for years now when it come to their limited-overs cricket, if nothing else, due to their complete lack of cricketing nouse. Talent aside, they just don't have a clue of how to approach a one day international.

I didn't noticed nearly as much uncalled-for criticism of them in the Ashes after the near-escape in the 1st test.

 

[Uppercut]

Fine point that, not even close to the quality of cricket played in the '05 Ashes by either side for me.

A seriously overstated point this, for mine. England's bowling was just as good at times, but nowhere near as consistent. The English batting was better, and Australia's bowling was far better. The fielding on both sides was incomparably better.

2005 only marginally better quality for me. When you get over the rose-tinted nostalgia there was some seriously ordinary cricket played at times in that series too.

Even without those 3 players, criticism of the them in this ODI series to date has been well & truly justified. In fact it's been deserved for years now when it come to their limited-overs cricket, if nothing else, due to their complete lack of cricketing nouse. Talent aside, they just don't have a clue of how to approach a one day international.

I didn't noticed nearly as much uncalled-for criticism of them in the Ashes after the near-escape in the 1st test.

I did agree in a subsequent post that in this series it's justified.

But England's ODI record until now is completely out of line with the criticism they receive. Since the '07 Ashes they've beaten Australia+NZ in the CBS, India at home, Sri Lanka away, South Africa at home (whitewashed) and the West Indies home and away. They've lost once to the West Indies, twice to New Zealand and once in India (they also had a poor World Cup though).

Those are the results of an inconsistent ODI side, not of a poor one.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't think there's any universally harshly treated players - most divide opinion - but a few who are subjected to ridiculously over the top belittling in some quarters would be Hayden, Harmison, Bell and Panesar who would seemingly be lucky to make the Camp Fire Boy Scouts XI.

 

[Zinzan]

A seriously overstated point this, for mine. England's bowling was just as good at times, but nowhere near as consistent. The English batting was better, and Australia's bowling was far better. The fielding on both sides was incomparably better..

We'll agree to disagree on this one. Don't reckon any of the bowlers from either side in '09 came close to either Jones & Warne from 05 for a start. And not convinced that England's batting was any better.

Ever thought the point maybe stated so often because it's true?

 

[Uppercut]

Bizarre closing comment. It's a bit like saying "ever thought that band might be overrated because they're so good?"

 

[JimmyGS]

England's bowling was just as good at times. Australia's bowling was far better.

It must be some mighty fine crack you're smoking to come up with those two.

 

[Uppercut]

It must be some mighty fine crack you're smoking to come up with those two.

Flintoff at Lord's, surely as good as anything in '05?

Australia are a toss-up between a world-class one-man attack (barring the Lord's test) and a solid all-round attack.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Flintoff at Lord's, surely as good as anything in '05?

Australia are a toss-up between a world-class one-man attack (barring the Lord's test) and a solid all-round attack.

One swallow doesn't make a drunk tho. We had three bowlers average less than 30 apiece in 2005 & none in 2009.

& Oz weren't a one man attack either; Lee took at least as many wickets in 2005 as any bowler on either side in 2009 save Hilfenhaus and the one-legged McGrath took a 5-for at OT too.

 

[Richard]

Don't forget Hussain & Atherton > Hayden in tests, Nick Knight > Gilchrist in ODIs.

Much as some might like to believe it nationalistic bias on my part, the reality is I don't go in for such a thing.

Anyway Sean did a decent, but certainly imperfect, job of describing my take on 2001/02-onwards-vs-2001-and-backwards. Absolutely nowhere have I refused to consider that players upping their game played any part, I've simply said that it'd be a teeny bit of a coincidence if six or seven players did the exact same thing at the exact same time. So I'm apt to place far more weight on something that I know, beyond doubt, happened, because I saw it happen with my own eyes - pitches with much life became rare, and lots of good bowlers disappeared. And it did happen in a very, very short space of time.

 

[Richard]

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.

I'm guaranteed to pop-up and point-out that people are reflecting on ideals and not reality, yes. Harmison of early '04 bowled, briefly, decently; Harmison of any other point in his career - before and after - bowled dreadfully. The notion that he was capable of getting out excellent players on flat decks at low cost has nothing going for it, because, well, he didn't do such a thing, and never has looked like doing so.

People can refuse to accept it, and yes, many people do (not everyone, BTW) but they're just denying reality. That isn't my opinion - that's the way things are.

 

[honestbharani]

I think it's just that Indian and Australian fans' voices are heard over South Africans tbh. You can pick holes in his batting, but Kallis's bowling puts him streets ahead of Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting in terms of value to the team anyway. But generally there's not many big Kallis fans around to argue his case.

Cricket is not a one player game though... And everything depends on the composition of the side. And as the Aussies of the 2000s showed us, a good allrounder is not a necessity to be a great side and quite often, having 6 great batsmen and 4 great bowlers is more than enough. And unless a player is good enough to break in on either group on merit, I won't select him just because his second skill is significantly better than the guy who is actually better than him in the first skill... There are numerous instances of the same and unless you tell me exactly how Kallis is better than Sachin, Lara or Ponting in batting, there is way why the fact that he bowls much better than thos guys should be taken into account.........

 

[honestbharani]

Only when you take a remark on the physical stresses Kallis has to put his body under completely out of context.

Only when you don't have the first idea of what the past players have been through and their relative disadvantages compared to modern day training methods... Surely, it is a simple enough concept to grasp???????



Sure, these guys put their bodies through much more than the guys did in the past but they also get much better conditioning and training advice than those guys did. The workload they had was just as hard on their bodies given the fact that there was no real training and conditioning stuff to speak of at that time...

 

[honestbharani]

807 fours and 120 sixes in those ODIs say "yes".

Also worth mentioning that the majority of them weren't in what you would call "this day and age". Also worth mentioning that ODIs in South Africa are one area that has been pretty exempt from the flatness of this decade. Can wheel out some stats to conclusively back that up if you like, but I'm not sure it's necessary.

Watched that 434 game? He can hit out when he is set, there is no way he can come in and bash from the beginning which most ODI players are expected to do and be successful at least 2 or 3 times out of 10....

 

[honestbharani]

No way. Fields are far, far more defensive in ODIs. The bowling team builds their entire approach around preventing you from scoring fast. Of course it's harder to hit out.

The overall strike rate from the innings doesn't really show how well (or poorly) Kallis has hit out. Quite often he'll strike at 50 until the 45th over, then smash another 40 runs in 25 balls or the like. I'm much more wary of statistics in ODIs than I am in test matches.

You can have all 9 out in tests if you want... And I have seen 3-6 inner/outer ring fields in tests... And pitches are far far tougher to hit out in tests compared to ODIs, even given the flat tracks of the recent years... And finally, the better bowlers can bowl far far longer in tests than in ODIs.. And there are too many breaks in tests when a batsman is going compared to ODIs.. Much more chances for break in rhythm and strike rate, coz of having to settle in again.

 

[Zinzan]

Bizarre closing comment. It's a bit like saying "ever thought that band might be overrated because they're so good?"

Not Bizarre at all, I said it was mentioned "so often", it was you that mentioned over-stated or overrated, not me

 

[Burgey]

Much as some might like to believe it nationalistic bias on my part, the reality is I don't go in for such a thing.

Anyway Sean did a decent, but certainly imperfect, job of describing my take on 2001/02-onwards-vs-2001-and-backwards. Absolutely nowhere have I refused to consider that players upping their game played any part, I've simply said that it'd be a teeny bit of a coincidence if six or seven players did the exact same thing at the exact same time. So I'm apt to place far more weight on something that I know, beyond doubt, happened, because I saw it happen with my own eyes - pitches with much life became rare, and lots of good bowlers disappeared. And it did happen in a very, very short space of time.

True, though of course one of the coincidences might be the relative proximity of their respective birthdays.

 

[Uppercut]

One swallow doesn't make a drunk tho. We had three bowlers average less than 30 apiece in 2005 & none in 2009.

& Oz weren't a one man attack either; Lee took at least as many wickets in 2005 as any bowler on either side in 2009 save Hilfenhaus and the one-legged McGrath took a 5-for at OT too.

Tbf, I only said that the bowling this time round wasn't as consistent as '05. During a few spells (I'd put Broad at the Oval and the Jimmy/Onions show at Edgbaston up there too) it was just as good, but they didn't reproduce it too often.

Lee took his wickets at 41 in '05, and McGrath's five-fer at OT was arguably the worst five-fer ever taken, all declaration-charge wickets. Went wicketless for plenty in the first innings when England amassed 450. It really was, to all intents and purposes, a one-man show after Lord's.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Tbf, I only said that the bowling this time round wasn't as consistent as '05. During a few spells (I'd put Broad at the Oval and the Jimmy/Onions show at Edgbaston up there too) it was just as good, but they didn't reproduce it too often.

Lee took his wickets at 41 in '05, and McGrath's five-fer at OT was arguably the worst five-fer ever taken, all declaration-charge wickets. Went wicketless for plenty in the first innings when England amassed 450. It really was, to all intents and purposes, a one-man show after Lord's.

It wasn't and when people dismiss Lee's efforts in 2005 it's usually a case of playing the figures and not the bowling, but even if, for the sake of argument, we allow that it was, calling it "a one-man show" is reductive criticism at its worst. It's the sort of argument that calls football "just 22 men chasing an inflated sphere round a grassy area"; it misses the point of the endeavour. Yes, Warne is only one man but he turned in a performance over 5 tests that bordered on the miraculous. He took 40 wickets, which is 18 more than anybody managed four years later. So when "one man" (who makes up a quarter of the Aussie attack) turns in such a performance it makes a pretty sizeable difference to the overall quality of the bowling in the series.