Cricketweb's most overhyped players.

[andyc]

The biggest problem in assessing Bradman's feat is that we cannot quantify the differences in standards of the cricket played. The standards were pretty poor and I don't buy in to these averages across eras. My understanding is Hammond or Hobbs cannot be equated to a Tendulkar or Lara, because they played a poorer game when it comes to stratergies, techniques and tactics. They might still average 50 in current era but it's just a speculation.

My 2 cents is that Bradman would have averaged somewhere between 60 - 70 in current era, I don't see a gulf between him Sobers or Tendulkar. But once again, this also speculative.

Disagree hugely. The changes in standards work both ways; bowlers may have more technology and skills at their hands, but so too do batsmen. If anything, you could argue that it's tilted more in the batsman's favour these days with the protective gear, bigger bats and smaller boundaries. Reckon the Don would average around the same today, if not more.

 

[Andre]

Anybody that thinks that anyone is or ever will be anywhere near Bradman is deluding themselves. Yes, the pitches were flatter and bowling poorer. But he averages 39 runs higher than the next best batsman, and 25 in FC cricket. If that isn't dominance then I don't know what is.

Gideon Haigh said that there'll sooner be another Bradman than another Warne. He's wrong. You may find a spinner that averages 25 somewhere. You won't find a man that averages 99.94 in a million years.

You've completely misunderstood Haigh's quote and its intentions. It is not based on statistics, but based on the effect that a person had on the game, the charisma they brought, the re-invention they created and the way they brought something unfashionable into the mainstream.

Bradman's historical brilliance is statistical, Warne's is far wider reaching than that.

And, just out of interest, how were the uncovered pitches flatter than the ones of the modern day? The pitches seen on a regular basis now are the flattest in the history of Test cricket bar none.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Most overhyped players in recent times are Hughes and Bollinger.Hughes came to England as the new world star in Aussie eyes and promptly went back with tail between legs after being sorted out by the nasty English quicks.Bollinger just bangs the ball in and has got wickets against poor sides yet is hyped up (probably because he wears a syrup) beyond his ability,you'd think he was as good as McGrath the way they go on.

Shoaib Ahktar was massively overhyped,yes he had ability but also the pain threshold of a toddler so was a waste of time as he always broke down injured.

 

[Jono]

****, probably the thing I hate most is people that try and play down Bradmans' achievements. It reeks of just refusing to believe that someone could be that good because they don't want to believe it, when it's cricket's greatest story.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

****, probably the thing I hate most is people that try and play down Bradmans' achievements. It reeks of just refusing to believe that someone could be that good because they don't want to believe it, when it's cricket's greatest story.

Not sure if it is the greatest story but he is easily the greatest batsman ever and anybody who tries to say any different is totally ignorant.His record is ridiculous and for all the runs the likes of SRT,Ponting,Lara etc have in various forms of the game their records at test level are significantly inferior to Bradman.

Not his fault he was born when he was and overseas tours were limited due to the time it took to get there,just appreciate him for what he was.A GENIUS.

 

[Jono]

I reckon its the greatest cricket story because of its uniqueness. Honestly in almost all massively popular sports there are battles for the greatest player of all time. There's often 2-3 if not more contenders, especially statistically. With cricket it's just amazingly clear-cut. Fascinating.

 

[vcs]

ha not really one of the very few modern day bowlers who average 25 in both formats of the game infact its his other activities that detract people from fully appreciating his skills/

I'm one of them.

These "overrated" threads are basically just an excuse to take a shot at players you don't particularly like, because the term "overrated" is so subjective.

 

[Jono]

The thread doesn't have to be that, it just annoyingly turns into it, not because it's subjective, but because people don't understand the term.

Someone said to me earlier today that Marcus North was overrated. **** me how bad is he then considering everyone I know is calling for his head.

Some of the names thrown up here I reckon are barely mentioned on CW, let alone overly revered.

 

[Ruckus]

It reeks of just refusing to believe that someone could be that good because they don't want to believe it, when it's cricket's greatest story.

What I find so intriguing about his story, is that his final average was 99.94, and the universally desired number for batsman is the 1 0 0.

I mean 100 is essentially an arbitrary number, what are the chances the greatest batsman, and perhaps sportsperson, of all time gets so close to that number? It's like to suggest he was so nearly god-like, but still human after all.

Bradman's life was poetry in motion.

 

[vcs]

IMHO, if Bradman had replaced Tendulkar in the Test matches India have played in the last couple of years, he would have averaged atleast 120-130 with Sehwag-like SR.

Of course, assuming he would be in his prime, no fitness/personal problems etc.

Batting conditions nowadays are as easy as I can remember them being in a while.

 

[GotSpin]

Haha no. I'm a huge Sachin fan, but when Nasser comes out and says he's better than Bradman, and other commentators agree, it means he's overrated.

I'm happy to admit Sachin is overrated by many. To me he's still an all-time great and one of the best batsman to ever play the game. But he's not better than Bradman, and if a sufficient number of people say he is, than he's overrated.

No biggie. Not a slight on him at all.

Yeah I'd agree on that example.

But as we've seen in this thread - By saying Bradman is overrated they're slating his achievements and his status.

 

[GotSpin]

IMHO, if Bradman had replaced Tendulkar in the Test matches India have played in the last couple of years, he would have averaged atleast 120-130 with Sehwag-like SR.

Of course, assuming he would be in his prime, no fitness/personal problems etc.

Batting conditions nowadays are as easy as I can remember them being in a while.

That's one of the great things about the Bradman story. Portions of his career were plagued with illness. He even lost feeling in his right thumb for a while!

 

[GotSpin]

****, probably the thing I hate most is people that try and play down Bradmans' achievements. It reeks of just refusing to believe that someone could be that good because they don't want to believe it, when it's cricket's greatest story.

Agree with you on this though Jono

 

[Jono]

Yeah I'd agree on that example.

But as we've seen in this thread - By saying Bradman is overrated they're slating his achievements and his status.

Yeah but that's only because Bradman is so ****ing good to say he's overrated is just annoying. More because of the reasons people are saying it.

But if someone was to say anyone else is overrated, but then explains why, it's likely not a slight.

The term has become a slight because of people misusing it. Anytime someone is **** and they don't like them they say "he is overrated". Just say he's **** if you think that. Don't say he's overrated if he's actually not rated by many.

If someone tells me Viv is overrated, I disagree, but at the same time I gather they still think he's a great, but just not as ridiculously awesome as people go on. Same with Sobers, Lillee etc. You can disagree with the statement, but still not take it as an attack on the player. It's obviously saying they're not THAT good, but it's not irrational.

Someone coming here and saying a player who is lambasted anyway, or barely spoken about, as being overrated just because they don't like them is dumb nad makes the thread topic poitnless.

 

[Prince EWS]

Someone coming here and saying a player who is lambasted anyway, or barely spoken about, as being overrated just because they don't like them is dumb nad makes the thread topic poitnless.

I dunno. I mean, no-one thinks Guptill is an awesome Test batsman, but I still think he's over-rated because there are people who think he should be playing Test cricket. The New Zealand selectors think he should be in the squad. He's crap, and most people realise he's crap, but I think he's even more crap than most. You don't have to be **** to be over-rated, but you don't have to be good either. Just worse than the average of everyone's opinion of you.

There are some funny things about the concept though. If you say someone's over-rated and everyone agrees with you, then they aren't actually over-rated at all - what is over-rated is their perceived rating. You've more chance of being right if a stack of people come and lay into your opinion, because at least it's showing that your opinion is different enough in such a way that, if it's correct, you're also correct about said player's over-ratedness.

 

[Ruckus]

Can't we all just agree that the word 'overrated' in itself is overrated.

 

[Prince EWS]

Can't we all just agree that the word 'overrated' in itself is overrated.

If we all agreed to that then we'd all be wrong, as no-one would rate it more highly than we all individually did. Over-ratedness as a concept completely depends of the absence of consensus.

 

[Ruckus]

If we all agreed to that then we'd all be wrong, as no-one would rate it more highly than we all individually did. Over-ratedness as a concept completely depends of the absence of consensus.

Yeh but I meant that statement in more of a proverbial sense, not to be analysed literally using cold logic and rationality

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah but that's only because Bradman is so ****ing good to say he's overrated is just annoying. More because of the reasons people are saying it.

But if someone was to say anyone else is overrated, but then explains why, it's likely not a slight.

The term has become a slight because of people misusing it. Anytime someone is **** and they don't like them they say "he is overrated". Just say he's **** if you think that. Don't say he's overrated if he's actually not rated by many.

If someone tells me Viv is overrated, I disagree, but at the same time I gather they still think he's a great, but just not as ridiculously awesome as people go on. Same with Sobers, Lillee etc. You can disagree with the statement, but still not take it as an attack on the player. It's obviously saying they're not THAT good, but it's not irrational.

Someone coming here and saying a player who is lambasted anyway, or barely spoken about, as being overrated just because they don't like them is dumb nad makes the thread topic poitnless.

By saying someone is overrated they're saying that the achievements and praise or records accorded to such a player aren't deserved - a slight.

I do want to bash my head the wall when I hear the reasons behind Bradman 'being overrated' though

 

[Flem274*]

I second Guptill. Should be batting for Auckland atm.