Cricketweb's most overhyped players.

[Goughy]

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.

Im not interested in speculating what Bradman would average right now. Its a flawed process.

However, give him a helmet, a 3 pound bat that picks up like a feather with edges the width of an Americans backside and covered wickets then Im sure he would go fine.

The skills he possessed are not the same as the ones the players have now. They had to watch the ball longer and play later due to the tracks and lack of protective gear. There is a reason why virtually every black and white clip shows the batsman playing the late cut. Cricket evolves, the only constant is the genius of Bradman.

 

[Prince EWS]

I second Guptill. Should be batting for Auckland atm.

Damn, now it's slightly less likely to be correct.

 

[Ruckus]

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.

Na, I think I agree with Jono here.

Definition of a slight: "An insult caused by a failure to show someone proper respect or attention".

If someone is considered overrated, then it means their achievements do not warrant such lavish praise - in other words people would consider an overrated player gets TOO MUCH respect. If the respect for the player is gratuitious in the first place, then saying they are overrated merely brings respect for their achievements down to what it should be. So it isn't an insult saying a player is overrated (provided that claim is justified), it is more of a rational perspective on things.

 

[Furball]

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 massively.

Post WW1, there's a pretty remarkable statistical similarity amongst greats of all eras - the great batsmen average 50-55 with a few outliers (Sobers, Pollock), great bowlers average roughly 22-25, with a couple of outliers (Marshall, Ambrose). Bradman lies so far outwith the statistical norm for a great player that I think he'd average as much now as he did in the 1930s.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I have absolutely no time for the cricket opinions of anyone who doesn't think Bradman was comprehensively the best batsman of all time. I'm just completely dismissive of the idea; it's ludicrous. You might as well declare Uganda the best team in the world.

Quite so. I've no problem with anyone arguing that anyone of the dozen or so realistic contenders is #2, but anyone who genuinely believes Bradman wasn't operating on a different plane to mere mortals is missing something pretty fundamental about the sport.

The other one I like is looking at fastest to 100 hundreds. Most batsmen have done it in between 550 and 650 innings (iirc), Bradman did it in less than 300.

Of the members of the 100 club, Sir Donald is the only one never to have played county cricket.

As to the topic in hand, I'd say Brad Haddin. Extremely ordinary keeper and often flatters to deceive with the bat.

 

[Jono]

Do you think Paine should play ahead of him come the Gabba?

 

[Son Of Coco]

First class cricket would have been even lesser standard in those days.Two nations played the game for gods sake

Yes, but of course all the other variables would've stayed the same...I've heard the wickets back then were perfectly kept and totally flat.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Do you think Paine should play ahead of him come the Gabba?

Meh. Slightly better keeper, slightly worse bat. You pays your money...

Manou so much the better pure gloveman tho it's not funny.

 

[Jono]

Okay, I'll rephrase my question.

Who would you want keeping for Australia if you were an Aussie fan?

 

[GotSpin]

First class cricket would have been even lesser standard in those days.

Completely disagree.

First Class cricket was a lot different back then, and dare I say, had a much higher standard. Since test cricket wasn't played as frequently, FC cricket was often the top form of cricket played with all the regular international and fringe players always being involved.

edit - This might seem like a captain obvious post, but it just seems to fly over some

This smells of another: If it's not modern, it's not good argument.

 

[fredfertang]

Bradman can be and is sometimes overhyped in the sense that he wasn't superhuman and his death proved he wasn't immortal

Overrated is a slightly different concept but I've never heard a valid argument that puts him anywhere but on a higher level to anyone else who has ever held a cricket bat

 

[BoyBrumby]

Okay, I'll rephrase my question.

Who would you want keeping for Australia if you were an Aussie fan?

Hand on heart, based on what I've seen rather than read on cricinfo, Paine. I know his record doesn't stack up, but the better keeper (dealt much better with the movement after the ball has passed the stumps up here than Haddin) and looks the more gifted bat too.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

I think there's a bit of a difference between overrated and overhyped. I'd definitely think of Ishant as moreso overhyped than overrated- no one thinks he's bowling well, he just gets somewhat more attention than he should- it's as though people are more surprised by the fact that he isn't up to test cricket at the age of 22 than they should be.

When someone is labelled "exceptionally talented" when they've barely scored any runs or taken any wickets, they're usually overhyped.

 

[Cevno]

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.

There is even less likely to be a George Lohmann too.

Someone who averages about 10 with the ball and with over 100 wickets.

Cricket has neutralised from both extremes and is better for it ,according to me.

 

[Cevno]

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.

Bowlers?
All-Rounders?

 

[benchmark00]

Brumby - Haddin is a good keeper.

Quality bat, too.

 

[benchmark00]

On topic - G Swann.

 

[Migara]

Disagree massively.

Post WW1, there's a pretty remarkable statistical similarity amongst greats of all eras - the great batsmen average 50-55 with a few outliers (Sobers, Pollock), great bowlers average roughly 22-25, with a couple of outliers (Marshall, Ambrose). Bradman lies so far outwith the statistical norm for a great player that I think he'd average as much now as he did in the 1930s.

I also do see this statistical similarity. But the essential factor in such stats is that they should be applied under the same conditions. And it does not took similar. I have seen clips where score is 600 odd for 4 and Bradman batting on 150+ and the field is still with two slips and a gully and a ring field. Today that won't happen. They'll spread the field for a batsman on 150 and try to attack the other batsman.

Bradman's sub 30 scores have very similar average to that of other greats. His distinction comes when set he scores real big. That is the very thing that modern tactics will stop him from.

The bowlers of Bradman's era bar very few, looks pedestrian as well. And pitches were probably better than today. Otherwise they'll be not able to play timeless tests. Even without Bradman the average of his era is about 31, which is close to "flat track" era of today. So he might have encountered sticky dogs, but would have encountered super flat tracks to cover up for it as well.

 

[GIMH]

Always find it hilarious when people try and take an anti-Bradman stance. Just lol at some of these posts.

 

[Uppercut]

I also do see this statistical similarity. But the essential factor in such stats is that they should be applied under the same conditions. And it does not took similar. I have seen clips where score is 600 odd for 4 and Bradman batting on 150+ and the field is still with two slips and a gully and a ring field. Today that won't happen. They'll spread the field for a batsman on 150 and try to attack the other batsman.

Bradman's sub 30 scores have very similar average to that of other greats. His distinction comes when set he scores real big. That is the very thing that modern tactics will stop him from.

The bowlers of Bradman's era bar very few, looks pedestrian as well. And pitches were probably better than today. Otherwise they'll be not able to play timeless tests. Even without Bradman the average of his era is about 31, which is close to "flat track" era of today. So he might have encountered sticky dogs, but would have encountered super flat tracks to cover up for it as well.

The problem with arguing that things were easier in Bradman's day is that it was exactly the same for all of the players in that era, and none of those scored half as many.