-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Cricketweb's most overhyped players.
- Thread starter morgieb
- Start date
Cricket_God
U19 Cricketer
In any field modern humanbeing is better than our previous generation,Bradman played in an era where there was only one top test team and he averaged 85 against them,Great.But that does not make him better than players of any modern generation where bowlers are fitter ,quicker,different conditions,different pitches and so on.His first class record is extraordinary
but that shows more the quality or lack of it of the bowlers he faced.Peers theory is utter nonsense as there were not that many people playing the game in that era compared to other eras.
1 Australia D.G. Bradman 52 80 10 6996 334 99.94 1928–1948
2 South Africa R.G. Pollock 23 41 4 2256 274 60.97 1963–1970
3 West Indies Cricket Board G.A. Headley 22 40 4 2190 270* 60.83 1930–1954
4 England H. Sutcliffe 54 84 9 4555 194 60.73 1924–1935
5 England E. Paynter 20 31 5 1540 243 59.23 1931–1939
6 England K.F. Barrington 82 131 15 6806 256 58.67 1955–1968
7 West Indies Cricket Board E.D. Weekes 48 81 5 4455 207 58.61 1948–1958
8 England W.R. Hammond 85 140 16 7249 336* 58.45 1927–1947
9 West Indies Cricket Board G.S. Sobers 93 160 21 8032 365* 57.78 1954–1974
10 England J.B. Hobbs 61 102 7 5410 211 56.94 1908–1930
11 West Indies Cricket Board C.L. Walcott 44 74 7 3798 220 56.68 1948–1960
12 England L. Hutton 79 138 15 6971 364 56.67 1937–1955
The era in which bradman played had higest averages compared to other eras.
Last edited:
Cricket_God
U19 Cricketer
I disagree other sports are not so stats centric as cricket so you never are able to compare them.
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He's an average keeper and an average batsman. Can look the part and plays some decent shots but is not "quality".
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Pretty sure the grand majority of sports have some statistical measure to base a player's ability on.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Agreed. I reckon it's only because cricket isn't popular in America. Hence your Jordan, Federer, Woods, Babe Ruth etc. get more attention.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Disagree. Anyway, even in terms of non-statistical measures; for a player to have the impact of two all-time greats combined would be pretty visible. Can't think of a sport which would hide that kind of superiority and have poor statistical measures.
King Pietersen
International Captain
But even in comparison with Graeme Pollock and George Headley, Bradman's average is superior by 39 runs. To put that in context, the difference between Ricky Ponting and Jason Gillespie's averages, is 35.95. Sir Don was an absolute machine. To be that far ahead of his contemporaries is just ridiculous, and that's only on a stats basis. Bradman was superior to his contemporaries mentally. It has been said that Jack Hobbs possessed similar ability to that of The Don, but he didn't posses the mental strength or ruthlessness to make his starts pay as often as Bradman did. Also, technically, Bradman was far ahead of the other batsmen of his era. His hand-eye co-ordination, his timing, his ability to keep the ball on the ground, the movement of his feet, everything was perfect to combat the conditions of his time. I honestly cannot believe people are questioning the legacy of one of the greatest sportsmen of all-time.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
On Tendulkar:
I actually think it's massive credit to him that he doesn't let all the over-the-top worship get to his head and that he has been so consistent for over 2 decades. It might not sound right, but I know Indians (and in general the region) all too often fall for that kind of praise. I'd be less impressed with an Aussie doing it because it's almost bred into them to be fighters, take nothing for granted, not be a tall-poppy, etc.
That for me deserves far more credit than the constant "he's playing with the pressure of a billion people on his shoulders".
I actually think it's massive credit to him that he doesn't let all the over-the-top worship get to his head and that he has been so consistent for over 2 decades. It might not sound right, but I know Indians (and in general the region) all too often fall for that kind of praise. I'd be less impressed with an Aussie doing it because it's almost bred into them to be fighters, take nothing for granted, not be a tall-poppy, etc.
That for me deserves far more credit than the constant "he's playing with the pressure of a billion people on his shoulders".
Last edited:
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well Pele scored 1124 goals in 1184 games, and he's (rightly) far from being universally seen as the best player ever.
Still, it gets even trickier. What statistical measure could you use to compare, say, Franco Baresi and Bobby Moore?
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
The very fact that we're having a discussion about Bradman of any type in a thread with this name is dire as ****.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I think there are certain asterisks with regards to Pele's goal record, frankly. And even on that statistic alone he is not as superior as Bradman is to the others. Even the Baresi and Moore examples; think tackles won, interceptions made, clean sheets kept, etc.
I get your point, I really do; but I think there isn't enough doubt in that kind of analysis to say that is the reason people underrate Bradman. Frankly, no footballer in history has played a career's worth and had the equivalent output of 2 all-time greats.
To illustrate the difference: there are so many greats in football you could interchange players in your all-time XI many many times and you'd still have roughly the same strength team. Yet pick 2 all-time great teams in cricket, neck and neck in talent; and in one of them substitute Bradman; that team becomes comfortably the front-runner.
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pass completion %
Himannv
Hall of Fame Member
I agree to an extent with those that bring up Bradman's name. I think he was the best batsmen of all time, but not by as large a margin as some cricetweb members claim.
I'm not going to nitpick it and post some ridiculous numbers or anything, its just my gut feeling, plain and simple.
I'm not going to nitpick it and post some ridiculous numbers or anything, its just my gut feeling, plain and simple.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
I hope people realise Bradman was essentially soley responsible for the cricket boom. I doubt the sport would be the same today if he hadn't existed.
Anyway, its impossible for us to compare players from different eras. All we can do is judge them against their peers, and in that capacity, its physically impossible to call Bradman underrated.
Anyway, its impossible for us to compare players from different eras. All we can do is judge them against their peers, and in that capacity, its physically impossible to call Bradman underrated.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
No, the thing that distinguishes Bradman is how often he scored big runs. No-one has come close to his 29 centuries in 80 innings.
Bowlers and pitches doesn't explain anything either. No-one else in his era comes close to matching him.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
I reckon that, overall, no player is over-hyped or over-rated on CW. Whenever someone is held up or praised, there will always be people who will put the other side of the argument, usually by reference to a detailed set of statistics. It can be irritating in the extreme, and at times almost enough to put you off CW altogether, but it happens every time, and so you can't help but get a reasonably balanced picture of a player overall through CW.
Take Flintoff as an example. Everyone on CW knows his strengths and his weaknesses. There's no-one here, for instance, that doesn't recognise that his overall statistics are relatively underwhelming, and also that he was really good for a period. Most people also recognise that his impact was rather greater than his bare stats suggested.
If anyone is overhyped it might be some of the older players whose merits are pushed by those with a fondness for the historical side of the game (I count myself among them), who can tend to big up old players who played the game when it was a very different game. It's in the nature of those sorts of discussions that the stats-mongers don't necessarily get fully stuck in. So it could be that the likes of SF Barnes get an easier ride than they should.
Take Flintoff as an example. Everyone on CW knows his strengths and his weaknesses. There's no-one here, for instance, that doesn't recognise that his overall statistics are relatively underwhelming, and also that he was really good for a period. Most people also recognise that his impact was rather greater than his bare stats suggested.
If anyone is overhyped it might be some of the older players whose merits are pushed by those with a fondness for the historical side of the game (I count myself among them), who can tend to big up old players who played the game when it was a very different game. It's in the nature of those sorts of discussions that the stats-mongers don't necessarily get fully stuck in. So it could be that the likes of SF Barnes get an easier ride than they should.
Last edited: