Cricketweb's 5 most unfairly treated players

[uvelocity]

The most unfairly treated players (as in those who don't receive the praise they deserve) are usually the players from the smallers teams...usually Bangladesh and Zimbabwe but add Ireland there too.

Add Zimmers in there too? Wickets against them of high quality? Runs against blokes still learning to throw?

 

[Black_Warrior]

They were certainly far better than anything else Bangladesh have to offer.

I too think runs scored against Bangladesh are *sometimes* dismissed completely too readily, but comparing Bangladesh's attack to India's just because their best bowler is better than a one of India's is absolutely ridiculous and shows a fundamental lack of context in general.

No I did not compare Bangladesh's bowling attack with India's. I said since Bangladesh have a world class spinner and India have a few who are absolutely rubbish, people who dismiss records against Bangladesh but will consider runs against India though India's bowling has been piss poor are the ones who are being absolutely ridiculous and have a fundamental lack of context.

Personally I do not support dismissing runs at all because regardless of whether it is Bangladesh or India, if its a test match, it should be considered. Now you can attach different values to those runs. For example the 200 Taufeeq Umar scored against Sri Lanka was a good innings but the 100 Inzamam scored against a Murali led Sri Lanka would be of higher value.

 

[Spark]

Michael Clarke is under rated and given unfair praise at the same time?

I have never seen a player whom some people go to such great lengths to try and ensure that any good performance is forgotten or rationalised in such a way that its value is massively reduced. It's ridiculous.

No I did not compare Bangladesh's bowling attack with India's. I said since Bangladesh have a world class spinner and India have a few who are absolutely rubbish, people who dismiss records against Bangladesh but will consider runs against India though India's bowling has been piss poor are the ones who are being absolutely ridiculous and have a fundamental lack of context.

Do you understand just how poor Bangladesh bowler's have been historically? PEWS has the stats, but people often underestimate just how rubbish they are. One bowler does not an attack make, if your other bowlers are not even FC standard (and Bangladesh's other bowlers would definitely struggle to make a state team here), then it's of little use.

You still have to bat well against India's attack. Zaheer Khan is so vastly superior to Shakib as a bowler it's not funny. Ashwin is hardly the worst spinner to tour here. I mean... 4/27. 3/37. 3/84. 3/40. This is not the work of a attack who can't bowl at all. It's just that after that, they almost inevitably ran into the same two players who they couldn't get out. Maybe they, y'know, batted well and should be given due credit?

 

[Howe_zat]

Yuvraj, Siddle, Tendulkar, Wasim are few names I can think of as underrated here because they're overrated in general. CW tends to be reactionary like that. Clarke and Kallis are the opposite case.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I have never seen a player whom some people go to such great lengths to try and ensure that any good performance is forgotten or rationalised in such a way that its value is massively reduced. It's ridiculous.

Mate, I don't give Michael Clarke enough importance to go to the lengths to try devalue his performance. I don't have any particular agenda against him. I just don't think he is a great batsman that's all. But you misunderstand me. I do not advocate ignoring the runs Clarke scored against India because India's bowling was poor because I will never dismiss runs scored in a test match against a test attack no matter who they are. Scoring runs, whether a century or a double or a triple should always be respected if its scored against a test attack. What should differ though is the value attached to those runs based on the attacks and conditions they are played against.

Do you understand just how poor Bangladesh bowler's have been historically? PEWS has the stats, but people often underestimate just how rubbish they are. One bowler does not an attack make, if your other bowlers are not even FC standard (and Bangladesh's other bowlers would definitely struggle to make a state team here), then it's of little use.

You still have to bat well against India's attack. Zaheer Khan is so vastly superior to Shakib as a bowler it's not funny. Ashwin is hardly the worst spinner to tour here. I mean... 4/27. 3/37. 3/84. 3/40. This is not the work of a attack who can't bowl at all. It's just that after that, they almost inevitably ran into the same two players who they couldn't get out. Maybe they, y'know, batted well and should be given due credit?

I don't understand how you can compare a medium pacer with a spinner. And I didn't say Ashwin is the worst bowler to play in Australia. All I said was based on what I have seen of Shakib and Ashwin, Shakib is a country mile ahead of him as a spinner.

And I can argue that at least two of the bowlers India fielded in Australia would have struggled to make it to a FC side in Australia too.

 

[morgieb]

Samaraweera.

Would Ajmal, Strauss and Trott count?

 

[Flem274*]

EDIT: dammit, conversation has moved on since I started this post.

Runs and wickets against minnows all depend on the context.

Two crucial performances against minnows spring to mind immediately for me, and they are Vettori's one man stand against Bangladesh on our last tour there and Bracewell's debut five wicket haul against Zimbabwe. I'm willing to bet posters from other countries have similar examples they can bring to the table as well.

Using the standard generalisation prevalent in player performance threads, both of those performances are wiped from the record. I think it's woeful analysis, because if it weren't for those achievements, I am certain we would have two less test wins to our credit. No one else stood up in the test against Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe were coasting before Dougeh rescued us in his first ever test match. Any analyst who is willing to discount those performances yet leave say, McCullum's ton against India at Napier 2009 on the register is falling short of the mark. McCullum, full credit to him, came in at four million for whatever it was on a motorway and rubbed it in, but it wasn't a performance I could honestly say measured up to the two examples above.

In saying all that, the Bangladeshi pace attack is hilariously bad and if Shakib isn't tearing you to pieces like the one man army he is, and your team scores 800/2 declared before wrapping it all up in under three days, your runs aren't as hard won as others you will score.

Neil Johnson was one of the finest all rounders in limited overs cricket and no one remembers him.

Heef is going to you.

I have never seen a player whom some people go to such great lengths to try and ensure that any good performance is forgotten or rationalised in such a way that its value is massively reduced. It's ridiculous.

Mathew Hayden.

 

[Spark]

Mathew Hayden.

Before my time tbf but yeah fair shout.

 

[sledger]

Yuvraj is overrated everywhere.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Runs and wickets against minnows all depend on the context.

Two crucial performances against minnows spring to mind immediately for me, and they are Vettori's one man stand against Bangladesh on our last tour there and Bracewell's debut five wicket haul against Zimbabwe. I'm willing to bet posters from other countries have similar examples they can bring to the table as well.

Using the standard generalisation prevalent in player performance threads, both of those performances are wiped from the record. I think it's woeful analysis, because if it weren't for those achievements, I am certain we would have two less test wins to our credit. No one else stood up in the test against Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe were coasting before Dougeh rescued us in his first ever test match. Any analyst who is willing to discount those performances yet leave say, McCullum's ton against India at Napier 2009 on the register is falling short of the mark. McCullum, full credit to him, came in at four million for whatever it was on a motorway and rubbed it in, but it wasn't a performance I could honestly say measured up to the two examples above.

In saying all that, the Bangladeshi pace attack is hilariously bad and if Shakib isn't tearing you to pieces like the one man army he is, and your team scores 800/2 declared before wrapping it all up in under three days, your runs aren't as hard won as others you will score.

I agree with you except that I would just add that any runs scored against any side should depend on context. Clarke's runs were a great effort.. But Lara in Sri Lanka 2001 was better because it was a better attack. Context should always be considered..not just against minnows.

 

[Spark]

Mate, I don't give Michael Clarke enough importance to go to the lengths to try devalue his performance. I don't have any particular agenda against him. I just don't think he is a great batsman that's all. But you misunderstand me. I do not advocate ignoring the runs Clarke scored against India because India's bowling was poor because I will never dismiss runs scored in a test match against a test attack no matter who they are. Scoring runs, whether a century or a double or a triple should always be respected if its scored against a test attack. What should differ though is the value attached to those runs based on the attacks and conditions they are played against.

It was more a general comment tbf. Not long after I joined here, I got into an argument with someone who thought that Clarke had never scored runs in tough conditions against good attacks (this was early 2010 ftr, just after the NZ tour when his Test average was floating just above 50). I had quite a few counterexamples planned, but the first one I gave was basically dismissed... because he hadn't converted his hundred into a double ton.

I've never seen that sort of reasoning used for any other player.

 

[Black_Warrior]

And the best example of Shakib being unfairly treated...
The second test against Pakistan..the century and 6 wickets..

Had it been any other player from one of the top sides, there would have been 1 appreciation thread, 2 comparison threads and in general the main series thread would be filled with love and admiration for that player. As it stands, most people did not even see that match and then a few years later when it comes to comparing Shakib with another all rounder from one of the top sides, the argument will be Shakib < Player because he did not score runs in Australia.

 

[Spark]

I agree with you except that I would just add that any runs scored against any side should depend on context. Clarke's runs were a great effort.. But Lara in Sri Lanka 2001 was better because it was a better attack. Context should always be considered..not just against minnows.

Who's claiming otherwise?

 

[Himannv]

Before my time tbf but yeah fair shout.

You were born in 2009?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Who's claiming otherwise?

Don't people on CW ignore runs against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe regardless of context?

 

[Spark]

You were born in 2009?

Before the time where I actually paid attention to what other people's opinions about players were (hence I'm not entirely aware of what people were saying about Hayden)

read: before I joined CW.

 

[Spark]

Don't people on CW ignore runs against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe regardless of context?

I was referring to your Lara in SL 2001 comment, which struck me as entirely pointless.

 

[Flem274*]

Don't people on CW ignore runs against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe regardless of context?

It's less prevalent now we've turned over a new bunch of CWers, but back in the day you weren't a boffin unless you discounted stats against minnows and could remember the state of every pitch in every match ever played.

 

[Himannv]

Don't people on CW ignore runs against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe regardless of context?

Nah, we only ignore those runs when it doesn't favour the player we like in a debate. Thought this was obvious.

 

[Howe_zat]

You were born in 2009?

He's like the Doogie Howser of physics