Top Five Most Underrated Cricketers Ever.

[Zinzan]

^ Don't think Pollock was nearly as good a test bat as Chris Cairns was for example, yet Cairns only averaged 1 or so more.

 

[morgieb]

Not really.. after 55 tests (as much as Miller played), Botham averaged 37+ with the bat and 23 with the ball.. Miller was probably a better batsman than Kapil and Hadlee but there's no real clear indication to suggest anything more. He was also most probably a better bowler than Kapil but that's about it.

Except when Miller stopped playing he was late 30's. Botham was only in his mid-20's by the time he reached 55 Tests.

 

[the big bambino]

Not really.. after 55 tests (as much as Miller played), Botham averaged 37+ with the bat and 23 with the ball.. Miller was probably a better batsman than Kapil and Hadlee but there's no real clear indication to suggest anything more. He was also most probably a better bowler than Kapil but that's about it.

Haha this is hilarious. Older era players usually have their fewer tests held against them. Now your saying if botham played fewer games he'd be considered a better player. Whatever it takes eh? Contrary to belief most generational jingoism comes from the modern era fans. Millers figures were incredible and he held his form til his late 30s and missed 5 great years of his youth to the war.

He murders botham who failed against the West Indies and whose figures are additionally boosted by taking advantage of dividided Aussie second elevens. When we were full strength he struggled.

 

[akilana]

Not saying I necessarily subscribe to it, but there is a theory going around that Pollock's test batting average may be a little inflated due to him being part of such a strong batting side for most of his career. The theory being he often got easy runs when the side were already dominating & 39 not outs in 108 test is a hell of a lot.

Never heard of the theory. But maybe if he was in a lesser team, he would have applied himself more.

 

[the big bambino]

On the other hand pollock and Donald were magnificent. I don't think their records against Australia should be held against them but just a consequence that when you play against great batsmen you'll naturally pay more for your wickets

 

[OverratedSanity]

Never heard of the theory. But maybe if he was in a lesser team, he would have applied himself more.

Nah, Pollock's batting average truly does flatter him. I'm a big fan, but he was in no way a 32 average batsman imo. There's hardly anything he did with the bat in tests that I remember.

 

[akilana]

On the other hand pollock and Donald were magnificent. I don't think their records against Australia should be held against them but just a consequence that when you play against great batsmen you'll naturally pay more for your wickets

Donald had a tough time against Australia in SA but bowled a few great spells. He was fantastic in Australia though with 24 wickets in 5 tests at 24. His last test series there ruined his overall record but by then he was clearly past his best .

 

[Red]

Miller was the only genuine top 6 batsman AND legit strike/opening bowler ever (maybe Botham).

Don't forget, Miller's FC batting avg was 50 (over 200 matches). I think when Miller came into the test team he was asked to bowl, but was originally a batsman. Evidently a gun slipper too.

It can't be overstated how good a cricketer he was.

 

[Flem274*]

Nah, Pollock's batting average truly does flatter him. I'm a big fan, but he was in no way a 32 average batsman imo. There's hardly anything he did with the bat in tests that I remember.

It's only inflated when you take it out of context of his batting position.

Pollock was no Cairns or Flintoff because those blokes scored their runs at #6 and were expected to be regular match winners with the bat. Pollock was a #8 and expected to either stick around and build partnerships with top order batsmen or find the fence and nail the coffin shut.

He was an awesome #8 and his average reflects it. He wasn't the best #8 of all time (that's Vettori) but he was ****ing good at his job.

 

[Red]

I always rated Pollock as a batsman. Probably could've been an Imran type you could've gone up to #3 or #5 and batted really well there. Had a good technique etc. He didn't need to in a strong SA batting line up.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's only inflated when you take it out of context of his batting position.

Pollock was no Cairns or Flintoff because those blokes scored their runs at #6 and were expected to be regular match winners with the bat. Pollock was a #8 and expected to either stick around and build partnerships with top order batsmen or find the fence and nail the coffin shut.

He was an awesome #8 and his average reflects it. He wasn't the best #8 of all time (that's Vettori) but he was ****ing good at his job.

Sure, but if someone points to his average saying he was as good as Botham or Miller with the bat, like viriya is here, I'm going to point out that it's wrong. That's why I said his average flatters him.

 

[viriya]

Haha this is hilarious. Older era players usually have their fewer tests held against them. Now your saying if botham played fewer games he'd be considered a better player. Whatever it takes eh? Contrary to belief most generational jingoism comes from the modern era fans. Millers figures were incredible and he held his form til his late 30s and missed 5 great years of his youth to the war.

He murders botham who failed against the West Indies and whose figures are additionally boosted by taking advantage of dividided Aussie second elevens. When we were full strength he struggled.

I'm not saying Botham is a god compared to Miller, but when comparing careers you can't just say he was better when he was older to suggest he would not have struggled when he was younger.. Runs are runs whether you make them at 25 or 35. Even though they didn't play as many tests in the 50s, the difference between 55 and 102 can't really be ignored as irrelevant.

 

[Flem274*]

His average doesn't flatter him, viriya flatters his average.

 

[OverratedSanity]

His average doesn't flatter him, viriya flatters his average.

Yeah, probably what I meant to say.

 

[the big bambino]

I'm not saying Botham is a god compared to Miller, but when comparing careers you can't just say he was better when he was older to suggest he would not have struggled when he was younger.. Runs are runs whether you make them at 25 or 35. Even though they didn't play as many tests in the 50s, the difference between 55 and 102 can't really be ignored as irrelevant.

Ok then tell me why it isn't irrelevant?

What you are implying is that miller would have suffered by playing more tests but you have no reason to believe that. It's just convenient for you to lazily imply it makes a difference without doing the hard work of actually proving it. If miller held his form til his late thirties you can reasonably extrapolate that if he played more tests he would have performed equally as well at any point in his career

 

[viriya]

Nah, Pollock's batting average truly does flatter him. I'm a big fan, but he was in no way a 32 average batsman imo. There's hardly anything he did with the bat in tests that I remember.

How is a 32 average batsman not a 32 average batsman? If the argument is that he batted when the team was ahead, then we might as well say Gilchrist wasn't a 48 average batsman considering how many times he batted after Hayden, Langer, Ponting setup the platform for him to have some fun.

 

[viriya]

Ok then tell me why it isn't irrelevant?

What you are implying is that miller would have suffered by playing more tests but you have no reason to believe that. It's just convenient for you to lazily imply it makes a difference without doing the hard work of actually proving it. If miller held his form til his late thirties you can reasonably extrapolate that if he played more tests he would have performed equally as well at any point in his career

Some players do better later in age.. Imran Khan only became a decent batsman later in his career.. etc etc.

 

[the big bambino]

No way. Many tests were in the balance when gilly came out to bat and he turned the game inside a session

 

[the big bambino]

Some players do better later in age.. Imran Khan only became a decent batsman later in his career.. etc etc.

That's not proof. Imran only faded when he was almost forty anyway. Miller held his form. What he lacked was the tests to fully exploit it. If he played more tests consequentially his aggregates would improve with little change to his averages

 

[OverratedSanity]

How is a 32 average batsman not a 32 average batsman? If the argument is that he batted when the team was ahead, then we might as well say Gilchrist wasn't a 48 average batsman considering how many times he batted after Hayden, Langer, Ponting setup the platform for him to have some fun.

This is just proof you only look at spreadsheets and not the matches. Gilchrist bailed Australia out plenty of times.