Top Five Most Underrated Cricketers Ever.

[viriya]

It is when he had the only Bradman-equivalent bowling decade of all time from 2000-2010.

 

[Red]

Murali averages 1 more wicket per game with an average 2 runs less (also bowling to the ATG Aus instead of SL).

CBFd looking up post 2000 but I do know Murali played 25 tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe combined, while Warne played them in 3 tests total.

 

[viriya]

CBFd looking up post 2000 but I do know Murali played 25 tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe combined, while Warne played them in 3 tests total.

Those stats were without B/Z..

 

[The Sean]

Mike Procter
Sylvester Clarke
Alan Davidson
Keith Miller
Stuart Macgill

Terrific shout. Miller is not just underrated in the cricketing world, but by society generally. There are people - actual living, breathing people - who don't consider him to be the greatest hero in the history of human life on this planet. It's beyond ridiculous.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Terrific shout. Miller is not just underrated in the cricketing world, but by society generally. There are people - actual living, breathing people - who don't consider him to be the greatest hero in the history of human life on this planet. It's beyond ridiculous.

What, like his kids? :

 

[Pratters]

They were really conducive to reverse swing though.

The ball gets roughed up and can be reversed a bit more, sure. But that doesn't mean subcontinent wickets = say South African wickets for a fast bowler. South African wickets win hands down as more conducive to fast bowling.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Those stats were without B/Z..

If you think a difference in average of 1.50 is significant enough to say that picking the other guy is "ridiculous", you're living in some sort of dreamland. Pick Murali if you want. There's no way he was miles ahead of Warne, even in the 2000s.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Couple of names I don't think I've seen mentioned are Ray Lindwall and George Statham.

Both maybe suffer from the Gillespie Factor of sharing test XIs with undoubted ATGs.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Statham a great call.

Lance Gibbs.

 

[Pratters]

Statham a great call.

Lance Gibbs.

Lance Gibbs, I have not read much even about despite him taking 300 wickets. Now an average of 29 and a strike rate of around 90 might seem average but he was a spinner and not every one can be as attacking a spinner like Tiger O'Rielly.

Considering Warne averaged around 26 and is considered the greatest leg spinner/spinner ever, Gibbs did quite all right. The strike rates in those eras for spinners are bound to be low given the batsmen played much more defensively.

 

[The Sean]

What, like his kids? :

I have no idea what you're talking about...

Couple of names I don't think I've seen mentioned are Ray Lindwall and George Statham.

Both maybe suffer from the Gillespie Factor of sharing test XIs with undoubted ATGs.

Not sure Lindwall is underrated - perhaps the memory of him has faded a little over the years and the younger generation look at his stats and see excellent-but-not-stellar numbers, but his reputation among those who played with and against him, or saw him close at hand, is virtually unparalleled.

Statham, however, is a great call - a wonderful bowler and the perfect foil to both Trueman and Tyson. Tom Graveney, a contemporary of all three, actually rated Statham the greatest post-war English fast bowler.

 

[harsh.ag]

Lindwall definitely not underrated. Most people's third best Australian fast bowler of all time.

Statham is a very good call. Must admit I tend to forget about him quite a lot, while Tyson is always remembered.

There was a Pakistani bowler, Khan Mohammad, who seems to have done very well as the new ball partner of Fazal Mahmood, but is hardly talked about.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Not sure Lindwall is underrated - perhaps the memory of him has faded a little over the years and the younger generation look at his stats and see excellent-but-not-stellar numbers, but his reputation among those who played with and against him, or saw him close at hand, is virtually unparalleled.

Statham, however, is a great call - a wonderful bowler and the perfect foil to both Trueman and Tyson. Tom Graveney, a contemporary of all three, actually rated Statham the greatest post-war English fast bowler.

Yeah, maybe you're right about RRL. Perhaps "slightly overlooked nowadays" would be closer to the mark than "underrated" as such.

200-odd wickets at a tick over 23 and a being good enough bat to have two test tons to his name whilst kicking goals for St George is f impressive in my book.

 

[akilana]

CBFd looking up post 2000 but I do know Murali played 25 tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe combined, while Warne played them in 3 tests total.

If you are removing Bang/Zimb for the reasons they were average teams and Warne didn't play a lot against then that's fair. But you should remove Murali's tests against Australia for a proper comparision because Warne never played against them and it gives him a slight advantage. Murali might have played weak teams more but he played against the greatest team of all time a fair amount of times.

 

[viriya]

If you think a difference in average of 1.50 is significant enough to say that picking the other guy is "ridiculous", you're living in some sort of dreamland. Pick Murali if you want. There's no way he was miles ahead of Warne, even in the 2000s.

It is significant when he takes 20% more wickets per match at a better average. That's almost like saying that someone with a batting average of 50 is not doing better than one who averages 40.

 

[Burgey]

Shaun Pollock did 32 and 23 and no one cares for him as a great all-rounder. Or even Trevor Goddard who did ~35 and 26.. Aubrey Faulkner is barely mentioned with 41 and 26.

I'm not saying Miller wasn't an ATG all-rounder.. just that he is given legendary status as potentially the only threat to Sobers..

Pollock batted eight though. Miller batted five or six.

 

[BeeGee]

Me.

I was at least 10 times better than most people gave me credit for. Just because I had a beer gut and was often drunk/hungover doesn't mean I couldn't carve up most piss weak bowling attacks. Damn you! I could have been a contender!

 

[Flametree]

Brian Statham is so under-rated that the first poster to mention him calls him "George" and several posters mention him afterwards but don't correct the name. Not so much under-rated as forgotten.

Khan Mohammed is a good pick - his average was dented about 5 points in one innings (0-259 I think when Sobers got his 365) but he still averaged low 20's.

Barrington was just not appreciated because he was pretty ugly to watch, and the English preferred Compton, May, Dexter, Graveney, Cowdrey who were more stylists even though their averages were lower.


I think players most likely to be under-rated are those in extremely good sides who would have stood out more in other teams. So for a start anyone who played alongside Warne-McGrath. So many times I've heard folk disparage Ponting as a captain and say "it was easy when all you had to do was throw it to Warne or McGrath".... which completely overlooks the contributions of Gillespie, Reiffel, Fleming, Clark, MacGill who were all terrific bowlers who don't get much of a mention. (Perversely, I think Brett Lee somehow avoids this and is over-rated) Same goes for Walker and Mallett in the Lillee-Thomson era.

My pick would be Mushtaq Mohammad - anyone who averages nearly 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball is a seriously useful cricketer to have in a side.

 

[Zinzan]

3 massively underrated New Zealand test players;

1) John F Reid
2) Dion Nash
3) Bruce Taylor

 

[fredfertang]

Brian Statham is so under-rated that the first poster to mention him calls him "George" and several posters mention him afterwards but don't correct the name. Not so much under-rated as forgotten.

Always George to his mates