Top Five Most Underrated Cricketers Ever.

[NZTailender]

Is he a late bloomer? Sorry I don't follow Aussie domestic cricket.

And Shaun Pollock was a genuine all-rounder.. a lower order batsman that was capable.

I don't think you know what genuine all-rounder means...that or you think South Africa had a shortage of quality batsmen during Pollock's time.

 

[viriya]

I don't think you know what genuine all-rounder means...that or you think South Africa had a shortage of quality batsmen during Pollock's time.

If Shaun Pollock wasn't a genuine all-rounder there were probably <10 genuine all-rounders in the history of the game. He wasn't an ATG, but he was more than capable to be considered a genuine all-rounder.

 

[Riggins]

I think most people would consider a genuine all-rounder to be someone who would make the side as either a batsman or a bowler at some point in their career. Pollock was a useful bat but at no point would have been selected purely as a batsman.

 

[the big bambino]

Kapil rightly thought of as an AR so should Pollock imo. Magnificent bowler obvs, considered on that skill alone. (Just can't understand the wacky diversion comparing him with Gilchrist).

 

[cnerd123]

Pollock was a good batsman. His problem was a lack of application more than any technical shortcomings.

Had he focused exclusively on being a batsman, I have no doubt he would have been on the fringes of the National team on that skill alone, if not in it.

 

[harsh.ag]

Pollock was a good batsman. His problem was a lack of application more than any technical shortcomings.

Had he focused exclusively on being a batsman, I have no doubt he would have been on the fringes of the National team on that skill alone, if not in it.

Especially with a little coaching from uncle.

 

[viriya]

I think most people would consider a genuine all-rounder to be someone who would make the side as either a batsman or a bowler at some point in their career. Pollock was a useful bat but at no point would have been selected purely as a batsman.

There are like 3 players all-time who would make the team like that.. Sobers wouldn't make the team imo. His bowling was overrated.

 

[steve132]

There are like 3 players all-time who would make the team like that.. Sobers wouldn't make the team imo. His bowling was overrated.

Sobers was initially selected for the West Indies as a bowler. In his prime (the 1960's) he maintained his place as a bowler alone. He was one of the four leading West Indian bowlers (the others were Hall, Griffith and Gibbs) in a period when the West Indies were the best team in the world (1962-1968).

 

[Red]

Sobers, Miller, Imran, Botham and Jack Gregory would've all made their nations test XI on the strength of either skill.

Kapil, Kallis probably would've.

Hadlee might've made the NZ XI as a batsman but wouldn't in a stronger side. The same is true for Shaun Pollock. In a weak side he'd prob bat at 6.

 

[NZTailender]

If Shaun Pollock wasn't a genuine all-rounder there were probably <10 genuine all-rounders in the history of the game. He wasn't an ATG, but he was more than capable to be considered a genuine all-rounder.

Well, yes.

There was a period each in the careers of Pollock, Cairns and Flintoff where they were genuinely in the top 6 of the batsmen in their respective countries, I think there are just different tiers to it. In that respect, Pollock was a genuine all-rounder at a point in his career. But not an 'ATG all-rounder'.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I think most people would consider a genuine all-rounder to be someone who would make the side as either a batsman or a bowler at some point in their career. Pollock was a useful bat but at no point would have been selected purely as a batsman.

I completely disagree with that definition. A genuine all-rounder is a player who is world class in one discipline, and capable of consistent contribution in the other. IMO, there hasn't been a single player in history genuinely capable of making their side as a batsman and bowler at the same time for any sustained period, save possibly Imran Khan.

 

[Red]

I completely disagree with that definition. A genuine all-rounder is a player who is world class in one discipline, and capable of consistent contribution in the other. IMO, there hasn't been a single player in history genuinely capable of making their side as a batsman and bowler at the same time for any sustained period, save possibly Imran Khan.

Imran, Sobers, Botham, Miller and Jack Gregory all would've.

That said, the conversation here is really about guys who were selected as bowlers but could also very capably hold a bat. Number 8s. Bowling allrounders. Pollock and Hadlee are good examples.

Both had a big work load with the ball. I actually tend to think that if either of them were unable to bowl and focussed on their batting in the top 6, they'd probably average 40 plus.

 

[viriya]

Sobers was initially selected for the West Indies as a bowler. In his prime (the 1960's) he maintained his place as a bowler alone. He was one of the four leading West Indian bowlers (the others were Hall, Griffith and Gibbs) in a period when the West Indies were the best team in the world (1962-1968).

Sobers had a bowling average of 52.47 after 20 tests.. it steadily improved to ~35 over his career.. He might have been good enough to be picked as just a bowler alone for the WI then, but take away the Sobers name and if someone had a bowling average of 50+ at 20 tests now no one would say he gets picked just for bowling.

 

[viriya]

Imran, Sobers, Botham, Miller and Jack Gregory all would've.

All of them had maybe a few years in their careers where they would've, but by and large they were only world class in one discipline.

 

[Red]

All of them had maybe a few years in their careers where they would've, but by and large they were only world class in one discipline.

I'm not really talking "world class". I'm saying that they'd all make an normal test team based on their less dominant skill.

As batsmen alone they would all currently make Australia's team in the top 6.

 

[viriya]

I'm not really talking "world class". I'm saying that they'd all make an normal test team based on their less dominant skill.

As batsmen alone they would all currently make Australia's team in the top 6.

I'm ok with that definition, as long as Pollock is also classified as a genuine all-rounder.

 

[Riggins]

Definition valid provided it turns out to support what I hope, but otherwise invalid. Classic.

 

[Jono]

Definition valid provided it turns out to support what I hope, but otherwise invalid. Classic.

!

Honestly that post by viriya is amazing.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sobers had a bowling average of 52.47 after 20 tests.. it steadily improved to ~35 over his career.. He might have been good enough to be picked as just a bowler alone for the WI then, but take away the Sobers name and if someone had a bowling average of 50+ at 20 tests now no one would say he gets picked just for bowling.

If anything, the fact that Sobers got his bowling average to drop by 20 points shows how good he was with the ball after that. His bowling is ridiculously underrated imo. Handled a workload far higher than any other batting all rounder, and had several series where he was had genuinely world class returns with the ball.

In the 1960-1968 period, he dominated with bat and ball like no other cricketer ever. Look up some stats in that period and since you love spreadsheets. And 8 years is a ****ing long time. Almost as long as the entire career of someone like Flintoff.

 

[OverratedSanity]

@Topic
Shoaib Akhtar