Top Five Most Underrated Cricketers Ever.

[Cabinet96]

Kills would not make it past anyone's third ATG XI and is seen at worst the second best (3rd of you include Gilchrist) batting all rounder in history. He cannot be under rated.

What does this even mean? Are you saying people overrate him and therefore he can't be underrated? If so fair enough, but if you're trying to claim that someone who is generally rated among the very best can't be underrated that's not true.

 

[akilana]

Kallis is underrated when it comes to T20, In ODI and Test he is neither overrated nor underrated

I think he is more underrated in ODIs. His SR wasn't amazing but it's very close to Ganguly, M Waugh and few other more lauded ODI batsmen. What he lacked was hundreds. He regulalry got 50s and set a platform for the lower middle order without really going on to make a big score. Trott was a poor man's Kallis and see how England have been struggling without Trott.

 

[Red Devil]

I think he is more underrated in ODIs. His SR wasn't amazing but it's very close to Ganguly, M Waugh and few other more lauded ODI batsmen. What he lacked was hundreds. He regulalry got 50s and set a platform for the lower middle order without really going on to make a big score. Trott was a poor man's Kallis and see how England have been struggling without Trott.

People say drop Kallis in T20s but never heard anyone saying drop him in ODIs, So he isn't underrated when it comes to ODIs imo

 

[andmark]

You're joking right?

I've spoken to club cricketers who didn't know him. The only people who know him seem to be the real cricketing aficionados who also know who David Frith is. This forum's different because the people on here tend to be well read on cricketing matters and so naturally know of him, but that's not to say all cricket fans do.

 

[Red]

To determine overrating and underrating properly we need a neutral "Ratings Board". Once we've determined a player's actual worth, then we can determine whether they're overrated or underrated.

I will chair this board. I will be looking for four other members.

 

[kyear2]

Yes Kallis. He is the best batting all rounder ever.

Yes, because you know more about cricket than every past and present cricketer, commentator, historian and journalist.

Main criteria as a batting all rounder is the batting. From his own era Kallis the batsman was behind Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting possibly now Sangakkara and some (not me) may argue Dravid.

 

[Flem274*]

Depends what you're after really. I'm starting to separate out different roles when I judge players, because in the real world a test side has a mixture of different styles and they need to balance each other out. Sehwag and Dravid for example complement each other beautifully.

Kallis, Chanderpaul and Dravid are contenders for being the greatest anchors of all time. Dravid's 2011 series in England is a great example of why you want an awesome anchor in your team.

The beauty of Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara and Sangakkara is they can be both dominant and conservative. None of them are as good at playing anchor as Dravid or Kallis but that wasn't important because the former four players already had anchors in their team. Dravid played carefully and Tendulkar attacked. Same with Lara and Chanderpaul. Kallis and Smith offset Gibbs and often the mediocre batsmen like Alviro and Rudolph. Ponting's side weren't really into defending unless they absolutely had to but Langer was a good anchor.

I don't really see it as everyone I've mentioned being against each other because for a middle order I'm going to pick more than one of them.

 

[Prince EWS]

This concept always seems a bit circular for me. If everyone agrees with you then you're actually far less likely to be right than if everyone disagrees with you. If you suggest someone and get a lot of agreement then it's likely the player in question is either just under-mentioned rather than under-rated, or most people are just wrong about what most other people think. If people disagree then at least you're on the right track.

You can have a fierce argument with someone over whether a player was under-rated despite actually agreeing entirely on how good the player is, because you disagree on how good you think everyone else thinks they are.

tldr: make your list and then leave the thread or your head will explode.

 

[Flem274*]

Well I've just gone and forgotten Andy Flower in my post above so I'm going to get in a fierce argument with someone about how underrated I now think he is.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Well I've just gone and forgotten Andy Flower in my post above so I'm going to get in a fierce argument with someone about how underrated I now think he is.

Extremely overrated.


As a keeper.

 

[MrPrez]

I think the terms Sobers and Kallis should be banned within the same post on this site. I go through spells of visiting this site, but every time I come along, there is massive conflict over the two.

No comment, by the way. I just don't have the energy.

 

[MrPrez]

The truth to threads like this is that older players are underrated the most. Guys like Barnes, Grace, possibly Larwood, Spofforth etc. Because most people overrate players of the past 20 years, barely know guys from the mid 20th century, and by the time you look back to pre-1900, cricket may as well not have existed for the majority of cricket viewers.

 

[MrPrez]

If you only count the sort of fan that knows significant amounts of stuff about cricketers throughout the years, you would have to conclude that modern-day cricketers are the most underrated because they haven't developed legacies yet. Someone like Chanderpaul will be revered in years to come, but is rarely mentioned alongside older but equals from the past (whom historically-knowledgeable fans romance about).

 

[akilana]

Yes, because you know more about cricket than every past and present cricketer, commentator, historian and journalist.

Main criteria as a batting all rounder is the batting. From his own era Kallis the batsman was behind Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting possibly now Sangakkara and some (not me) may argue Dravid.

because past cricketers are living in the past. Sobers would have been behind all of those batsmen if he played in this era. Past cricketers still rate Lillee ahead of McGrath. Like Lillee, Sobers was the first of a kind hence the exaggeration and extra adulation.

 

[MrPrez]

because past cricketers are living in the past. Sobers would have been behind all of those batsmen if he played in this era.

Mate I'm literally probably the biggest Kallis fanboy on this site, and I reckon Sobers > Kallis with the bat. The question is how comparable are they.

 

[akilana]

Mate I'm literally probably the biggest Kallis fanboy on this site, and I reckon Sobers > Kallis with the bat. The question is how comparable are they.

I used to be the biggest fan boi of Sobers and then I saw Kallis

 

[OverratedSanity]

@topic Bill Johnston

 

[cnerd123]

Sobers would have been behind all of those batsmen if he played in this era.

Such a ridiculous argument.

If you got a time machine and lifted Sobers straight from his peak and plopped him down in the modern era, then yes, maybe.

If you got a sample of Sobers' DNA, and let him grow up as a child playing cricket in the modern era, and provide him with all the necessary equipment and coaching and exposure to modern cricket and it's techniques and nuances, then no.

Well maybe still yes, a lot can go wrong in raising a clone baby, but the idea is that when you compare across eras you see how much they stood out against their peers, and use that as an indicator on how much they would stand out amongst modern cricketers had they grown up and played cricket in the modern era. Essentially you compare the inherent talent and ability they had, as well as their personality, work ethic and style of play, against those of the modern cricketer.

Sobers is a free striking, gloriously elegant, aggressive left handed batsman with a great eye and a fine technique despite minimal coaching. He could bowl swing, offbreaks and legbreaks all to Test standard. And he was a brilliant fielder. He was clever, he entertained crowds, he worked hard and was quite fit. All in all he would have been an ATG no matter which era he grew up playing in.

 

[kyear2]

If you only count the sort of fan that knows significant amounts of stuff about cricketers throughout the years, you would have to conclude that modern-day cricketers are the most underrated because they haven't developed legacies yet. Someone like Chanderpaul will be revered in years to come, but is rarely mentioned alongside older but equals from the past (whom historically-knowledgeable fans romance about).

My only argument to that is, I have watched all of Shiv's career and while his solidly will be missed, his legacy will never approach that of Lara's because of the (very real) perception that he played for him self and placed his numbers above the team.

A
Additionally it is possible to build a legacy while you are still playing. Tendulkar and Stern and two top tier legends of the game and are readily accepted as such by all already.

 

[slowfinger]

Fawad Alam, Chanderpaul,