Name an overrated and an underrated cricketer

[Chrish]

I hear the sentiment - essentially that you can be great and still be overrated. Like you didn't take a wicket every ball nor swat every ball for six (I'm being facetious)

But I don't think it could ever be explained to me how Bradman can be overrated when he's seen as the greatest of all-time, unless someone said he was perfect. Nor Hadlee, I mean he's rated as one of the greatest bowlers of all-time. No one's saying he was an all-rounder of Kallis' ilk, that he was a god who turned water into wickets etc.

If someone said Hadlee benefitted from not having another bonafide strike bowler in his side, then I hear that. But he's still incredibly good, ala McGrath was with Warne 'stealing' some of his wickets that Hadlee probably avoided having happen to him.

Being overrated is different from being no 1.

Sachin and Imran although fine players are pretty overrated outside of this forum (ICF/ Pakpassion etc)

On the other hand, I find Bradman to be most over-hyped player on here followed by Marshall.

 

[SteveNZ]

All I ever refer to with Bradman is that he was so far ahead of his peers that you have to believe he'd have succeeded in any era with any equipment. When you're 30-40 runs ahead of anyone else, that's unprecedented in any sport.

I don't see how you can over-hype that. Our sport has perhaps the most dominant 'athlete' of all-time. Or he's at least a very strong argument.

 

[mr_mister]

Uhh, Voges?

 

[cnerd123]

Uhh, Voges?

Bradman averaged 95 over 338 FC innings with 117 centuries and just 69 fifties. Also had a HS of 452.

So to answer your question...no.

 

[smash84]

Being overrated is different from being no 1.

Sachin and Imran although fine players are pretty overrated outside of this forum (ICF/ Pakpassion etc)

On the other hand, I find Bradman to be most over-hyped player on here followed by Marshall.

hmmm, if you're taking ICF and PakPassion seriously then no wonder you feel some players are over hyped. These forums are the pits and the breeding grounds for extreme fanboys. They are probably far removed even from the normal SC fan on the street

 

[Biryani Pillow]

I would suggest that Sachin is wrongly underrated on this forum for what I have read.

I'd say he's the best batsman I've seen in over 40 years watching the game.

I would agree on Imran being overrated though. Let's just say that if the condition of the ball was monitored to the same extent in his time as it is now his bowling would not look nearly as dangerous. His batting was decent but I doubt he'd ever have got near the Test side if that was his only card.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh and Kapil Dev is underrated - took 300 wickets in the toughest of situations. However, it took him forever to take over 400, and thus people don't realize the impact he first had when he came onto the scene. Not enough is made of the fact that he was successful in situations that not many fast bowlers are.

He's one of three players who are absolute lock-downs in any all-time India XI (along with Tendulkar and Gavaskar). Actually, an all-time India XI would be a great exercise... where's my main man, Jono?

Jono and FRancis' all time Indian XI:


Gavaskar
Kohli
Kohli
Sachin
Kohli
Kohli
Kohli
Kapil
Kohli
Kohli
Kohli

 

[smash84]

I would suggest that Sachin is wrongly underrated on this forum for what I have read.

I'd say he's the best batsman I've seen in over 40 years watching the game.

I would agree on Imran being overrated though. Let's just say that if the condition of the ball was monitored to the same extent in his time as it is now his bowling would not look nearly as dangerous. His batting was decent but I doubt he'd ever have got near the Test side if that was his only card.

So you're saying all the pre- 90s bowlers are overrated because the ball wasn't monitored as much back then as it is now? Brilliant.

Sachin is underrated but Imran is overrated.

Hello Mr ICF.

 

[the big bambino]

But then again, in Bradman's day, I'm sure that the only two great countries were Australia and England. The West Indies had Headley and nothing else. South Africa came to Australia and Bradman had a batting average over 200. I guess they were like the Bangladesh of that day. Without that series, Bradman's numbers suffer. New Zealand were too busy giving woman voting rights to be good at cricket at that time.

Bradman's average against England was around 90 IIRC, which is still amazing. But if you take a professional approach to the game, then maybe it would be much lower.

He's the greatest cricketer ever. But an argument can be made that in this day he would make less runs.

A classic example of Bradman's success paradoxically used against him. He averaged 200 v SA therefore they must be rubbish and his stats are inflated. From Bradman's debut up to the war England won more ashes tests than Australia. In the same period Eng were beaten in 2 series by SA. If you can find where Bangla Desh beat, say SA or India in the 90s in two series of 5 tests, then your comparison holds. If not it doesn't ... It doesn't.

Headley was the WI most dominant player in the 20s and 30s. While his fame tends to receive most attention from cricket historians it doesn't mean he was their only top class cricketer. They had some good pace men for example. They also won a test against Australia in Australia during their 1st tour there. Something that other sides like India, Pakistan and NZ took much longer to achieve.

There is no reason to disallow Bradman's series against SA to qualify his overall average. The opposite reasoning should apply. If Bradman played tests against his available opponents in the same proportion as modern players his average would climb to about 120 or 130. If anything the fact he played most of his tests against his strongest opponent should be qualified and his ave increased accordingly.

 

[Francis]

A classic example of Bradman's success paradoxically used against him. He averaged 200 v SA therefore they must be rubbish and his stats are inflated. From Bradman's debut up to the war England won more ashes tests than Australia. In the same period Eng were beaten in 2 series by SA. If you can find where Bangla Desh beat, say SA or India in the 90s in two series of 5 tests, then your comparison holds. If not it doesn't ... It doesn't.

Headley was the WI most dominant player in the 20s and 30s. While his fame tends to receive most attention from cricket historians it doesn't mean he was their only top class cricketer. They had some good pace men for example. They also won a test against Australia in Australia during their 1st tour there. Something that other sides like India, Pakistan and NZ took much longer to achieve.

There is no reason to disallow Bradman's series against SA to qualify his overall average. The opposite reasoning should apply. If Bradman played tests against his available opponents in the same proportion as modern players his average would climb to about 120 or 130. If anything the fact he played most of his tests against his strongest opponent should be qualified and his ave increased accordingly.

I was basing my assertion that SA were a pretty weak side based on one of the few interviews Bradman gave. He noted they weren't the strongest competition.

 

[Red]

I would suggest that Sachin is wrongly underrated on this forum for what I have read.

I'd say he's the best batsman I've seen in over 40 years watching the game.

I would agree on Imran being overrated though. Let's just say that if the condition of the ball was monitored to the same extent in his time as it is now his bowling would not look nearly as dangerous. His batting was decent but I doubt he'd ever have got near the Test side if that was his only card.

Billions of Indians bang on about Sachin being God that it makes others feel he's overrated.

Non-Indians get sick of their **** on forums and comment sections and underrate him.

He was bloody remarkable though, his record against all opponents in all conditions is absolutely incredible and shouldn't be underestimated.

 

[the big bambino]

@Francis.

Understandable if not accurate. Inaccurate unless you accept that the side that beat the team that won more ashes tests against Australia is weak. Understandable if you allow that Australia destroyed SA in the same period because we were able to exploit their traditional weakness against spin. I mean you saw how they struggled against Warne. Back in the day they had to deal with O'Reilly as well as Grimmett (and Ironmonger).

 

[Coronis]

I was basing my assertion that SA were a pretty weak side based on one of the few interviews Bradman gave. He noted they weren't the strongest competition.

Well yes because England was the strongest competition, throughout his entire career.

 

[cnerd123]

Starting to feel bad for Francis here. He has already said Bradman is GOAT and said Murali is in the Top 2 spinners/Top 5 bowlers of all time. He was just trying to offer a (perfectly valid) argument on why Murai isn't the Bradman of Bowling and tried to argue a (perfectly fair) case on Bradman possibly averaging lower in the modern era while still comfortably remaining the GOAT.

getting a lot of unecessary flack IMO.

 

[AldoRaine18]

Yep, his reasoning was sound in my opinion.

 

[SteveNZ]

Starting to feel bad for Francis here. He has already said Bradman is GOAT and said Murali is in the Top 2 spinners/Top 5 bowlers of all time. He was just trying to offer a (perfectly valid) argument on why Murai isn't the Bradman of Bowling and tried to argue a (perfectly fair) case on Bradman possibly averaging lower in the modern era while still comfortably remaining the GOAT.

getting a lot of unecessary flack IMO.

Murali isn't the Bradman of bowling so that's completely fine.

But there is no relevance to how Bradman would perform in the modern era. Absolute infeasible to even begin to guess how he'd go. All we need to know is he was 39 odd runs better than anyone else in his era. That's unmatched in any sport, in any era. If he was facing soft bowling on feather beds (which he wasn't), well he still scored head and shoulders above anyone else in doing so. I still fail to see how he could ever be overrated, or even be brought up in this thread.

I mean we could throw up that in the modern era, being the potentially divisive/rugged personality that he was, that he might've had twitter parody accounts attacking him, suffered a career-ending staph infection from a tattoo gone wrong, given up on Test cricket the moment his average rose above 100 to deal exclusively in T20 leagues, and so on. But if my aunty had a dick, etc.

 

[the big bambino]

No sound reasoning if its based on statements like SA was as bad as the Bangers or that Bradman's ave should be discounted bcos of his one good series against them.

 

[Mukkeshjetley]

Overrated: Cris Gayle
Underratted: Simmons

 

[weldone]

Why do you think this? Genuinely interested.

Most people rate him as one of the 2 best test batsmen of the last 40 years. I don't see any compelling reason to be convinced about that. He was devastatingly aggressive, sure - and I consider him the best ODI batsman ever. He was very good in tests too - but most people rate him higher than Lara or Gavaskar and I don't agree with that. He wasn't very good against quality spin too. But mainly, I think quick scorers are always overrated.

 

[Gob]

Most people rate him as one of the 2 best test batsmen of the last 40 years. I don't see any compelling reason to be convinced about that. He was devastatingly aggressive, sure - and I consider him the best ODI batsman ever. He was very good in tests too - but most people rate him higher than Lara or Gavaskar and I don't agree with that. He wasn't very good against quality spin too. But mainly, I think quick scorers are always overrated.

People rate him based on how good he was when he was at his peak i think