Name an overrated and an underrated cricketer

[smash84]

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.

Fair enough, this is not an unreasonable opinion to have. Lara and Gavaskar are great in their own right

However if you watched him bat you could see that he brought a very palpable psychological element to the game. He could look the fastest bowlers in the world in the eyes and tonk them around without getting intimidated. He could take the fight to the opposition like no other. I have seen Lara getting knocked unconsonscious(?) to Shoaib Akhtar due to not being able to handle express pace. I can't imagine that happening to Richards. He was as fearless as any that have graced the cricket field and in a time with express bowlers, some very quick pitches (obviously some, not every pitch was quick), and little protection he was the giant on the field. I think its hard for people who haven't followed him much to really capture all the intangibles of his batting. His average looks average but his impact was wayyy beyond most other batsmen.

 

[AldoRaine18]

I consider him the best ODI batsman ever..

Talk about overrating him.

 

[StephenZA]

Speaking of all-rounders reminds me: Jaques Kallis is overrated in ODI's. In Tests he was superb and an all-time great, but in ODI's he's overrated.

I don`t think that Kallis was overrated in ODI`s it just that his batting was not as good. But his bowling in ODI`s was more important than what he did in tests. His bowling in tests was to give the gun bowlers a rest and he took some good wickets. In ODi`you need that genuine class all-rounder that could produce you 10 overs and contribute equally as a bowler and batsmen.

Just as a general comment one of the biggest differences between the eras is fitness and practice. In the era`s previous to professional cricket (sport) few did or could practice at the same intensity as they do today. And I`ve always wondered if that was what guys like Bradman, and other greats, did so much better than their contemporaries to set themselves so far apart. Today its a requirement to have a certain fitness to even play international cricket, thus creating a more level playing field making the statistical differences smaller. It`s always just been a thought with me...

 

[Jono]

Jono and FRancis' all time Indian XI:


Gavaskar
Kohli
Kohli
Sachin
Kohli
Kohli
Kohli
Kapil
Kohli
Kohli
Kohli

Kohli would tell Sachin to gagf and move him from #4. He's big enough a star now.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I genuinely think Kohli is a better Limited-overs bat than Tendulkar was

though I probably never saw Tendulkar at his best and his late career ****ness may have swayed my opinion disproportionately

 

[the big bambino]

Kohli is both fun and despairing to watch for this fan at least. He's a combo of SRT's consistency and in style as exciting as VVS. I wonder what trick Anderson has that seems the only answer to him?

 

[vcs]

I genuinely think Kohli is a better Limited-overs bat than Tendulkar was

though I probably never saw Tendulkar at his best and his late career ****ness may have swayed my opinion disproportionately

He's indisputably a better chaser, and hence will win more matches for his team in a direct and noticeable fashion.

Sachin was better at setting targets, though. Kohli can go through periods where he struggles to rotate strike and gets bogged down (against Bangladesh in the World T20, against SA in the 3rd ODI last year), this almost never happened with Sachin.

 

[AldoRaine18]

When comparing Virat and Sachin, it is important to also note the quality of bowlers they faced.

 

[SkyBlue]

Sachin was never quite the same after his tennis elbow injury.I mean he never got back to his explosive self like he was in the mid-late 90s.You have to remember that at the time when a SR of 70 was considered really good,he had a SR of 85-90.He was scoring runs quicker than anybody at the time.
Sachin in his later yrs though was annoying.All he cared about was his records more than winning.

As for Kohli,he genuinely seems to be the type of guy who would put winning above anything else.In that regard he has the edge over Sachin.

 

[vcs]

I genuinely think Kohli is a better Limited-overs bat than Tendulkar was

though I probably never saw Tendulkar at his best and his late career ****ness may have swayed my opinion disproportionately

Sachin was rarely ever **** in ODIs.. because he hardly played them towards the end. Think you're being swayed by his Test shitness post-2011. He barely played any ODI cricket from 2010 onwards, and was still comfortably our best batsman in the 2011 WC.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, IIRC he scored the ODI 200 in early 2010, and then took the entire year off. Then he played the WC in 2011 where he was excellent, and then 2012 was the last year he played ODIs. He was shite in ODIs for just the last one year, and even that was shite only by his own standards.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Sachin was never quite the same after his tennis elbow injury.I mean he never got back to his explosive self like he was in the mid-late 90s.You have to remember that at the time when a SR of 70 was considered really good,he had a SR of 85-90.He was scoring runs quicker than anybody at the time.

This is a good point. Sachin in the 90s was ABDV-esque. He was miles ahead of everyone else and doing things that no-one else knew were possible.

 

[Bijed]

Had a very quick think for underrated players and will say, and I'm not necessarily expecting people to agree with me here as I seem to have wildly different views on such things to most people, - in test matches, Matt Prior & Shane Watson

 

[Black_Warrior]

Sachin was never quite the same after his tennis elbow injury.I mean he never got back to his explosive self like he was in the mid-late 90s.You have to remember that at the time when a SR of 70 was considered really good,he had a SR of 85-90.He was scoring runs quicker than anybody at the time.
Sachin in his later yrs though was annoying.All he cared about was his records more than winning.

As for Kohli,he genuinely seems to be the type of guy who would put winning above anything else.In that regard he has the edge over Sachin.

2009-2011 Tendulkar was as good as he had ever played (both Tests and ODIs).
He just did it differently. He moulded into more of a rock like Dravideque in the last few years, as opposed to the 90s where he was more Gilchristesque (in ODIs)

2011 1st test in Australia onwards he was **** though. Both in Tests and ODIs.

I think he had a 86 in the first test when India were 2 down cruising along before his wicket started a collapse.

That was the last of the great Tendulkar too.

 

[Gob]

Kohli is both fun and despairing to watch for this fan at least. He's a combo of SRT's consistency and in style as exciting as VVS. I wonder what trick Anderson has that seems the only answer to him?

After consulting with some scientists at NASA i figured out that the trick is an out swinger at good length.

 

[Gob]

This is a good point. Sachin in the 90s was ABDV-esque. He was miles ahead of everyone else and doing things that no-one else knew were possible.

good post. well done

 

[kiwiviktor81]

good post. well done

Another thing Sachin had was that he was often dropped because he hit the ball so hard that the fielder couldn't hold on even though they got their hands to it. No other batsman had this because no-one else hit it as hard.

 

[Gob]

Another thing Sachin had was that he was often dropped because he hit the ball so hard that the fielder couldn't hold on even though they got their hands to it. No other batsman had this because no-one else hit it as hard.

not a good post

 

[91Jmay]

After consulting with some scientists at NASA i figured out that the trick is an out swinger at good length.

Jimmy trapped him with the in ducker a few times as well.

 

[Kirkut]

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.

Completely agree.