Name an overrated and an underrated cricketer

[Francis]

You know who I think is really overrated, and I've been meaning to say this for a long time...

MARK TAYLOR

I appreciate that Taylor batted in a tougher era than Hayden, with Akram, Ambrose, Walsh, Pollock, Waqar, etc.

But Taylor averaged just about 43. His 334* is also one of the most overrated innings in cricket history, in that it was made on a flat-track in a Test destined to become a draw. IIRC, there were no second innings in that Test. Scoring 334* on a flat track is an amazing accomplishment, but given the conditions it maybe wasn't even his best innings. Take that innings out and his Test average drops even further.

IMO, Victor Trumper, Bill Ponsford, Arthur Morris, Bob Simpson, Matthew Hayden, Bill Brown.. and maybe even Bill Lawry and Sidney Barnes (Barnes didn't bat enough for Australia really) were better...

Which leads me to my underrated player...

MATTHEW HAYDEN

I agree he batted in an easier era in terms of bowling competition. I agreed he failed in 1993. I agree he batted in flatter pitches than Taylor. And he notched up 380 against a horrible, HORRIBLE Zimbabwe side, and his batting average dips to 48 if you take that innings away.

But crickey! He was still amazing! He was still one of the best ever openers! He still deserves to be considered a candidate for an all-time Australian XV. He dominated some great bowling and crafted some great innings! I've seen YouTube videos of him destroying Shane Warne. Hayden stood up to him.

I think people underrated Hayden for the some reason people don't want to give Warne his due - not everybody likes him.

 

[Jono]

Name me a 300 that wasn't scored on a flat track though.

 

[Kirkut]

You know who I think is really overrated, and I've been meaning to say this for a long time...

MARK TAYLOR

I appreciate that Taylor batted in a tougher era than Hayden, with Akram, Ambrose, Walsh, Pollock, Waqar, etc.

But Taylor averaged just about 43. His 334* is also one of the most overrated innings in cricket history, in that it was made on a flat-track in a Test destined to become a draw. IIRC, there were no second innings in that Test. Scoring 334* on a flat track is an amazing accomplishment, but given the conditions it maybe wasn't even his best innings. Take that innings out and his Test average drops even further.

IMO, Victor Trumper, Bill Ponsford, Arthur Morris, Bob Simpson, Matthew Hayden, Bill Brown.. and maybe even Bill Lawry and Sidney Barnes (Barnes didn't bat enough for Australia really) were better...

Which leads me to my underrated player...

MATTHEW HAYDEN

I agree he batted in an easier era in terms of bowling competition. I agreed he failed in 1993. I agree he batted in flatter pitches than Taylor. And he notched up 380 against a horrible, HORRIBLE Zimbabwe side, and his batting average dips to 48 if you take that innings away.

But crickey! He was still amazing! He was still one of the best ever openers! He still deserves to be considered a candidate for an all-time Australian XV. He dominated some great bowling and crafted some great innings! I've seen YouTube videos of him destroying Shane Warne. Hayden stood up to him.

I think people underrated Hayden for the some reason people don't want to give Warne his due - not everybody likes him.

Hayden is rated. Everyone knew how intimidating it was to bowl to Hayden with the new ball, I remember bowlers tried very hard to get him out in single digit score itself, they were that scared of him. Definitely one of the pillars of Australian world domination.

 

[Red]

Hayden went missing when the opposition pace attack was good and firing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You know who I think is really overrated, and I've been meaning to say this for a long time...

MARK TAYLOR

I appreciate that Taylor batted in a tougher era than Hayden, with Akram, Ambrose, Walsh, Pollock, Waqar, etc.

But Taylor averaged just about 43. His 334* is also one of the most overrated innings in cricket history, in that it was made on a flat-track in a Test destined to become a draw. IIRC, there were no second innings in that Test. Scoring 334* on a flat track is an amazing accomplishment, but given the conditions it maybe wasn't even his best innings. Take that innings out and his Test average drops even further.

IMO, Victor Trumper, Bill Ponsford, Arthur Morris, Bob Simpson, Matthew Hayden, Bill Brown.. and maybe even Bill Lawry and Sidney Barnes (Barnes didn't bat enough for Australia really) were better...

Which leads me to my underrated player...

MATTHEW HAYDEN

I agree he batted in an easier era in terms of bowling competition. I agreed he failed in 1993. I agree he batted in flatter pitches than Taylor. And he notched up 380 against a horrible, HORRIBLE Zimbabwe side, and his batting average dips to 48 if you take that innings away.

But crickey! He was still amazing! He was still one of the best ever openers! He still deserves to be considered a candidate for an all-time Australian XV. He dominated some great bowling and crafted some great innings! I've seen YouTube videos of him destroying Shane Warne. Hayden stood up to him.

I think people underrated Hayden for the some reason people don't want to give Warne his due - not everybody likes him.

One thing that really grinds my gears is when people say "Take x innings away and y player's average is actually z". It makes no sense and implies that said player isn't as good as their average suggests, which is absolutely moronic. You could just as easilu say take away all their low scores where they got bad umpiring decisions or were in unplayable conditions and their average is actually 70 . . .

neither makes sense

 

[mr_mister]

when it comes to modern Aussie Openers...


Underrated - Slater
Overrated - Langer



Basing this heavily on the bowling quality they faced

 

[Red]

I think Hayden is overrated in a broader sense (prob not as much on CW).

Langer seems to get his due, good player who actually made himself great.

Slater is under appreciated more than undervalued. When he was firing he was such a great aggressive opener. Not given due credit for his role in that dominant Aus side.

Taylor is a personal fave of mine, and I think he's remembered well, but not overrated or underrated. No one says he was the greatest ever, but he faced some great bowling and did a good job of it.

 

[Pratters]

What about Elliott?

 

[mr_mister]

I really liked Elliott, thought he had more potential than Blewett

 

[mr_mister]

After a bit of digging through '90s players stats, I was shocked to find after 35 tests, Paul Reiffel averaged 26 with both bat and ball. There aren't many other numbers you'd rather average the same for bat and ball with is there


My point is Paul Reiffel based on these stats is an ATG all-rounder

 

[TheJediBrah]

tbh so many of those Aus reserve players from the 90s/00s were, if not as good, almost as good as the A side but will never get their due.

Matthew Elliott, Hodge, Martin Love, Blewett, Michael Bevan etc. all dominated a very strong Shield competition while Australia were destroying everyone in the early 00's but hardly ever got a look in again, after failing when they were younger, and would have walked into any other international side in the world and probably dominated Test Cricket.

I know this is not exactly news to anyone but a lot these players were underrated by the world at large IMO

 

[Pratters]

Reiffel had an injury in 98 after which he didn't play tests. Could have played more if luck went his way..

 

[mr_mister]

His career was winding down just as I got into cricket. My only memories of watching him play live were him dropping Klusener over the boundary in the '99 semi. I'm guessing pretty much that was his last hurrah in international cricket


Feel like with the emergence of Lee though he never would have got back into the test team in '99 anyway. If Fleming(who was brilliant IMO) couldn't crack the McGrath/Dizzy/Lee pace trio in the '00s then surely Reiffel had no chance either?

 

[Pratters]

Yeah was such a strong Aussie side back then..

 

[Red]

tbh so many of those Aus reserve players from the 90s/00s were, if not as good, almost as good as the A side but will never get their due.

Matthew Elliott, Hodge, Martin Love, Blewett, Michael Bevan etc. all dominated a very strong Shield competition while Australia were destroying everyone in the early 00's but hardly ever got a look in again, after failing when they were younger, and would have walked into any other international side in the world and probably dominated Test Cricket.

I know this is not exactly news to anyone but a lot these players were underrated by the world at large IMO

The guys who might've played more tests but didn't in that era make a pretty formidable side.

Matthew Elliott
Jimmy Maher
Greg Blewett
Martin Love
Brad Hodge
Michael Bevan

 

[Coronis]

Don't forget Lehmann. Only played 27. Blewett played 46 tests, with only 4 centuries and an average of 34.

 

[Pratters]

Stuart Law ftw.

 

[Francis]

One thing that really grinds my gears is when people say "Take x innings away and y player's average is actually z". It makes no sense and implies that said player isn't as good as their average suggests, which is absolutely moronic. You could just as easilu say take away all their low scores where they got bad umpiring decisions or were in unplayable conditions and their average is actually 70 . . .

neither makes sense

That's not what I'm doing.

I would never take out any of Brian Lara's big scores against Australia in 1999 or Sri Lanka in 2001, because they were scored in even conditions.

I saw Taylor's triple against Pakistan and Hayden's 380 against Zimbabwe, and I doubt either would rank as their best innings ever. They were made in very, very favourable conditions.

For example, Australia and New Zealand played in horribly flat conditions in the recent Australian series. It was a boring series. And yet in New Zealand it was easier to get a result because of the swinging conditions. I regard the scores made in the series played in New Zealand as much better, because they were played in touch conditions.

Wally Hammond once scored 336, and yet his greatest innings was 32 on a Melbourne gluepot. Alan Border made 200 against England in 1993, and yet his best ever innings was 99* against an awesome West Indies attack on a terrible wicket.

I'm not huge into stats when I rate cricketers. Cricket is about responding to various situations, and the better you handle each situation, the better player you are. You might be called upon to score quick runs in a session and get out. But if you did what winning the Test requires, then that's better than a slow score, for example.

 

[Pratters]

Jayasuriya made one big 300 and his average just popped up. It's a fair point you make.

 

[mr_mister]

wait... Hammond's best ever innings was a 32?