Name an overrated and an underrated cricketer

[Francis]

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

Yes. It was apparently a deadly unplayable wet wicket (wickets weren't covered in those days). Apparently there were 17 wickets taken (Australian and English) in one session!

There are reports of balls skidding off a wet wicket and flying over his head off the bowling of Bill O'Reilly - a medium-paced spin bowler!

We don't give enough credit to the old timers for making runs off unplayable pitches.

 

[Francis]

http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/16/16063.html

I keep telling anybody who wants to say that Bill O'Reilly was better than Shane Warne, that O'Reilly had the benefit of bowling on unplayable wickets.

FOUR DUCKS (plus a tail-ender who didn't make any runs)
THREE PLAYERS WHO MADE THREE RUNS
ONLY THREE PLAYERS GOT INTO DOUBLE FIGURES

Wally Hammond said that 32 was the best innings of his career.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

You'll want to be vigilant if you're going to take any scores out of anyone's record books. You'll have to have seen every innings ever played. Otherwise your research is biased and unusable.

You're absolutely more than welcome to rate players on feel, it's called an opinion and everyone's entitled to it. But I'm also someone who absolutely gets a sick stomach every time someone says 'but we'll take that score out' or similar nonsense.

 

[Francis]

You'll want to be vigilant if you're going to take any scores out of anyone's record books. You'll have to have seen every innings ever played. Otherwise your research is biased and unusable.

You're absolutely more than welcome to rate players on feel, it's called an opinion and everyone's entitled to it. But I'm also someone who absolutely gets a sick stomach every time someone says 'but we'll take that score out' or similar nonsense.

But I'm not rating Hayden and Taylor on "feel." I saw both innings and know what kind of quality that were.

I don't feel I need to see every innings to have an idea of how good a cricketer is, and I do let stats guide me. But yes, I do think the best way to judge a cricketer is to see them play. And I give a lot of stock to testimonies that people I trust give - like the testimony of Hammond's 32.

UNDERRATED: Brian Lara
OVERRATED: Brian Lara

Brian Lara is underrated, because at his best he was the best batsman since Don Bradman. No player since Bradman has been able to consistently amass so many huge scores - the only player to score a quintuple hundred in domestic cricket, the only player to score 400, one of only two people to have scored two triple centuries. Without him, the WI would have lost the 1999 series against Australia 4-0. That series remains the best I have ever seen a cricket play, batsman or bowler. His run of form in domestic cricket in 1994 is stunning - six centuries in seven Tests, with that 501,

Brian Lara is overrated by some, because in between his best performances there are periods of mediocrity. Between the famous 1999 series against Australia and his 2001 series against Sri Lanka, he averaged in the low 30s, which is barely good enough to keep a spot in any top cricket country. People are blinded by his best, which is the best I've ever seen. But there have been prolonged periods,mike between 1996-1998 and 2000 when his head wasn't in the game.

I rate Tendulkar better than Lara, because Tendulkar was more consistent. I can understand why McGrath, Gillespie, Kumble and Murali all say that Lara was the best batsman they ever faced, and better than Tendulkar, because at his peak Lara was the best cricketer I ever saw. They faced him when he had his head screwed on. But there was overlooked periods of mediocrity.

Warne has a quote in his book 100 Greteat Cricketers on Lara that nails it on the head for me. He notes that Lara at his peak was better. But that he was more of a 'mood' player who could destroy you when he felt like it. Tendulkar was more consistent and more of an accumulator. They actually don't make an easy comparison. But Warne said that Sachin was better for his consistency and longevity.

 

[Francis]

Please excuse my many types. I'm on an iPad.

Edit: "typos".

 

[Francis]

Ps: I understand there's irony that I'm rattling off all of Lara's big scores, some I haven't seen (like his domestic centuries) and yet I'm knocking Taylor for huge innings that I did see. But we can be led by stats a little. And the fact is, if you scored six centuries from seven Tests for your school, let alone for your county, then you must be pretty good.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The Queensland bowling attack alone in the early 00s was probably stronger than most test sides as well

Bichel, Kasprowicz, Dale, Noffke etc

 

[Pratters]

The tri series in Australia used to have a visiting team, Australia and Australia A for a fair while. Usually, Australia and Australia A would go through to the final.

 

[Francis]

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

You really are a phenomenal poster here at CW, Jono. You're right. I'm wrong. Fullstop.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But I'm not rating Hayden and Taylor on "feel." I saw both innings and know what kind of quality that were.

I don't feel I need to see every innings to have an idea of how good a cricketer is, and I do let stats guide me. But yes, I do think the best way to judge a cricketer is to see them play. And I give a lot of stock to testimonies that people I trust give - like the testimony of Hammond's 32.

UNDERRATED: Brian Lara
OVERRATED: Brian Lara

Brian Lara is underrated, because at his best he was the best batsman since Don Bradman. No player since Bradman has been able to consistently amass so many huge scores - the only player to score a quintuple hundred in domestic cricket, the only player to score 400, one of only two people to have scored two triple centuries. Without him, the WI would have lost the 1999 series against Australia 4-0. That series remains the best I have ever seen a cricket play, batsman or bowler. His run of form in domestic cricket in 1994 is stunning - six centuries in seven Tests, with that 501,

Brian Lara is overrated by some, because in between his best performances there are periods of mediocrity. Between the famous 1999 series against Australia and his 2001 series against Sri Lanka, he averaged in the low 30s, which is barely good enough to keep a spot in any top cricket country. People are blinded by his best, which is the best I've ever seen. But there have been prolonged periods,mike between 1996-1998 and 2000 when his head wasn't in the game.

I rate Tendulkar better than Lara, because Tendulkar was more consistent. I can understand why McGrath, Gillespie, Kumble and Murali all say that Lara was the best batsman they ever faced, and better than Tendulkar, because at his peak Lara was the best cricketer I ever saw. They faced him when he had his head screwed on. But there was overlooked periods of mediocrity.

Warne has a quote in his book 100 Greteat Cricketers on Lara that nails it on the head for me. He notes that Lara at his peak was better. But that he was more of a 'mood' player who could destroy you when he felt like it. Tendulkar was more consistent and more of an accumulator. They actually don't make an easy comparison. But Warne said that Sachin was better for his consistency and longevity.

Every player has those big scores in easier conditions though. Picking out the players you want and mentally reducing their averages relative to everyone else because of the innings you just happen to be thinking of at the time is absurd.

 

[Black_Warrior]

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.

Agree with you on both counts - Taylor and Hayden. The important thing to note about Hayden though is, when make his case, the 380 is not necessarily the argument people use nor is it something that will be one of the defining highlights of his career. I think his 2001 series in India or his battle against a rampaging Akhtar in 2002 would be the ones that would define him.

One thing that's puzzling about what you said though.. You think Warne doesn't get his due? I've only ever seen him described as the second greatest spinner of all time as the worst thing said about him. And that's still a very very minority opinion.
Yes people might not like Warne the personality but I doubt that makes much of a difference when people assess him as a cricketer.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Also, speaking about triple centuries, yes it's true most triple centuries (perhaps all) were on a flat pitch. The difference though is how flat. Flat enough to rule out competitiveness or the guy who scored 300 and apparently not flat enough for the opposition?

The former is usually a pitch where the likelihood of a team losing 20 wickets is very slim which automatically diminishes the competitive quality of the game. The latter is as competitive as any other game.

I don't think anyone is going to dismiss this triple for being on a flat pitch

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/667653.html

 

[AndrewB]

The tri series in Australia used to have a visiting team, Australia and Australia A for a fair while. Usually, Australia and Australia A would go through to the final.

Think that was only in 1994-5, wasn't it? Australia (5-1) and Australia A (3-3) ahead of England (3-3) and Zimbabwe (1-5). And it was a bit ridiculous because several players played for both Australia teams, so I don't think they played in the tri-series after that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Think that was only in 1994-5, wasn't it? Australia (5-1) and Australia A (3-3) ahead of England (3-3) and Zimbabwe (1-5). And it was a bit ridiculous because several players played for both Australia teams, so I don't think they played in the tri-series after that.

Pretty sure this is correct. Only happened once. The main reason it was stopped IIRC was financial, crowds & viewers were affected somehow, I can't remember why. And people ended up supporting Australia A over Australia and it kind of defeats the purpose of International cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Also, speaking about triple centuries, yes it's true most triple centuries (perhaps all) were on a flat pitch. The difference though is how flat. Flat enough to rule out competitiveness or the guy who scored 300 and apparently not flat enough for the opposition?

The former is usually a pitch where the likelihood of a team losing 20 wickets is very slim which automatically diminishes the competitive quality of the game. The latter is as competitive as any other game.

I don't think anyone is going to dismiss this triple for being on a flat pitch

2nd Test: New Zealand v India at Wellington, Feb 14-18, 2014 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Probably just as much as most tbh. There were a lot of big scores that game and not exactly a World Class bowling attack. Not that any triple century should be "dismissed".

Except maybe Hayden's, that I can think of. Not because the pitch was flat or the opposition wasn't good, those weren't actually in effect as much as was suggested. But I remember watching that innings and he was dropped like 4 times on the boundary. You could probably say that about a lot of triples too though . . .

If I were to choose 1 that I know of that wasn't made in super easy conditions would be Clarke's in Sydney. On the back of India being rolled for 191 in the 1st innings and he came in at 3-37. Australia won that game as well, taking 20 wickets (of a pretty strong batting line-up) quite easily in the end, it was hardly a road.

 

[Daemon]

Probably just as much as most tbh. There were a lot of big scores that game and not exactly a World Class bowling attack. Not that any triple century should be "dismissed".

Except maybe Hayden's, that I can think of. Not because the pitch was flat or the opposition wasn't good, those weren't actually in effect as much as was suggested. But I remember watching that innings and he was dropped like 4 times on the boundary. You could probably say that about a lot of triples too though . . .

If I were to choose 1 that I know of that wasn't made in super easy conditions would be Clarke's in Sydney. On the back of India being rolled for 191 in the 1st innings and he came in at 3-37. Australia won that game as well, taking 20 wickets (of a pretty strong batting line-up) quite easily in the end, it was hardly a road.

Wellington wasn't a flat wicket iirc. He walked in at 5/**** all and did really well for a couple hours. After that it was definitely easier but not just because of the wicket flattening out, it had more to do with how knackered the Indian quicks were, as seen by Neesham coming in and smacking it around for a well forgotten hundred.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The tri series in Australia used to have a visiting team, Australia and Australia A for a fair while. Usually, Australia and Australia A would go through to the final.

Didn't that happen like, just once?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Agree with you on both counts - Taylor and Hayden. The important thing to note about Hayden though is, when make his case, the 380 is not necessarily the argument people use nor is it something that will be one of the defining highlights of his career. I think his 2001 series in India or his battle against a rampaging Akhtar in 2002 would be the ones that would define him.

Hayden will always live on as an ATG in my mind for this innings: 3rd ODI: New Zealand v Australia at Hamilton, Feb 20, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Equal with Guptill's 237* as the most dominant ODI innings I have ever seen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wellington wasn't a flat wicket iirc. He walked in at 5/**** all and did really well for a couple hours. After that it was definitely easier but not just because of the wicket flattening out, it had more to do with how knackered the Indian quicks were, as seen by Neesham coming in and smacking it around for a well forgotten hundred.

I didn't say it was especially flat. Neither were a lot of other wickets where 300s were made. But they tend to be viewed that way because some guy made 300 on them!

I would view Clarke's as similar to McCullums in that they both came in at a difficult situation after the opposition were bowled out relatively cheaply. The main difference I guess that Clarke's was in a winning cause which maybe means something, maybe it doesn't.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Wellington might not have been a flat wicket, but the bowling attack was pop gun.