Name an overrated and an underrated cricketer

[Jono]

Same bowling attacked skittled them in the first innings and had them 5 for **** all though.

You have to judge it not on the names, but how they bowled.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Coming into bat in the third innings at 50/3, trailing by 247 runs, and you score a triple saving the game, I don't care who the opposition is, I don't care how flat the pitch is. It's a ****ing special knock.

The problem with bringing up a bowling attack to devalue a knock is that it is almost always done so in an exclusively biased manner.

So when Clarke scores a triple against India, we won't talk about the bowling attack.
But if McCullum scores a triple against India, the bowling was tripe.

 

[Daemon]

Same bowling attacked skittled them in the first innings and had them 5 for **** all though.

You have to judge it not on the names, but how they bowled.

Exactly. They were bowling well until McCullum and Watling had tired them out by the end of day 3 and completely broken them down by about lunch-tea day 4. The rest of the runs came really easy after that iirc, but the same goes for pretty much every big score because the bowlers are all about 25 overs in by that stage and mentally and physically exhausted.

 

[mr_mister]

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

I never knew they left India only 50 overs to score 430 runs. Talk about defensive/selfish captaincy.

Those damn black caps chasing their first ever 300 calibre player

 

[G.I.Joe]

Same bowling attacked skittled them in the first innings and had them 5 for **** all though.

You have to judge it not on the names, but how they bowled.

Yeah, but that sort of logic goes for the pitch too. Same pitch saw two team scores of 500+

In the long run, that bowling attack could be characterized as a pop gun attack, and that pitch would be characterized as a flat pitch.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Coming into bat in the third innings at 50/3, trailing by 247 runs, and you score a triple saving the game, I don't care who the opposition is, I don't care how flat the pitch is. It's a ****ing special knock.

The problem with bringing up a bowling attack to devalue a knock is that it is almost always done so in an exclusively biased manner.

So when Clarke scores a triple against India, we won't talk about the bowling attack.
But if McCullum scores a triple against India, the bowling was tripe.

This is unfair. I don't think people are hailing Clarke's triple as one of the ATG innings. Clarke's triple is so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things that it didn't even pop into my head until it was mentioned. I'd definitely place it lower than McCullum's.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, but that sort of logic goes for the pitch too. Same pitch saw two team scores of 500+

In the long run, that bowling attack could be characterized as a pop gun attack, and that pitch would be characterized as a flat pitch.

Honestly I watched every ball of that, and they did not bowl that poorly until mid day 4 when they were absolutely mentally shot.

You're judging it by names only. The pitch became flat but India did not bowl poorly that test. They dropped catches and were up against an all time great performance.

The opposition should not be something that used against that innings.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Honestly I watched every ball of that, and they did not bowl that poorly until mid day 4 when they were absolutely mentally shot.

You're judging it by names only. The pitch became flat but India did not bowl poorly that test. They dropped catches and were up against an all time great performance.

The opposition should not be something that used against that innings.

Actual quote from Ishant Sharma over the course of the bowling innings:

"Bhenchod, ghisi piti bowling ki maa chod raha hai, bhen ka lauda."

Even Ishant Sharma admits that their bowling sucked balls.

Enough of the revisionism, Joni.

 

[Jono]

Nah you're wrong here Joe my boy. Sat on my arse at the Basin on the bank behind the bowlers for 5 days of that test match. Look at McCullum's strike rate - he played the ball on its merit.

You're doing what everyone does in cricket. Look at the 4 names of the bowlers, and make a judgement that they bowled at what their usual level is. Bowlers aren't robots - they bowl better than their usual self sometimes, and they bowl worse.

Not every ton against Steyn means they faced great bowling. Not every ton against Ishant means they faced **** bowling.

 

[Daemon]

Nah you're wrong here Joe my boy. Sat on my arse behind the bowlers for 5 days of that test match. Look at McCullum's strike rate - he played the ball on its merit.

as opposed to?

 

[Jono]

your dick

 

[Burner]

Great, i have an erection now

 

[G.I.Joe]

Nah you're wrong here Joe my boy. Sat on my arse at the Basin on the bank behind the bowlers for 5 days of that test match. Look at McCullum's strike rate - he played the ball on its merit.

You're doing what everyone does in cricket. Look at the 4 names of the bowlers, and make a judgement that they bowled at what their usual level is. Bowlers aren't robots - they bowl better than their usual self sometimes, and they bowl worse.

Not every ton against Steyn means they faced great bowling. Not every ton against Ishant means they faced **** bowling.

No, what I'm doing is taking at face value what an actual bowler who bowled that day had to say.

I fully understand and agree with the principle you're reiterating. I'm just saying it isn't applicable here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Coming into bat in the third innings at 50/3, trailing by 247 runs, and you score a triple saving the game, I don't care who the opposition is, I don't care how flat the pitch is. It's a ****ing special knock.

The problem with bringing up a bowling attack to devalue a knock is that it is almost always done so in an exclusively biased manner.

So when Clarke scores a triple against India, we won't talk about the bowling attack.
But if McCullum scores a triple against India, the bowling was tripe.

I think you have a problem with reading comprehension, and/or are just inferring things that no-one is saying or implying.

This is unfair. I don't think people are hailing Clarke's triple as one of the ATG innings. Clarke's triple is so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things that it didn't even pop into my head until it was mentioned. I'd definitely place it lower than McCullum's.

Strongly disagree. Bowling wise & conditions wise, there's not much separating them, but I watched both and the Sydney game was slightly more difficult to bat in regards to both in that second innings.

Add in the fact Clarke's won the match and his team managed to take 20 wickets comfortably whereas the Wellington game was a comfortable draw. And that the only other players that scored hundreds in Clarke's match were Ponting & Hussey, 2 greats of the game (Ponting just getting into rare form at a stage of his career where he was largely **** by his standards), whereas in McCullum's match 100s were also scored by Rahane, Watling and Jimmy Neesham lol . . .

Tbh now after thinking about it more thoroughly I rate Clarke's quite significantly higher than McCullum's, huh.

2 of the better Test 300s Though IMO.

 

[Jono]

No, what I'm doing is taking at face value what an actual bowler who bowled that day had to say.

I fully understand and agree with the principle you're reiterating. I'm just saying it isn't applicable here.

Yeah but Ishant is dumb and thinks he bowls well when he bowls crap tbf, so the opposite is possible.

Anyway you described it as a popgun attack. That is the definition of judging the bowling on the name value.

 

[Daemon]

No, what I'm doing is taking at face value what an actual bowler who bowled that day had to say.

This is the same guy who thought he bowled well in England 2011.

 

[G.I.Joe]

This is the same guy who thought he bowled well in England 2011.

Yeah, the point you and Jono make did cross my mind from the outset, but it was inconvenient to the argument I was making so I refused to acknowledge it.

 

[Jono]

 

[Pratters]

your dick

Kohli's.

 

[Contra]

I think you have a problem with reading comprehension, and/or are just inferring things that no-one is saying or implying.



Strongly disagree. Bowling wise & conditions wise, there's not much separating them, but I watched both and the Sydney game was slightly more difficult to bat in regards to both in that second innings.

Add in the fact Clarke's won the match and his team managed to take 20 wickets comfortably whereas the Wellington game was a comfortable draw. And that the only other players that scored hundreds in Clarke's match were Ponting & Hussey, 2 greats of the game (Ponting just getting into rare form at a stage of his career where he was largely **** by his standards), whereas in McCullum's match 100s were also scored by Rahane, Watling and Jimmy Neesham lol . . .

Tbh now after thinking about it more thoroughly I rate Clarke's quite significantly higher than McCullum's, huh.

2 of the better Test 300s Though IMO.

Only because McCullum's innings made it look so, NZ were heading for an innings defeat at 94/5 trailing over 100 runs IIRC.