Name an overrated and an underrated cricketer

[Black_Warrior]

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.

And this is also why I have a problem with 'runs against Zim/BD don't count' as a blanket rule.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And this is also why I have a problem with 'runs against Zim/BD don't count' as a blanket rule.

Generally a pretty safe assumption though tbh

 

[Black_Warrior]

Only if you don't actually watch the matches.

 

[Francis]

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.

I was hoping I would get more responses from many different posters out of this post.

For example, I said at his best that Brian Lara was the best batsman since Sir Donald Bradman. Does Jono agree?
I said that the main reason great players say he's the best is because the played him during periods of his career when he was at his best. Does Jono agree?

 

[Francis]

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.

I was hoping I would get more responses from many different posters out of this post.

For example, I said at his best that Brian Lara was the best batsman since Sir Donald Bradman. Does Jono agree?
I said that the main reason great players say he's the best is because the played him during periods of his career when he was at his best. Does Jono agree?
I said that he is sometimes overrated because his best scores blind people into overlook the periods of mediocrity. Does Jono agree?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Only if you don't actually watch the matches.

er no lol

 

[Red]

I was hoping I would get more responses from many different posters out of this post.

For example, I said at his best that Brian Lara was the best batsman since Sir Donald Bradman. Does Jono agree?
I said that the main reason great players say he's the best is because the played him during periods of his career when he was at his best. Does Jono agree?
I said that he is sometimes overrated because his best scores blind people into overlook the periods of mediocrity. Does Jono agree?

Not sure why Jono is being directly addressed but:

I'd rate Hutton, Sobers, Viv Richards, Tendulkar, G.Chappell and Neil Harvey as on par (at least) with Lara.

Lara is probably the pick of the bunch though, and perhaps the most difficult to bowl at when his game is on.

 

[AndrewB]

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.

The scores overall for Clarke's 300 are remarkably similar to those for Jayawardene's 300 (away team out for <200; home team lose a few quick wickets; triple centurion comes in and adds 600 runs with 2 partners; away team bowled out for 400).

 

[Francis]

Not sure why Jono is being directly addressed but:

I'd rate Hutton, Sobers, Viv Richards, Tendulkar, G.Chappell and Neil Harvey as on par (at least) with Lara.

Lara is probably the pick of the bunch though, and perhaps the most difficult to bowl at when his game is on.

So you'd put Neil Harvey in your all-time Australian side? I was thinking about this recently...

1. Victor Trumper
2. Bill Ponsford
3. Sir Donald Bradman
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Greg Chappell
6. Keith Miller
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Bill O'Reilly
11. Ray Lindwall
12th man: Glenn McGrath

Selecting this side is very difficult. With my number four, it would be either Ponting, Border, S. Waugh or Harvey. Ponting is more of a number three, so selecting Waugh is tempting. Waugh is a great number four, and he's perfect to come in when your batting is struggling. I select Ponting because he was more prone to making gigantic scores. Bordar was always consistent, but he only scored one double hundred. And there was a period of three years where he didn't score a century (yet his average didn't drop below 50, so consistent was he!). I think Ponting is more somebody who can take the Test away from you with a big score.

But sometimes I think maybe I should select Harvey.

Here are the contenders in my all-time Australian XV:

1 & 2: Openers: Victor Trumper, Bill Ponsford, Arthur Morris, Bob Simpson, Matthew Hayden
3. Sir Donald Bradman
4. Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Alan Border, Neil Harvey
5. Greg Chappell
6. Keith Miller, Alan Davidson
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Bill O'Reilly
11. Ray Lindwall, Glenn McGrath

Bradman, Chappell, Gilchrist, Warne, O'Reilly and Lillee are my only certainties in this side! Miller is more or less a certainly...

 

[Jono]

I was hoping I would get more responses from many different posters out of this post.

For example, I said at his best that Brian Lara was the best batsman since Sir Donald Bradman. Does Jono agree?
I said that the main reason great players say he's the best is because the played him during periods of his career when he was at his best. Does Jono agree?
I said that he is sometimes overrated because his best scores blind people into overlook the periods of mediocrity. Does Jono agree?

Francis

- Not for me, but he is close. Mine is Viv, then Sobers/Sachin.
- Yes I agree.
- Yes I agree.

 

[Red]

So you'd put Neil Harvey in your all-time Australian side? I was thinking about this recently...

1. Victor Trumper
2. Bill Ponsford
3. Sir Donald Bradman
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Greg Chappell
6. Keith Miller
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Bill O'Reilly
11. Ray Lindwall
12th man: Glenn McGrath

Selecting this side is very difficult. With my number four, it would be either Ponting, Border, S. Waugh or Harvey. Ponting is more of a number three, so selecting Waugh is tempting. Waugh is a great number four, and he's perfect to come in when your batting is struggling. I select Ponting because he was more prone to making gigantic scores. Bordar was always consistent, but he only scored one double hundred. And there was a period of three years where he didn't score a century (yet his average didn't drop below 50, so consistent was he!). I think Ponting is more somebody who can take the Test away from you with a big score.

But sometimes I think maybe I should select Harvey.

Here are the contenders in my all-time Australian XV:

1 & 2: Openers: Victor Trumper, Bill Ponsford, Arthur Morris, Bob Simpson, Matthew Hayden
3. Sir Donald Bradman
4. Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Alan Border, Neil Harvey
5. Greg Chappell
6. Keith Miller, Alan Davidson
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Bill O'Reilly
11. Ray Lindwall, Glenn McGrath

Bradman, Chappell, Gilchrist, Warne, O'Reilly and Lillee are my only certainties in this side! Miller is more or less a certainly...

I change my mind a bit, but I'd have Harvey in there.

Trumper
Lawry
Bradman
G.Chappell
Miller
Harvey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lillee
O'Reilly
McGrath

On a deck not needing two spinners i'd choose:

Trumper
Lawry
Bradman
G.Chappell
Ponting
Harvey
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Warne/O'Reilly
Lillee
McGrath

 

[vcs]

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.

Liked that just for the Hindi gaaliyan

 

[G.I.Joe]

Liked that just for the Hindi gaaliyan

It does have quite the forceful impact. Some innocent kids watching the broadcast that day had their horizons and vocabularies broadened by Ishant.

 

[vcs]

I fondly remember when Nayan Mongia was quite prolific in his use of "chutiya" from behind the stumps back in the '90s.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Sachin was never a very aggressive batsman in tests. People confuse his mid 90s ODI spark with tests. He took on Warne and was aggressive against Australia in 1998, and in isolated games before and after, but that was as much dictated by Taylor (And other captains) setting him aggressive fields and hence him strategically playing more shots and getting good value for those shots. Otherwise, he was always a "hit the bad ball, handle the good ball" type batsman in tests. He was just able to handle most good balls compared to other batsmen and put away most bad balls... I generally think his test match batting is sometimes a myth built on his amazing ODI batting around that time. And post 2001 Sachin was very defensive in all forms of the game. Even in ODIs most of the time it seemed like he was aggressive only when he needed to be. Otherwise he was a lot more solid but a lot less flashy to watch. Could have also been the effect of him getting to play with much better batting support than earlier too. Guys like Sehwag and Laxman (Yuvraj in ODIs) coming in meant his role in the side kept evolving.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

A fair while = 1 time.. #pratterslogic

 

[honestbharani]

your dick

 

[Furball]

Over-rated: AB de Villiers

 

[Gob]

Over-rated: AB de Villiers

Based on his achievements in tests yes. not skill wise

 

[TheJediBrah]

Jimmy Anderson overrated by a mile.

Looks great when his on song and swinging the ball, but the averages only just under 30 with the ball playing in the most swing & seam friendliest conditions on the planet.

In b4 "stats aren't everything"

His average has been about 28-29 for at least the last 3-4 years without changing much, so the "he's improved a lot" argument doesn't really hold up