• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Most Underrated Cricketers in Cricket Chat

Flem274*

123/5
I know that if you look at the hard figures of his record, he did end up seeing a lot of success at 3. But honestly reckon he'd have been much stronger spending his whole career at 5. Another bloke thatd have benefited having a stronger top order. Could've ended up with a mid to late 40s average. Hussey-lite

Edit: Mentioned because NZ swing/grass kills the top order
yeah fleming had #4 written all over him. hated swing, but played some very important innings for nz in asia.
 

Slifer

International Captain
Yea but what was his average when X didn't have a broken finger nail and Y played at full fitness without back spasms? EH? EH?

(He averaged 'only' 32.42 when both Ambrose and Marshall played, 34 in the Windies - see how silly these stats get?)
I assume you're being facetious. Either way, he averaged 70+ and scored 500 runs in 1984 in a series featuring Marshall, Holding, Garner, and Daniel. No, he didn't play all four throughout the series but in all tests, he faced at least two. Some tests 3 of 4. That's more than good enough for me.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
I assume you're being facetious. Either way, he averaged 70+ and scored 500 runs in 1984 in a series featuring Marshall, Holding, Garner, and Daniel. No, he didn't play all four throughout the series but in all tests, he faced at least two. Some tests 3 of 4. That's more than good enough for me.
Notice how far ahead Border was of the other batsmen - very impressive indeed

1626184590403.png
 

CodeOfWisden

U19 Cricketer
Thilan Samaraweera
Dilip Vengsarkar
Lance Gibbs
Mark Richardson
Ashwell Prince
Ian Redpath
Javagal Srinath
Stuart Clarke
Derek Underwood
Ravi Shastri.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ntini and Siddle are good answers. A sustainable action that means you can play lots of games without breaking down is one of the most valuable traits a test bowler can have, but it's boring so we don't talk about it much.

Sehwag and Jayawardene are good answers too. A new development since I last wandered into CC is that people are now extremely keen for player performance to be as evenly distributed across countries as possible. Players that absolutely crush in 75% of the conditions they play in get a bit less credit than they deserve.

Also ~every South African and Sri Lankan is underrated here because their fans are underrepresented, but that's not a new development at all.
 
Last edited:

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Also ~every South African and Sri Lankan is underrated here because their fans are underrepresented, but that's not a new development at all.
I don't think this is true of the elite SA/SL players with the exception of perhaps Kallis.

Heaps of people have been arguing Steyn > Hadlee, AB > KP and Sanga > Kallis > Dravid etc recently. It's probably more relevant for the lesser players like Dilshan or Ntini for instance.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I was thinking the other day that Ntini playing as long as he did, as one of the better pacers around no less, is an indictment on the state of pace bowling in the 00s. His equivalent bowlers today like Shami and Roach appear much better.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
A new development since I last wandered into CC is that people are now extremely keen for player performance to be as evenly distributed across countries as possible.
.

I agree that Sehwag and Jayawardene are underrated. The above quoted logic does seem weird prima facie as you imply but I think its more that batsmen who do well in conditions radically different from what they face at home are valued higher because there's plenty of batsmen in a team who can do a job at home and home advantage has become stronger than ever wheras the opposite is true for batting away from home, especially in comparatively alien conditions.

For example, these are India's batting stats in the 'home season in 2019 with basically everyone averaging 60+:
1626349483998.png

However, if you look at the stats in the away tours since 2020 (NZ, Australia and the WTC test), you get drastically worse numbers with only a couple of batsmen making runs. While I agree that batsmen like Warner and Sehwag are ATGs and people do take it too far the other way, it does make sense a lot of times to contextualize runs. For instance, an Indian batsman doing well in England and being average in India in this era is lot more valuable than the opposite because there's literally no one in our batting line up who has consistently made runs in England, apart from Kohli last tour.

There's another interesting anti-cricket argument in this type of debate which was first made by Goughy a long time ago where he argued iirc that a cricketer (Botham in that case) should be rated more highly for performing well against teams which were roughly on their level and they had a realistic chance of beating (like India and Australia) as compared to performances by a player against a far superior side which their side did not have a chance at beating (like Kapil's great performances v WI). I think it's harsh to not rate lower for performing their best against the best sides but it was a pretty interesting argument nevertheless.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's another interesting anti-cricket argument in this type of debate which was first made by Goughy a long time ago where he argued iirc that a cricketer (Botham in that case) should be rated more highly for performing well against teams which were roughly on their level and they had a realistic chance of beating (like India and Australia) as compared to performances by a player against a far superior side which their side did not have a chance at beating (like Kapil's great performances v WI). I think it's harsh to not rate lower for performing their best against the best sides but it was a pretty interesting argument nevertheless.
I made this argument about a decade ago, albeit not fully believing it. IIRC it wasn't one of my more popular ideas. Most people hated it.

As an Ireland fan I would 100% take a home specialist over a batsman with evenly distributed runs. Away runs aren't very useful for us. We'll struggle to get results in the subcontinent for the foreseeable future, and one player who can handle those conditions won't change that. If we want a test victory, we need players who are good at home.

That's not exactly the same thing as home players being "better". But there's an extent to which batsmen choose which skills to develop, and I'd like it if they made that choice with the intention of winning matches. Suppose one of our players works hard on mastering Irish conditions, and another tries to master all conditions evenly, and they end of with similar records overall. I would strongly object to the idea that the latter player is automatically better because his runs were more evenly distributed.

All that said, I agree with your post on the whole. It's impressive for an Indian or Sri Lankan player to bat well in England or Australia, and vice-versa. It's not that the logic is wrong, it's just given more weighting than I think it should have, and Sehwag/Jayawardene types are underrated as a result.

I think the Goughy logic is stronger when it comes to valuing fifties, centuries, and double centuries. If you modelled the marginal effect of each run on win probability you'd probably get something n-shaped. Sometimes people use double centuries as a kind of tie-breaker, but that just seems wrong to me. The runs between 180 and 200 aren't very likely to make the difference between winning and losing.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I made this argument about a decade ago, albeit not fully believing it. IIRC it wasn't one of my more popular ideas. Most people hated it.

As an Ireland fan I would 100% take a home specialist over a batsman with evenly distributed runs. Away runs aren't very useful for us. We'll struggle to get results in the subcontinent for the foreseeable future, and one player who can handle those conditions won't change that. If we want a test victory, we need players who are good at home.

That's not exactly the same thing as home players being "better". But there's an extent to which batsmen choose which skills to develop, and I'd like it if they made that choice with the intention of winning matches. Suppose one of our players works hard on mastering Irish conditions, and another tries to master all conditions evenly, and they end of with similar records overall. I would strongly object to the idea that the latter player is automatically better because his runs were more evenly distributed.

All that said, I agree with your post on the whole. It's impressive for an Indian or Sri Lankan player to bat well in England or Australia, and vice-versa. It's not that the logic is wrong, it's just given more weighting than I think it should have, and Sehwag/Jayawardene types are underrated as a result.

I think the Goughy logic is stronger when it comes to valuing fifties, centuries, and double centuries. If you modelled the marginal effect of each run on win probability you'd probably get something n-shaped. Sometimes people use double centuries as a kind of tie-breaker, but that just seems wrong to me. The runs between 180 and 200 aren't very likely to make the difference between winning and losing.
There was a popular name for those runs back in the late noughties here, right? When you get runs just to rub it in or whatever...
 

Top