Most Underrated Cricketers in Cricket Chat

[subshakerz]

Who you would pick in an AT XI is a pretty limited way of assessing quality.

Your ratings seem fine, but an AR should be getting a rating out of 20, and 7/20 is very low for Cairns.



Depends on the specific team. Cairns wasnt so useful to NZ, but he would have helped India more than someone like Lara. A player like Jadeja would have been a better addition to a lot of sides than a Lara/Mcgrath.

Yes, someone like Sobers is better, but he gets his dues and doesn't belong in this thread.

Anyway, if I was actually trying to argue that a player is bettter than the best specialists, I would have picked a better AR than Cairns. I just dont think the comparison is totally crazy.

I disagree. Adding Lara into India's batting lineup would have made it the best in the world, better than even Australia's. Whereas with Cairns at the most you would get an extra average fifth seamer or a stronger tail and of course McGrath would have been vital.

There was a reason the greatest sides ever like WI in the 80s and Australia in the 2000s didnt need an all-rounder as they focused on specialists.

 

[subshakerz]

Generally in ratings comparisons Miller comes up somewhere in the top 30 bowlers of all time. A bit shy of the Ambrose and McGrath characters but firmly and resolutely ahead of the McDermott or Ntini tier bowlers.

I dont know about that. He definitely wouldnt be top 20, and top 30 isnt ATG and Miller wouldnt merit consideration in an ATG XI as a bowler like Hadlee or Imran.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Shakib is the one I've always rated far higher than most of CC does. His list of accomplishments and great performances is incredible but most people either havent bothered to watch or even look **** up. The list of all rounders clearly better than him in my time of watching is :
1)Kallis

That's it. Stokes is as well probably but he's not close to the end of his career like Shakib so Ill wait. Better than Cairns, Flintoff, Jadeja as a cricketer afaic.

 

[ankitj]

The list of all rounders clearly better than him in my time of watching is :
1)Kallis

Shaun Pollock?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ooh maybe. I dont rate Pollock's batting as high as most but yea

 

[trundler]

Polly being overlooked in a thread about underrated cricketers is some delicious irony

 

[subshakerz]

Chanderpaul is another one.

 

[Coronis]

Interesting, Shakib has more 5fers than Pollock. I know he had far less bowling support but still, would not have predicted that with the difference in their bowling.

 

[Bolo.]

I disagree. Adding Lara into India's batting lineup would have made it the best in the world, better than even Australia's. Whereas with Cairns at the most you would get an extra average fifth seamer or a stronger tail and of course McGrath would have been vital.

There was a reason the greatest sides ever like WI in the 80s and Australia in the 2000s didnt need an all-rounder as they focused on specialists.

Mcgrath, sure, but Lara wouldn't have added much value to India. There problem was pace, not batting. I think Cairns might have added about as much value as a specialist bowler, despite not being particularly good.

AUS isnt the best comparison cos of how well balanced the side was, but think about how much stronger WI could have been bowling a Shakib/Jadeja instead of guys like Viv and Hooper.

 

[Tom Flint]

Kamran akmal

 

[thierry henry]

Latham I think has been somewhat underrated. Bit of a poor man's Mark Richardson in that he's stickable, but doesn't really have the capacity to hurt bowling attacks with a big hundred and has never really had a career defining knock against one of the stronger sides (just 1 hundred against the big 3, and that coming v England in a high scoring bore draw). Leads to a lot frustration and head slapping when you see his mental process starting to unravel after a couple of hours of looking immovable at the crease. But that ability to resist pressure (for a while) and find a way to make it to lunch has been a major foundation of NZ's success over the past 4 years.

yeah I posted something similar the other day having not really thought about it before. In a sense, Latham's record flatters him because he hasn't done that well against "big sides".

However, in another sense he has done a great job for NZ because he so often sees off the new ball against all opposition (including strong opposition, seaming pitches etc) and also he is unusually proficient against spin and in subcontinent conditions. Really adds a lot to the team to have a dependable opener in seaming conditions who can also cash in in spinning conditions - an unusual combination for us.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah but people do think that of Miller. And have for decades.

Perfect for this thread, Miller's bowling. "bUt wIcKeTs pEr mAtCh"

 

[Kirkut]

Sanath Jayasuriya.

To be rated in CW a cricketer must have some reputation in tests. Granted that Jayasuroya didn't do much in tests apart from scoring 340 in the UK, his impact as a limited overs batsman can never be forgotten by those who have followed the game in the 1990s and 2000s, especially us Asian cricket fans.

Unfortunately in the future some may question what was so special about his batting given that a second tier batsman in IPL can also hit sixes like that. Words won't do justice to answer that, only those who have watched him knew how he changed the game.

 

[Bahnz]

Think it's a bit unfair to say that Jayasuriya didn't do much in tests. Nearly 7000 runs at 40 and 100 wickets at 34 is a brilliant career.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sanath Jayasuriya.

To be rated in CW a cricketer must have some reputation in tests. Granted that Jayasuroya didn't do much in tests apart from scoring 340 in the UK, his impact as a limited overs batsman can never be forgotten by those who have followed the game in the 1990s and 2000s, especially us Asian cricket fans.

Unfortunately in the future some may question what was so special about his batting given that a second tier batsman in IPL can also hit sixes like that. Words won't do justice to answer that, only those who have watched him knew how he changed the game.

Suffers from similar issue as Gilchrist, plebs will look back at the stats and say "Average of 33/36, wasn't that good" while completely ignorant of how OP a mid-30s average striking at 85-90 was back then

anyway when I was a kid Jayasuriya was rightfully considered one of the biggest ODI wickets there was, immense player

 

[mr_mister]

Sanath Jayasuriya.

To be rated in CW a cricketer must have some reputation in tests. Granted that Jayasuroya didn't do much in tests apart from scoring 340 in the UK, his impact as a limited overs batsman can never be forgotten by those who have followed the game in the 1990s and 2000s, especially us Asian cricket fans.

Unfortunately in the future some may question what was so special about his batting given that a second tier batsman in IPL can also hit sixes like that. Words won't do justice to answer that, only those who have watched him knew how he changed the game.

That 340 was at home against India, not in the UK lol

 

[ankitj]

Suffers from similar issue as Gilchrist, plebs will look back at the stats and say "Average of 33/36, wasn't that good" while completely ignorant of how OP a mid-30s average striking at 85-90 was back then

anyway when I was a kid Jayasuriya was rightfully considered one of the biggest ODI wickets there was, immense player

Average of 33-36 definitely marks you down when we are talking about ATGs. They may be useful for their teams which is separate. Another example is Yuvraj. His importance to Indian limited overs cricket can't be overstated. He won countless games with his clutch batting. But no one considers him a contender for ATG status. Gilchrist's case is stronger though because he was also a wicket-keeper but as a batsman alone he is about same level as Sehwag among opening batsmen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Average of 33-36 definitely marks you down when we are talking about ATGs. They may be useful for their teams which is separate. Another example is Yuvraj. His importance to Indian limited overs cricket can't be overstated. He won countless games with his clutch batting. But no one considers him a contender for ATG status. Gilchrist's case is stronger though because he was also a wicket-keeper but as a batsman alone he is about same level as Sehwag among opening batsmen.

couldn't have demonstrated my point better

 

[ankitj]

couldn't have demonstrated my point better

Which doesn't make my point invalid.

 

[Flem274*]

Sanath Jayasiriya is one of the greatest openers to ever play ODI cricket.

And then there's his bowling.

Even in tests, he's poking the door of the great allrounders. A destructive opener averaging 40 that takes poles as the 5th bowler is really bloody useful. He makes almost every test side in history.