Most overrated cricketer

[Coronis]

10 wicket hauls in each of Australia, England and WI. Won Pakistan a series in England with the ball and drew in WI. Averaged 24 away before the batsman phase. That's like calling Smith or Steyn HTBs.

If you don’t think a 12 point average difference in batting or a 6 point average difference in bowling makes someone a bit of a HTB that’s your prerogative.

Note: I am not saying in any way that he’s not an ATG bowler or allrounder. Just that his stats are inflated by a short, though nonetheless amazing peak period. Therefore, I think he is somewhat overrated. Slightly as a bowler, slightly as an allrounder, and greatly as a batsman.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This may trigger some longtime posters here.

I think CW overrates the hell out of basically every cricketer from the past they didn't even watch play. Now, there's one thing if you look at an older cricketer's record, the anecdotes surrounding them and have a healthy amount of respect for what they achieved. But a lot of posters have "favourites" when it comes to black and white era players with minimal footage available (apart from guys like Bradman and Hobbs who were miles above the competition so naturally command a certain stature). That's going way too far. Especially when you're confidently saying they were way better than modern players with similar records.

 

[trundler]

If you don’t think a 12 point average difference in batting or a 6 point average difference in bowling makes someone a bit of a HTB that’s your prerogative.

Note: I am not saying in any way that he’s not an ATG bowler or allrounder. Just that his stats are inflated by a short, though nonetheless amazing peak period. Therefore, I think he is somewhat overrated. Slightly as a bowler, slightly as an allrounder, and greatly as a batsman.

A 6 point between 18 and 24 is godly at home and ATG away. It sounds like you'd think he was better if he averaged 22 at home and 24 away, in which case he would be worse. His away average is as good as Dale f'n Steyn before the specialist batsman phase and he had several series defining performances away with the ball. His away record is incredibly well rounded and stacked with ATG performances. Never faced a minnow in his career either.

And no one rates him as a 37 average batsman. If anything, people go the other way around and pretend he was a scrub with the bat before he became a specialist in the middle order as if he's not one of a handful to score a ton and take a 10fa in the same match. Even @smash84 doesn't rate him as more than a decent #7 while he was an ATG bowler. You're fighting a straw man. Only Cricinfo tribute pieces pull out the 50 average as captain stat with sincerity. The fact that he was better than the average #6 (Logie, Ritchie etc) whilst being in the world's top 3 bowlers for a decade is insane though.

A legit criticism of Imran is that he missed a lot of tests because of injuries in his peak. Hadlee, by contrast, rarely sat a match out (14/100 over his entire career IIRC, insane) and this is partly why Paddles was still ahead on the rankings despite Imran having a higher peak rating. ICC rankings still suck but eh, supports my point here.

 

[Coronis]

A 6 point between 18 and 24 is godly at home and ATG away. It sounds like you'd think he was better if he averaged 22 at home and 24 away, in which case he would be worse. His away average is as good as Dale f'n Steyn before the specialist batsman phase and he had several series defining performances away with the ball. His away record is incredibly well rounded and stacked with ATG performances. Never faced a minnow in his career either.

And no one rates him as a 37 average batsman. If anything, people go the other way around and pretend he was a scrub with the bat before he became a specialist in the middle order as if he's not one of a handful to score a ton and take a 10fa in the same match. Even @smash84 doesn't rate him as more than a decent #7 while he was an ATG bowler. You're fighting a straw man. Only Cricinfo tribute pieces pull out the 50 average as captain stat with sincerity. The fact that he was better than the average #6 (Logie, Ritchie etc) whilst being in the world's top 3 bowlers for a decade is insane though.

A legit criticism of Imran is that he missed a lot of tests because of injuries in his peak. Hadlee, by contrast, rarely sat a match out (14/100 over his entire career IIRC, insane) and this is partly why Paddles was still ahead on the rankings despite Imran having a higher peak rating. ICC rankings still suck but eh, supports my point here.

Calm down kiddo. Did I ever say it wasn’t an ATG away record? No. I said there was a large difference between his home and away records. You can still be a HTB and an ATG. I also personally wouldn’t call 6th and 7th a middle order specialist but again, thats just me.

 

[trundler]

Calm down kiddo. Did I ever say it wasn’t an ATG away record? No. I said there was a large difference between his home and away records. You can still be a HTB and an ATG. I also personally wouldn’t call 6th and 7th a middle order specialist but again, thats just me.

Weak way to weasel out of being thoroughly schooled.

 

[ankitj]

This may trigger some longtime posters here.

I think CW overrates the hell out of basically every cricketer from the past they didn't even watch play. Now, there's one thing if you look at an older cricketer's record, the anecdotes surrounding them and have a healthy amount of respect for what they achieved. But a lot of posters have "favourites" when it comes to black and white era players with minimal footage available (apart from guys like Bradman and Hobbs who were miles above the competition so naturally command a certain stature). That's going way too far. Especially when you're confidently saying they were way better than modern players with similar records.

This is not trigger worthy.

 

[CricAddict]

This may trigger some longtime posters here.

I think CW overrates the hell out of basically every cricketer from the past they didn't even watch play. Now, there's one thing if you look at an older cricketer's record, the anecdotes surrounding them and have a healthy amount of respect for what they achieved. But a lot of posters have "favourites" when it comes to black and white era players with minimal footage available (apart from guys like Bradman and Hobbs who were miles above the competition so naturally command a certain stature). That's going way too far. Especially when you're confidently saying they were way better than modern players with similar records.

I am not aware of them much and people here may know better but CW especially rates those 100-150 career wicket old time spinners so highly compared to post 1975 spinners. Current spinners with such total career wickets would just be dismissed as lolsamplesize.

 

[Ashes81]

Pollock faced the softest Australian attacks between Davo and Lindwall and never faced Trueman in a test. Averaging 60 at that point in his career is still great of course but someone like Miandad who's considered a B tier great averaged more up to that point against similar or better attacks. Yet he's placed in the top ten batsmen of all time. I'd have him top 20ish and somewhere alongside Barrington and the 3 Ws. It's not his fault he couldn't do more but you can only rate him on what he did.

I don't buy the argument that Pollock faced sub standard English and Australian attacks and that somehow inflates his record.

Miandad was a great player, arguably Pakistan's greatest ever and he has a fine record averaging in the early 50's.

Would Pollock's average have fallen to the early 50's, who knows but those that saw him rated him exceptionally highly.

 

[Burgey]

I am not aware of them much and people here may know better but CW especially rates those 100-150 career wicket old time spinners so highly compared to post 1975 spinners. Current spinners with such total career wickets would just be dismissed as lolsamplesize.

Sure, and if a bloke scored 6,996 test runs these days people would probably say he hasn’t done enough to be considered up there with guys who’ve made 10k plus runs. They just played less tests back then, but some of those guys played 10-15 years which is a decent stretch

 

[CricAddict]

Sure, and if a bloke scored 6,996 test runs these days people would probably say he hasn’t done enough to be considered up there with guys who’ve made 10k plus runs. They just played less tests back then, but some of those guys played 10-15 years which is a decent stretch

With no odis and t20s, what did they even do between those tests?

First class cricket was as followed as tests in those days?

 

[Ashes81]

I think with players from the past, you have to take account of their overall 1st class record as they played much more county/shield etc cricket than their modern day counterparts. Also it was a higher standard, certainly in England, than it is today.

Take Jim Laker. He took 193 test wickets, hundreds less than modern day spinners. But that doesn't mean he's not as good as modern day spinners. He took nearly 2000 wkts in his FC career at 18.

Compare that to say Ashwin. He has 449 test wickets but has only taken 691 in FC games at 25.

So who has the better record - for me it's Laker all day long.

 

[Burgey]

With no odis and t20s, what did they even do between those tests?

First class cricket was as followed as tests in those days?

Generally they took about four to six weeks to get anywhere for a tour tbf. And when they toured they played every domestic side because it was a money spinner. There also aren’t as many test sides, so for example over here before WW2 every third year or so would be purely a Shield season. There just wasn’t as much cricket played

 

[Coronis]

With no odis and t20s, what did they even do between those tests?

First class cricket was as followed as tests in those days?

I mean they had to travel by boat for tours in those days mate, not plane.

Weak way to weasel out of being thoroughly schooled.

Yes very weak, not changing my views at all and just stating them so you can actually understand them. Whatever helps you sleep tonight mate.

 

[trundler]

It's a fair point regarding old spinners. None of Laker, Tayfield, O'Reilly, Grimmet and Verity had long careers. Though you can't really blame those guys for it. Gibbs had a fairly lengthy career but it hinders his reputation if anything because he had to contend with the roadening of the Caribbean. After 46 tests (as many as Laker), he averaged 26.xx and had taken more wickets. Benaud had a 12 year career too which is moderately long.

 

[honestbharani]

This may trigger some longtime posters here.

I think CW overrates the hell out of basically every cricketer from the past they didn't even watch play. Now, there's one thing if you look at an older cricketer's record, the anecdotes surrounding them and have a healthy amount of respect for what they achieved. But a lot of posters have "favourites" when it comes to black and white era players with minimal footage available (apart from guys like Bradman and Hobbs who were miles above the competition so naturally command a certain stature). That's going way too far. Especially when you're confidently saying they were way better than modern players with similar records.

Remember how i say i only rate/compare players i have seen?

 

[Howe_zat]

This may trigger some longtime posters here.

whoa look at this badass

 

[Howe_zat]

I actually pretty much agree with OS but I don't think it's example of overrating when people act like their favourite player is someone who played in the 19th century, it's mostly just showing off.

 

[Coronis]

I actually pretty much agree with OS but I don't think it's example of overrating when people act like their favourite player is someone who played in the 19th century, they're mostly just showing off.

They’re just so cool and edgy and have great stories about them. And great facial hair.

 

[trundler]

This is a direct attack on the Dudley Nourse Appreciation Society (founding members @ataraxia and I).

 

[shortpitched713]

I actually pretty much agree with OS but I don't think it's example of overrating when people act like their favorite player is someone who played in the 19th century, they're mostly just showing off.

Speak for yourself mate, my love for Johnny Briggs is pure and wholesome, and comes from a deep understanding of his lineage's impact upon the modern world. I've analyzed every butterly that's ever flapped it's wings on the same pitch as Johnny, and understand the composition of the sweat that dripped from his forehead. Forsooth! That I could be a fly upon his collar, to observe and ultimately be crushed by such a skillful hand.

He's also better than any other spin bowler ever, because my stats-guru filter says so.