Most overrated cricketer

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

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.

O’Reilly’s career was 14 years long. Not his fault that WW2 came in between,when he was by far the best bowler in the world.

 

[peterhrt]

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.

There is a good definition of ATG in one of the other threads about the player being considered in his own time among the top two or three in the world. That reputation was sometimes at odds with what Statsguru analysis might suggest decades later.

Pollock v Barrington is a good example. They were contemporaries with excellent overall Test records on paper. However their reputations at the time they were playing were very different. Pollock played several outstanding Test innings, including 125 off 145 balls on a Trent Bridge green top in 1965 out of 269 all out. When he followed up with 209 out of 353 at Cape Town against Australia, played almost entirely off the back foot due to injury, Michael Melford of Britain's Daily Telegraph had no doubt that he was the best batsman in the world. Other British journalists placed Pollock and Sobers comfortably above all others.

At a time when MCC were seriously worried about declining attendances and interest, Barrington was almost seen as more of a threat than an asset. A couple of months before Pollock's Nottingham classic, Barrington scored 137 in seven and a quarter hours against New Zealand at Edgbaston. His score remained on 85 for over an hour while twenty overs drifted by. Chairman of Selectors Doug Insole accused him of being selfish and only interested in getting a hundred. Keith Miller wrote in the Daily Express: "Barrington set the cricket clock back to the Dark Ages...A painful crowd-killer and the stuff that is emptying the cricket grounds of England." Barrington was dropped as punishment.

Most of the press thought the best English batsmen of the 1960s were former amateurs Cowdrey and Dexter. A friend of neither, Trueman agreed and went on to say: "When I started playing, the [English] game was dominated by great professional batsmen - Sir Leonard Hutton, Cyril Washbrook and Denis Compton to mention the most memorable three...In recent years the professionals [as opposed to amateurs] have produced only Tom Graveney and Ken Barrington as batsmen of world class and, with all due respect to their ability - and I have the highest regard for them both - I would not put them in the same category as the three professional predecessors I mentioned."

The gulf in reputation between Pollock and Barrington was much wider then than it is now.

 

[_00_deathscar]

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

The cut off for me is at least decent TV coverage.

 

[shortpitched713]

O’Reilly’s career was 14 years long. Not his fault that WW2 came in between,when he was by far the best bowler in the world.

No one's saying it's his fault. Only, how do you judge a guy who didn't play nearly as much as some other guys at the highest level? It's tricky, and no answer is truly satisfactory. Ultimately, the ones who play more and have similar records shine through most of the time, in my opinion.

 

[trundler]

There is a good definition of ATG in one of the other threads about the player being considered in his own time among the top two or three in the world. That reputation was sometimes at odds with what Statsguru analysis might suggest decades later.

Pollock v Barrington is a good example. They were contemporaries with excellent overall Test records on paper. However their reputations at the time they were playing were very different. Pollock played several outstanding Test innings, including 125 off 145 balls on a Trent Bridge green top in 1965 out of 269 all out. When he followed up with 209 out of 353 at Cape Town against Australia, played almost entirely off the back foot due to injury, Michael Melford of Britain's Daily Telegraph had no doubt that he was the best batsman in the world. Other British journalists placed Pollock and Sobers comfortably above all others.

At a time when MCC were seriously worried about declining attendances and interest, Barrington was almost seen as more of a threat than an asset. A couple of months before Pollock's Nottingham classic, Barrington scored 137 in seven and a quarter hours against New Zealand at Edgbaston. His score remained on 85 for over an hour while twenty overs drifted by. Chairman of Selectors Doug Insole accused him of being selfish and only interested in getting a hundred. Keith Miller wrote in the Daily Express: "Barrington set the cricket clock back to the Dark Ages...A painful crowd-killer and the stuff that is emptying the cricket grounds of England." Barrington was dropped as punishment.

Most of the press thought the best English batsmen of the 1960s were former amateurs Cowdrey and Dexter. A friend of neither, Trueman agreed and went on to say: "When I started playing, the [English] game was dominated by great professional batsmen - Sir Leonard Hutton, Cyril Washbrook and Denis Compton to mention the most memorable three...In recent years the professionals [as opposed to amateurs] have produced only Tom Graveney and Ken Barrington as batsmen of world class and, with all due respect to their ability - and I have the highest regard for them both - I would not put them in the same category as the three professional predecessors I mentioned."

The gulf in reputation between Pollock and Barrington was much wider then than it is now.

But that sounds like Pollock was more exciting to watch, not necessarily better. My main contention is that writers of that era were heavily biased in favour of stroke makers. I don't accept that Compton and May with their sub 40 away averages were better at all. And Pollock was obviously great but I don't think he should be in the top 10 of all time.

 

[Coronis]

There is a good definition of ATG in one of the other threads about the player being considered in his own time among the top two or three in the world. That reputation was sometimes at odds with what Statsguru analysis might suggest decades later.

Pollock v Barrington is a good example. They were contemporaries with excellent overall Test records on paper. However their reputations at the time they were playing were very different. Pollock played several outstanding Test innings, including 125 off 145 balls on a Trent Bridge green top in 1965 out of 269 all out. When he followed up with 209 out of 353 at Cape Town against Australia, played almost entirely off the back foot due to injury, Michael Melford of Britain's Daily Telegraph had no doubt that he was the best batsman in the world. Other British journalists placed Pollock and Sobers comfortably above all others.

At a time when MCC were seriously worried about declining attendances and interest, Barrington was almost seen as more of a threat than an asset. A couple of months before Pollock's Nottingham classic, Barrington scored 137 in seven and a quarter hours against New Zealand at Edgbaston. His score remained on 85 for over an hour while twenty overs drifted by. Chairman of Selectors Doug Insole accused him of being selfish and only interested in getting a hundred. Keith Miller wrote in the Daily Express: "Barrington set the cricket clock back to the Dark Ages...A painful crowd-killer and the stuff that is emptying the cricket grounds of England." Barrington was dropped as punishment.

Most of the press thought the best English batsmen of the 1960s were former amateurs Cowdrey and Dexter. A friend of neither, Trueman agreed and went on to say: "When I started playing, the [English] game was dominated by great professional batsmen - Sir Leonard Hutton, Cyril Washbrook and Denis Compton to mention the most memorable three...In recent years the professionals [as opposed to amateurs] have produced only Tom Graveney and Ken Barrington as batsmen of world class and, with all due respect to their ability - and I have the highest regard for them both - I would not put them in the same category as the three professional predecessors I mentioned."

The gulf in reputation between Pollock and Barrington was much wider then than it is now.

Yet another example of why peer ratings are a **** metric. Boring players =/= bad players.

 

[shortpitched713]

Writers also used to love "aesthetic" batsmen, and in comparison barely wrote more than token lines about the bowlers, barring the very best like Barnes. He was fast and fearsome, he has great command, etc, and that's it...

Whereas you could tell they really put themselves into the stories and exploits of the batsmen. It was weird times in terms of appreciation of cricket, at least compared to modern days, and it sort of shows class considerations as well if I'm being brutally blunt.

 

[Burgey]

Yet another example of why peer ratings are a **** metric. Boring players =/= bad players.

Why do you think the way you rate those guys now is inherently better than those who rated them back then?

 

[Coronis]

Why do you think the way you rate those guys now is inherently better than those who rated them back then?

Well specifically in that case (and many others), the peers seem to be greatly influenced by style and their personal experiences with said player, rather than their actual output and effectiveness.

 

[peterhrt]

e

Writers also used to love "aesthetic" batsmen, and in comparison barely wrote more than token lines about the bowlers, barring the very best like Barnes. He was fast and fearsome, he has great command, etc, and that's it...

Whereas you could tell they really put themselves into the stories and exploits of the batsmen. It was weird times in terms of appreciation of cricket, at least compared to modern days, and it sort of shows class considerations as well if I'm being brutally blunt.

Class was still a factor in the 1960s and contributed to certain critics rating Barrington below the likes of May, Cowdrey and Dexter, who all batted slowly themselves at times and were pretty negative captains. Barrington was a worrier who always feared being dropped, which contributed towards his cautious approach.

There were genuine reservations about Barrington's technique against the best fast bowlers when English conditions favoured them. He averaged 28 against West Indies and South Africa at home, and was dropped for the last three Tests of the 1966 series against West Indies.

 

[Ashes81]

Why do you think the way you rate those guys now is inherently better than those who rated them back then?

I think with all players you have to take a range of things into account when rating players.

Obviously stats play a big part but there's alot more to it than that. In particular, with players that you've never seen, you take writers/ex players/journalists whose views you value, in to account.

Even with current players, you should do this. For example I see alot more of English and Australian players than I do other players. But even there, I've never seen Australian play tests in Asia for example so as well as looking at the stats, I'd see what been written about their performances.

In the end though you make your own judgement. Was Graeme Pollock better than Javed Miandad - there's no right and wrong answer - its a personal judgement.

 

[peterhrt]

But that sounds like Pollock was more exciting to watch, not necessarily better. My main contention is that writers of that era were heavily biased in favour of stroke makers. I don't accept that Compton and May with their sub 40 away averages were better at all. And Pollock was obviously great but I don't think he should be in the top 10 of all time.

Some slow batsmen received more praise than others. Hanif Mohammad, the original "Little Master", generally had a good press, as did Boycott. There was a certain fascination with their defensive techniques. Lawry and Barrington were less popular, although it was accepted that Lawry was harder than anyone to get out.

The bias in favour of stroke makers dated back to cash-strapped pre-television times, when cricket's commercial viability depended on getting spectators through the gate. It was in everyone's interest to talk up cricketers (usually batsmen) who drew crowds, and their reputations sometimes exceeded their numbers. Examples included Jessop, Woolley and Constantine, as well as Compton.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

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.

Just underrate players because we didn't get to watch them.

 

[shortpitched713]

Geoff Boycott is a good shout for mine. His England sides were good enough that such a slow batting approach is really hard to justify. In addition to that, he's often considered one of the all time great openers, but his average doesn't really justify that either.

His defensive approach to the game, and it's fetishization are emblematic of something which held England back mentally for a long time. The goal of an opener shouldn't simply be to prevent his team from losing, not by a long shot, especially if you can assert superiority on the opponent instead.

 

[honestbharani]

Sometimes we just so caught up with metrics that actually are not apples to apples. I see so many players use bowling average as some key metric but hey, if I have Bradman in my side, I DGAF if I give away 30 runs per wicket as long as I can get them at a 50 SR. Coz, in this team, I will always have the runs to play with and the ability to bowl a side out in given time is far more important than having to do it cheaply.

Ultimately, almost all players play the game with the aim of helping their side win games (unless you are Babar Azam with your board led by Rameez Raja, apparently) and within a team environment, whether we can accept it or not, they end up playing in a certain way because of the team mates around them. I was thinking of this when discussing James Anderson. Yes, maybe he does bowl far less in trying conditions but hey, if that ensures he is fresh as a daisy for that one burst of reverse swing bowling that can win them the rare away test (Chennai 2021), then obviously that is what they are gonna do. Its so silly to bring it up as if it is a blemish on them.

Far easier way to rate players is to go by what impact you think they had on their team's chances and wins. Beyond a certain basic level setting, I do not see absolute contextless stats like averages and strike rates to mean all that when it comes to comparisons.

 

[ataraxia]

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.

grr angry

But yeah to an extent I do agree with this post. If I am to offer an excuse it's to remind CW I am very new to cricket and since I can't be bothered to watch yer robelinda, in rating Nourses and Rhodi it's a way to be upon equal footing with others, I suppose. On the bolded sentence, I feel CW as a whole has moved on from this scheme, well primarily because half of participants in such discussions nowadays have no clue who the one the only AG Steel was and why he's the 7th greatest cricketer of all time.

BTW I think one thing that CW would benefit more from is looking at players who aren't the cream of the crop. Senuran Muthusamy v Will Somerville as spinners, or something (cc @PlayerComparisons). Just for me it seems more interesting to actually analyse domestix in addition to internationals, which is part of the charm of looking at bygone eras for me.

 

[Tom Flint]

We

Geoff Boycott is a good shout for mine. His England sides were good enough that such a slow batting approach is really hard to justify. In addition to that, he's often considered one of the all time great openers, but his average doesn't really justify that either.

His defensive approach to the game, and it's fetishization are emblematic of something which held England back mentally for a long time. The goal of an opener shouldn't simply be to prevent his team from losing, not by a long shot, especially if you can assert superiority on the opponent instead.

We're tests 6 days during most of his time playing. Be interested to know how many tests he was involved in actually ended in draws?

 

[Flem274*]

I think the career length in years vs matches just reinforces we should judge people by the context of their time.

I won't be judging current players by the 2050 situation. Players get huge credit for being ahead of their time (Gilchrist in tests, Viv in ODIs) though.

 

[Coronis]

In addition to that, he's often considered one of the all time great openers, but his average doesn't really justify that either

I mean, openers with a better average than him: Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar, Hayden, Sehwag, Mitchell, Smith.

 

[shortpitched713]

I mean, openers with a better average than him: Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar, Hayden, Sehwag, Mitchell, Smith.

With the exception of Mitchell, I'd say all are better than him. And there are at least a few with lower averages than him I'd take over Boycott as well, just due to their ability to shift their batting into a match-winning mode.