• 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.

Name an overrated and an underrated cricketer

mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Andy Flower for underrated.


For a 2 year period he was a ****ing beast (Nov '99 to Nov '01)

In 19 tests over this period, he hit 2280 runs @ 91.2


Greatest minnow player ever

Incredible!
 
andruid

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
honestbharani said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed. A Post 2001 Tendulkar ODI innings could be compared to watching a reliable old manual shifting through the gears. He starts 5 from 20 then at some point he has score of say 20 off 40, which, if he was still in becomes 50 off 75, and if he converted the half ton into a century, it would be off 100-110 deliveries and so on.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I agree with most parts of hb's post, but saying Sachin was "very defensive in all forms post 2001" is just so so wrong.
 
vcs

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
OverratedSanity said:
I agree with most parts of hb's post, but saying Sachin was "very defensive in all forms post 2001" is just so so wrong.
Click to expand...
In ODIs, he cracked the art of scoring at 100+ SR while barely seeming to take a risk post 2007. Kohli and Amla pretty much operate on the same template these days.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
lol yeah. Literally the wrong use of the word.

"Not aggressive" doesn't = defensive.

Not sure how someone who is very defensive is the first player ever to get 200 in an ODI
 
9

91Jmay

International Coach
TheJediBrah said:
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
Click to expand...
Go and have a look at this average in India then come back and apologise. Or don't come back, either option is fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FBU
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Jono said:
lol yeah. Literally the wrong use of the word.

"Not aggressive" doesn't = defensive.

Not sure how someone who is very defensive is the first player ever to get 200 in an ODI
Click to expand...
Yeah my bad.. I should have said very solid. Defensive the wrong choice of word there, looking back on it.
 
Fanboy375

Fanboy375

School Boy/Girl Captain
Francis said:
But I'm not rating Hayden and Taylor on "feel." I saw both innings and know what kind of quality that were.

I don't feel I need to see every innings to have an idea of how good a cricketer is, and I do let stats guide me. But yes, I do think the best way to judge a cricketer is to see them play. And I give a lot of stock to testimonies that people I trust give - like the testimony of Hammond's 32.

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.
Click to expand...
From age 20 to 37 Tendulkar had better runs per innings than Lara.Lara didn't play before age 20 and after age 37.Also Lara rely on WI pitch to score most of his runs.His home ave is 58 and away is 48
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top