13 overrated players of the last 20 odd years

[howardj]

Steve Harmison, very disappointing in the Ashes I thought

Barely bowled at the stumps

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Freddie was at home though

And? Australia never really had any problems thrashing England in England before. England played out of their skins to beat Australia, and Flintoff was a HUGE part of it. Don't be ridiculous saying that the Australians had a tougher, more tiring series. Both teams fought hard, but England fought hard enough to win.

 

[social]

The fact that Murali has the capability to operate as a sole strike bowler with significantly higher efficiency ( averages 22+change) vs Warney who is massively dependent on McGrath ( he averages 26-27 when McGrath isnt present and doesnt bag nearly 6 wickets/match either) underlines why murali is vastly superior to Warney.

In fast bowling terms, its a bit like comparing McGrath and Walsh.

Ignoring the fact that Murali plays on wickets at home that are specifically prepared for him, his, shall we say, "questionable" action and the amount of wickets he's taken vs minnows.

 

[Slifer]

Slifer, how is Dravid underrated? Who doesn't rate him highly?

Quite a few people actually and thankfully im not one of them. IMO he is barely below Lara and Tendulkar and at times Im even tempted to mention him in the same breath as the other two simply because of the contributions he's made to the Indian cause esp. overseas. And i find him to be quite humble as well despite his many accomplishments

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ignoring the fact that Murali plays on wickets at home that are specifically prepared for him, his, shall we say, "questionable" action and the amount of wickets he's taken vs minnows.

*mutters to himself*
Please don't bite, C_C, please don't bite, please don't bite, please don...

 

[Slifer]

Kapil and Walsh held the record too. So they are the best pacers too ?
Warney is a great bowler but he is overrated IMO. Without McGrath, he is marginally better than Kumble - the only thing that seperates him and Kumble is a superior away performance and a marginally better statistic overall without McGrath.

Couldnt agree more. I still contend that Mcgrath is the main reason for the current and recent successes of the Aussie side (along with SRW). Warne has more wickets, flair and what have you but that guy Mcgrath is just consistent no matter the situation or where he is playing.

 

[Slifer]

Take a look at this then. The blond bombshell is certainly more celebrated than McGrath and the general consensus amongst the uninitiated is that Warne is a superior bowler.

McGrath gets most of the big wickets for Australia, a high proportion of Warne's victims are tailenders (the highest proportion among all bowlers with over 300 wickets). McGrath has caused the very best like Lara and Tendulkar difficulties - Warne just gets hammered against them. Unlike Warne, McGrath hardly ever has a bad series and has a better record against 5 of the 8 teams both bowlers have played against. McGrath's highest average against any opponent is 25 (the same as Warne's career average) and Warne averages over 30 against two teams including 47 against India.

IMO those people that prefer Warne are simply following the typical ill educated media bandwagon.

Totally agree give me Mcgrath any day over Warne!!! Infact give me Mcgrath over any other Aussie bowler and that includes the esteemed Dennis Lillee.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Take a look at this then. The blond bombshell is certainly more celebrated than McGrath and the general consensus amongst the uninitiated is that Warne is a superior bowler.

McGrath gets most of the big wickets for Australia, a high proportion of Warne's victims are tailenders (the highest proportion among all bowlers with over 300 wickets). McGrath has caused the very best like Lara and Tendulkar difficulties - Warne just gets hammered against them. Unlike Warne, McGrath hardly ever has a bad series and has a better record against 5 of the 8 teams both bowlers have played against. McGrath's highest average against any opponent is 25 (the same as Warne's career average) and Warne averages over 30 against two teams including 47 against India.

IMO those people that prefer Warne are simply following the typical ill educated media bandwagon.

That would largely be because the pitches would suit McGrath more than Warne (Australian pitches). Tbh I rate them pretty equal, but comparing a fast bowler and a spinner is never easy when different itches suit different bowlers.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Is this going to go anywhere? Really?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Is this going to go anywhere? Really?

The McGrath/Warne debate has never happened before, as far as I know.

 

[Slifer]

Well Indian pitches are certainly less condusive to pace bowling as are WI pitches (these days) and Warne doesnt exactly have a sterling record in both these countries. Whereas Mcgrath has been nothing short of excellent. But yes there is a bit of a problem comparing a seamer and a spinner but when i hear statements pronouncing Warne as the best bowler ever thats where i draw the line.

 

[Beleg]

cynics, the lot of you.

South Africa:

1. Darrell Culinan
2. Andrew Hudson
3. Adams
4. Greg Mathews

Pakistan:

1. The entire current Pakistani team apart from Akhtar, Kamal and Inzamam.
2. Izaj Ahmad not against Australia
3. Basit Ali. One knock does not a Miandad make.
4. Shahid Nazir.
5. Mohd. Zahid
6. Kabir Khan
7. Mohd. Akram
8. Sikander Bakht
9. Imran Nazir
10. Mohd. Wasim

I could go on but I suppose most folks get the idea.

NZ:

1. Lee Germon (wtf was doing in the team all the time?)
2. Mark Greatbatch
3. Matthew Horne
4. Craig McMillan. I remember the NZ commentators, Ian Smith in particular, going bonkers about him after he whacked off Younis Khan for 20 odd in an over.
5. Ken Rutherford

Zimbabwe:

1. Grant Flower
2. Alistair Campbell
3. Murray Goodwin
4. Stuart Carslile

England:

1. Mark Ealham (England's version of the dibbly, dobbly trio)
2. Graem Hick

WI:

1. Johny Bravo
2. all the openers they tried during 1997-2003
3. Kieth Atherton

 

[Tom Halsey]

Well Indian pitches are certainly less condusive to pace bowling as are WI pitches (these days) and Warne doesnt exactly have a sterling record in both these countries. Whereas Mcgrath has been nothing short of excellent. But yes there is a bit of a problem comparing a seamer and a spinner but when i hear statements pronouncing Warne as the best bowler ever thats where i draw the line.

I don't know if anyone has claimed he's the best bowler ever in this thread - I don't think anyone claim that as no-one's seen everyone. I think he's probably the best I've seen though (McGrath maybe joint best with him), because of how he thrives in adversity, and his general skill as a bowler.

 

[Slifer]

Well if u check out other cricket forums esp. right after the ashes u may see what im talkin about. Either way everyone is entitled to there opinion so at the very least I'll respect yours and say they are both champion bowlers.

 

[Pothas]

Warne is better

 

[a massive zebra]

Warne is better

As with most posts that favour Warne, this is a superbly well reasoned, supported and explained post.

 

[Pothas]

As with most posts that favour Warne, this a a superbly well reasoned, supported and explained post.

It is the gut reaction that im sure most people have, Warne is a magical and special cricketer, when watching him you know you are watching one of the greatest.

 

[Neil Pickup]

The McGrath/Warne debate has never happened before, as far as I know.

Well if it ends anywhere other than "Warne's the better spinner and Glenn's the better seamer", tell me.

 

[Sanz]

As with most posts that favour Warne, this is a superbly well reasoned, supported and explained post.

 

[a massive zebra]

Well if it ends anywhere other than "Warne's the better spinner and Glenn's the better seamer", tell me.

So, in essence what you are saying is that it is not acceptable for one to state their preference for McGrath over Warne or visa versa, even if intelligently argued and completely devoit of offensive insults?