13 overrated players of the last 20 odd years

[sqwerty]

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.

Sure Flintoff put in....but so did everyone mentally and physically.....The differences between playing a series at home and a series away are outlined in my previous post.

The reason Australia didn't have any problem thrashing England before is because they were up against crap opposition.

If you're playing quality opposition away from home it's going to be a tough tour......more so than if you're playing at home.

Anyway....I'm off to the SCG now....I'll keep an eye on Freddie for you and I'll take notes.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sure Flintoff put in....but so did everyone mentally and physically.....The differences between playing a series at home and a series away are outlined in my previous post.

The reason Australia didn't have any problem thrashing England before is because they were up against crap opposition.

If you're playing quality opposition away from home it's going to be a tough tour......more so than if you're playing at home.

Anyway....I'm off to the SCG now....I'll keep an eye on Freddie for you and I'll take notes.

And England has been playing against the best team in the world, after being thrashed in the first Test match. But wait... they had it easy, because they were at home... Riiiiiight...

 

[aussie]

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.

yes, plus i think it would be wrong to say Warne is ``Massively Dependent`` on McGrath, no they just work welll as a Partnership i'm sure if Warne was the only great bowler in the aussie side & he had conditions that suite him (which was shown recently in SRI & to an extent in India & during the ashes) he would be just as effective towards top-order & tali-end batsmen

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sachin tendulkar
Matthew Hayden
Shoaib Akhtar
Aravinda Desilva
Yousuf Youhana
Inzamam Ul Haq
Chris Gayle
Ramnaresh Sarwan
James Anderson
Matthew Hoggard
Marcus Trescothick
Shaun Tait
Stuart Macgill
Shane Watson
Irfan Pathan
Ricky Ponting
Justin Langer
Nathan Bracken
Andrew Symonds
Graeme Hick
Shaun Pollock
Makhaya Ntini
Harbhajan Singh

and those are just the first few that come to mind.....

How Tait, Watson or Bracken can be overrated when they've played virtually no international cricket is beyond me. Tait and Watson are rated as huge talents and nothing more, which is what they are, and their domestic records back this up. If someone is a huge success in domestic cricket, and doesn't play enough international cricket to indicate they aren't up to the increase in standard, how can they have been considered to perform worse than they are rated? It just doesn't make any sense.

And, I think several of the players on your list are in fact quite underrated, including Hoggard, Ntini and Bracken. And, on this board at least, Tait and Watson get far less credit than they deserve for their ability, given both were written off as average before they actually did anything wrong. Watson has been rubbished left and right as a crap batsman because he isn't a good number 8 slogger in ODIs, and a crap bowler when in fact he is primarily a top 4 batsman and not a bowler. And Tait was written off as crap because he either has an unorthodox action or he is inaccurate, neither of which stopped him from stunning all opposition at just 22 years of age in his first full domestic season. He might well turn out to be nothing special, but to suggest he hasn't been impressive so far is ludicrous. Ntini is an improving test bowler and a very, very good ODI bowler with a superb economy rate and wicket taking ability better than most, Hoggard is not great but better than he is usually rated (at least here in Australia) and Bracken is improving and extemely dangerous when the ball swings, and at least accurate when it doesn't. He's never going to be a great bowler, but he isn't completely useless either.

However, some of those you mentioned are of course supremely overrated.

 

[marc71178]

yes, plus i think it would be wrong to say Warne is ``Massively Dependent`` on McGrath, no they just work welll as a Partnership i'm sure if Warne was the only great bowler in the aussie side & he had conditions that suite him (which was shown recently in SRI & to an extent in India & during the ashes) he would be just as effective towards top-order & tali-end batsmen

To be fair, Warne didn't have McGrath in the Ashes, apart from the 1st game really, and didn't do too bad.

Mind you, he was for most of the series the only good bowler in Australia's side.

I'd say one of the reasons he hasn't got so many top order wickets is greedy Glenn nicks them all for himself!

 

[aussie]

I'd say one of the reasons he hasn't got so many top order wickets is greedy Glenn nicks them all for himself!

spot on

 

[C_C]

yes, plus i think it would be wrong to say Warne is ``Massively Dependent`` on McGrath, no they just work welll as a Partnership i'm sure if Warne was the only great bowler in the aussie side & he had conditions that suite him (which was shown recently in SRI & to an extent in India & during the ashes) he would be just as effective towards top-order & tali-end batsmen

Err Warney is perfectly suited to OZ conditions - OZ provides bounce and OZ bowlers rely on bounce more than fizz - which is why OZ spinners have not done very well in the subcontinent and vice versa.

Warney is massively dependent on McGrath because when McGrath isnt present, Warney cannot match Murali's propensity of taking wickets or average -
Shows that when the bowling support stakes are even ( actually it is still slightly in Warney's favour because even minus McGrath, OZ support crew for Warney is superior to the support crew for Murali) Murali does far better.

As per favourable home conditions, why cant you guys ever apply these things uniformly ?
If Warney is better because of unfavourable home conditions, then Imran Khan blows Denis Lillee outta the ballpark because of unfavourable conditions at home.

 

[Craig]

Gayle I wouldn't count as over-rated and I wouldn't mind taking 291 Test victims and still be counted as over-rated (McDermott).

Or taking over 500 (mind you Walsh did play international cricket for around 18 years and if your good [which he was] enough you will take loads of wickets).

 

[Craig]

Sachin tendulkar
Matthew Hayden
Shoaib Akhtar
Aravinda Desilva
Yousuf Youhana
Inzamam Ul Haq
Chris Gayle
Ramnaresh Sarwan
James Anderson
Matthew Hoggard
Marcus Trescothick
Shaun Tait
Stuart Macgill
Shane Watson
Irfan Pathan
Ricky Ponting
Justin Langer
Nathan Bracken
Andrew Symonds
Graeme Hick
Shaun Pollock
Makhaya Ntini
Harbhajan Singh

and those are just the first few that come to mind.....

I will love to know how Ponting is considered over-rated? And I have to disagree about Watson, MacGill (I will never give up the point that he is not as bad as he is made out to be), Tait, Langer, Ntini, Hoggard, Ul-Haq.

 

[sqwerty]

And England has been playing against the best team in the world, after being thrashed in the first Test match. But wait... they had it easy, because they were at home... Riiiiiight...

you're missing the point

 

[shaka]

How can MacGill be overrated, he hasnt had the opportunity to be considered overrated.

 

[Deja moo]

How can MacGill be overrated, he hasnt had the opportunity to be considered overrated.

The way some Aussies go on about how he would have been second only to Warne had he played more than he has.

 

[social]

The way some Aussies go on about how he would have been second only to Warne had he played more than he has.

Look at his record - he's already in the top 6.

We're not dealing with rocket science here.

 

[Dasa]

Look at his record - he's already in the top 6.

We're not dealing with rocket science here.

...and that's why he's overrated.

 

[Deja moo]

Look at his record - he's already in the top 6.

We're not dealing with rocket science here.

I'm not sure about this, maybe I'm wrong, but I believe he has played most of his cricket only in tandem with Warne. That would automatically imply that hes played mostly on turners, which is the only occasion when Australia needs to play two spinners.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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

Agreed the post wasn't a great argument, but your yet to give a decent reply to all the points we gave in another thread a while ago.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Imran Khan blows Denis Lillee outta the ballpark because of unfavourable conditions at home.

Yes but other things come into a debate like that, such as the ridiculously biased Pakistani umpires at that time which pretty much cancel out unfavourable conditions.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Look at his record - he's already in the top 6.

We're not dealing with rocket science here.

On attacking bowling alone, MacGill has to be up there - he takes a lot of wickets. But a Test spinner also has to be reasonable at keeping the runs down when required, and he can't do that like a Warne or a Murali.

 

[marc71178]

Warney is massively dependent on McGrath because when McGrath isnt present, Warney cannot match Murali's propensity of taking wickets or average -

SK Warne in the Ashes post McGrath injury - 4 games, 34 wickets for 712 runs...

 

[C_C]

SK Warne in the Ashes post McGrath injury - 4 games, 34 wickets for 712 runs...

Yeah and i am so talking about one series amnt i ?
Why dont we talk about Warney in all matches when McGrath isnt present ?