Most over rated players

[Richard]

that is not the record of someone who was excellent for 97 tests however you try to spin it(and that's what you are desperately trying to do...)...

Why not? I'd say that season-by-season record is pretty damn impressive. Any particular reason why it's not? There's no spin required IMO, just a decent amount of observation.

maybe he was bothered by injuries a lot, the end result though is that he had a pretty average career...

He wasn't exactly bothered a lot by injuries, though. He had the odd series where it really affected him, but most of the time he was able to play on without it affecting him. These times are in an overwhelming majority and render the small number of times when it did affect him completely insignificant.

one reason why someone like him "stood out" was because he was part of mostly mediocre england teams throughout the 90s....

He wasn't, there were many other excellent cricketers who reprisented England in the 1990s, and the team in general was far, far better than most give it credit for.

 

[Anil]

Why not? I'd say that season-by-season record is pretty damn impressive. Any particular reason why it's not? There's no spin required IMO, just a decent amount of observation.

because it doesn't show who he played against to get those averages....and his averages against the best are pretty average, to say the least...

He wasn't exactly bothered a lot by injuries, though. He had the odd series where it really affected him, but most of the time he was able to play on without it affecting him. These times are in an overwhelming majority and render the small number of times when it did affect him completely insignificant.

if so, why are you trying to make all sorts of injury excuses for him? he was half-fit there, he was not fit here, he was barely fit there etc etc....leave him be and just talk about his batting, i've already agreed that he was technically and temperamentally well equipped, but he was most certainly not very talented and not very consistent...

He wasn't, there were many other excellent cricketers who reprisented England in the 1990s, and the team in general was far, far better than most give it credit for.

towards the latter half of the 90s there was a time when thorpe was really the only world class batsman in the england lineup, the rest were really average to mediocre players, atherton was probably the best among the rest but that's not saying much...

 

[Richard]

because it doesn't show who he played against to get those averages....and his averages against the best are pretty average, to say the least...

They're less than they are against the lesser sides, but you expect that from any batsman worth his salt. IMO, Atherton scored more than enough runs against the McDermotts, Reids, Ambroses, Bishops, Walshes, Wasims, Warnes, Saqlains, etc. to be termed very much not a weak-attack bully.

There were, I repeat, just 2 occasions where he had genuinely bad times, simply being ousted by high-class attacks - Australia in 1997 and West Indies in 1998. And most people have some sort of phrase in a career of that length. The Tendulkars and Stephen Waughs might not, but no-one's comparing him to them.

if so, why are you trying to make all sorts of injury excuses for him? he was half-fit there, he was not fit here, he was barely fit there etc etc....leave him be and just talk about his batting, i've already agreed that he was technically and temperamentally well equipped, but he was most certainly not very talented and not very consistent...

But he was. I'm not making "all sorts" of excuses, I'm mentioning that there are 2 series out of 20-odd that don't have relevance, because he wasn't fit to be playing. Had he simply missed those games as he should have, they'd not tarnish his reputation.

towards the latter half of the 90s there was a time when thorpe was really the only world class batsman in the england lineup, the rest were really average to mediocre players, atherton was probably the best among the rest but that's not saying much...

There was a time when Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe were all top-class, and as bowlers Gough, Fraser, Cork and Headley weren't bad either. Croft and Tufnell were better spinners than some give credit for, too.

 

[open365]

There was a time when Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe were all top-class, and as bowlers Gough, Fraser, Cork and Headley weren't bad either. Croft and Tufnell were better spinners than some give credit for, too.

You can have the rest, but even at his best i wouldn't put Nasser in the upper band of everything.

I think Sehwag's been a victim of his own sucess in a way as he made so many runs at the start of his career and on flat tracks that his technique was never really tested and hence he didn't try to improve as much as he needs to now.

He is a very good looking player when he gets it right and has great hand eye co ordination so i think he will improve and be able to suceed in difficult positions.

 

[Richard]

You can have the rest, but even at his best i wouldn't put Nasser in the upper band of everything.

Hussain's was excellence personnified in Test cricket in every year between 1996 and 2004 except 2000.

He is one of the best (or worst?) examples of people using technique to judge a player. So what if he was poor technically? He still played any number of superb innings and achieved consistency over 2 separate but very much notable periods.

 

[STRAIGHT BREAKS]

Hussain's was excellence personnified in Test cricket in every year between 1996 and 2004 except 2000.

If anything, you're becoming a pro England troll lately, tbh.

Each outlandish statement you spew seems to be getting more and more ricockulous.

 

[Richard]

Ignore.

 

[Anil]

They're less than they are against the lesser sides, but you expect that from any batsman worth his salt. IMO, Atherton scored more than enough runs against the McDermotts, Reids, Ambroses, Bishops, Walshes, Wasims, Warnes, Saqlains, etc. to be termed very much not a weak-attack bully.

i didn't call him a weak-attack bully either, i just said he wasn't the wonderful batsman you make him out to be....you can list all the 90's bowlers' names you want, but you cannot hide his inconsistency and his lack of talent...

There was a time when Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe were all top-class, and as bowlers Gough, Fraser, Cork and Headley weren't bad either. Croft and Tufnell were better spinners than some give credit for, too.

i was specifically talking about batsmen, and the names you listed prove my point...stewart and hussain were neither of them world class...if you call them world class, you have a very low opinion of what it means to be world class...they were handy, decent players, both of them...but quite average...

 

[Richard]

i didn't call him a weak-attack bully either, i just said he wasn't the wonderful batsman you make him out to be....you can list all the 90's bowlers' names you want, but you cannot hide his inconsistency and his lack of talent...

I wish you would address this - how was he inconsistent? A few posts ago I showed you a season-by-season record, and there were just 2 glitches in it. Otherwise, he scored runs with few hiatuses.

I don't make him out to be a wonderful batsman, I simply make him out to be someone who was far, far better than a simple average in the late 30s appears... because an average which reflected his true worth was much higher than that.

i was specifically talking about batsmen, and the names you listed prove my point...stewart and hussain were neither of them world class...if you call them world class, you have a very low opinion of what it means to be world class...they were handy, decent players, both of them...but quite average...

Stewart I'll grant you because of his weakness against the quality turning ball. Hussain, however... no. He and Atherton were both excellent batsmen who could play high-class innings against all types of bowling in any circumstance. Not with the regularity of a Tendulkar, Waugh, Dravid, Lara, etc. or even a Kirsten, Anwar, Chanderpaul, but with far, far more regularity than most.

If you put many of the batsmen of today who batter mediocre bowling up against those two in the conditions they faced, Atherton and Hussain would come-up trumps most times.

 

[thierry henry]

Gary "I could bowl every style crappily and this apparently makes me the best all-rounder ever" Sobers and Dennis "people rank me #1 for no particular reason" Lillee

 

[Anil]

I wish you would address this - how was he inconsistent? A few posts ago I showed you a season-by-season record, and there were just 2 glitches in it. Otherwise, he scored runs with few hiatuses.

I don't make him out to be a wonderful batsman, I simply make him out to be someone who was far, far better than a simple average in the late 30s appears... because an average which reflected his true worth was much higher than that.

The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1989 [Series] 18.25
New Zealand in England, 1990 [Series] 71.40
India in England, 1990 [Series] 63.00
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1990/91 [Series] 31.00
The Wisden Trophy (Eng/WI) in England, 1991 [Series] 08.77
Pakistan in England, 1992 [Series] 29.00
England in India, 1992/93 [Series] 24.00
England in Sri Lanka, 1992/93 [Series] 07.50
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1993 [Series] 46.08
The Wisden Trophy (Eng/WI) in West Indies, 1993/94 [Series] 56.66
New Zealand in England, 1994 [Series] 68.25
South Africa in England, 1994 [Series] 34.50
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1994/95 [Series] 40.70
The Wisden Trophy (Eng/WI) in England, 1995 [Series] 40.66
England in South Africa, 1995/96 [Series] 55.71
India in England, 1996 [Series] 65.75
Pakistan in England, 1996 [Series] 32.40
England in Zimbabwe, 1996/97 [Series] 08.50
England in New Zealand, 1996/97 [Series] 108.33
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1997 [Series] 23.36
The Wisden Trophy (Eng/WI) in West Indies, 1997/98 [Series] 18.09
South Africa in England, 1998 [Series] 54.77
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1998/99 [Series] 13.75
New Zealand in England, 1999 [Series] 33.25
England in South Africa, 1999/00 [Series] 28.12
Zimbabwe in England, 2000 [Series] 75.00
The Wisden Trophy (Eng/WI) in England, 2000 [Series] 34.55
England in Pakistan, 2000/01 [Series] 68.20
England in Sri Lanka, 2000/01 [Series] 21.50
Pakistan in England, 2001 [Series] 32.66
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series] 22.10

plenty of inconsistencies throughout his career though i am sure you will have excuses for each and everyone of them...and i am not even considering series where he averaged in the 40s...

Stewart I'll grant you because of his weakness against the quality turning ball. Hussain, however... no. He and Atherton were both excellent batsmen who could play high-class innings against all types of bowling in any circumstance. Not with the regularity of a Tendulkar, Waugh, Dravid, Lara, etc. or even a Kirsten, Anwar, Chanderpaul, but with far, far more regularity than most.

If you put many of the batsmen of today who batter mediocre bowling up against those two in the conditions they faced, Atherton and Hussain would come-up trumps most times.

atherton was much better than hussain, hussain was a gritty player who had the same kind of temperament as atherton but did not possess the same technical skills...i don't know what your definition of world class is but he doesn't come close to it for me....

 

[tooextracool]

If you put many of the batsmen of today who batter mediocre bowling up against those two in the conditions they faced, Atherton and Hussain would come-up trumps most times.

The problem with Hussain was that he made hard work out of every inning that he played so im not certain that he would have dominated any sort of attack on any sort of wicket. Its fine on sticky wickets where England had their backs against the wall, where arguably he was at his best, but on flat tracks or poor bowlers you'd hardly expect him to cash in.

It doesnt make him a bad player but i seriously doubt he would be brilliant today. However he was a very good player when he played and his record is somewhat diminished by his extremely ordinary form when between 2000-01 when he was arguably under greatest strain as captain.

 

[tooextracool]

Stewart I'll grant you because of his weakness against the quality turning ball.

For goodness sakes, Stewart has scored plenty of runs against the top spinners in the world. His problems have always been playing scoring on slow-turning wickets which is something completely different. Stewart always liked pace on the ball, and when he didnt get it he struggled.

 

[Richard]

The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1989 [Series] 18.25
New Zealand in England, 1990 [Series] 71.40
India in England, 1990 [Series] 63.00
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1990/91 [Series] 31.00
The Wisden Trophy (Eng/WI) in England, 1991 [Series] 08.77
Pakistan in England, 1992 [Series] 29.00
England in India, 1992/93 [Series] 24.00
England in Sri Lanka, 1992/93 [Series] 07.50
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1993 [Series] 46.08
The Wisden Trophy (Eng/WI) in West Indies, 1993/94 [Series] 56.66
New Zealand in England, 1994 [Series] 68.25
South Africa in England, 1994 [Series] 34.50
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1994/95 [Series] 40.70
The Wisden Trophy (Eng/WI) in England, 1995 [Series] 40.66
England in South Africa, 1995/96 [Series] 55.71
India in England, 1996 [Series] 65.75
Pakistan in England, 1996 [Series] 32.40
England in Zimbabwe, 1996/97 [Series] 08.50
England in New Zealand, 1996/97 [Series] 108.33
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1997 [Series] 23.36
The Wisden Trophy (Eng/WI) in West Indies, 1997/98 [Series] 18.09
South Africa in England, 1998 [Series] 54.77
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1998/99 [Series] 13.75
New Zealand in England, 1999 [Series] 33.25
England in South Africa, 1999/00 [Series] 28.12
Zimbabwe in England, 2000 [Series] 75.00
The Wisden Trophy (Eng/WI) in England, 2000 [Series] 34.55
England in Pakistan, 2000/01 [Series] 68.20
England in Sri Lanka, 2000/01 [Series] 21.50
Pakistan in England, 2001 [Series] 32.66
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series] 22.10

plenty of inconsistencies throughout his career though i am sure you will have excuses for each and everyone of them...and i am not even considering series where he averaged in the 40s...

I don't see what's wrong with the series where he averaged in the 30s or late 20s - no-one can possibly average 40+ in every single series, it's only when the average drops into the low 20s that you can claim he was an out-and-out failure.

And as I've already said, you include several series in this analysis that are unimportant - those where his fitness was not acceptible and those at the very start and very end of his career, which have no relevance to the greater part of it. 1989, Zimbabwe 1996, 1998\99 and everything in the calender-year 2001 - none reflect in any way on my judgement of his ability.

You've also grouped together several parts which have no connection, most particularly that part in the early 1990s - he was quite acceptible in Australia in 1990\91 and against Pakistan in 1992, while he was not against West Indies in 1991 and he barely played in the subcontinent in 1992\93. All in all, you've classed what, in my book, is 1 bad series as 4.

atherton was much better than hussain, hussain was a gritty player who had the same kind of temperament as atherton but did not possess the same technical skills...i don't know what your definition of world class is but he doesn't come close to it for me....

I don't judge a player by their technique, I judge them by their output. Atherton may have been superior in technique to Hussain but it didn't actually handicap Hussain too much. In the end his career was broadly very similar to Atherton's, though it was 6 years between his debut and his becoming established in the side.

 

[Richard]

The problem with Hussain was that he made hard work out of every inning that he played so im not certain that he would have dominated any sort of attack on any sort of wicket. Its fine on sticky wickets where England had their backs against the wall, where arguably he was at his best, but on flat tracks or poor bowlers you'd hardly expect him to cash in.

It doesnt make him a bad player but i seriously doubt he would be brilliant today. However he was a very good player when he played and his record is somewhat diminished by his extremely ordinary form when between 2000-01 when he was arguably under greatest strain as captain.

Indeed. Hussain (as he mentions countless times in his book) had a massive problem with fear of failure, which was much less of a problem on bad pitches. So if you put him into the current climate he'd not come close to matching the Haydens, Sehwags, etc. But if you put such batsmen back into his era (and, for that matter, most others, as times like the current one where pitches are flat and bowling attacks poor are much rarer than those where it's the opposite) Hussain would come out trumps every time IMO.

 

[Richard]

For goodness sakes, Stewart has scored plenty of runs against the top spinners in the world. His problems have always been playing scoring on slow-turning wickets which is something completely different. Stewart always liked pace on the ball, and when he didnt get it he struggled.

How many quick, bouncy turners did he honestly play on? They're not especially common, particularly in England.

Most of the times he failed against spinners was on slow, low turning pitches.

 

[Anil]

I don't see what's wrong with the series where he averaged in the 30s or late 20s - no-one can possibly average 40+ in every single series, it's only when the average drops into the low 20s that you can claim he was an out-and-out failure.

And as I've already said, you include several series in this analysis that are unimportant - those where his fitness was not acceptible and those at the very start and very end of his career, which have no relevance to the greater part of it. 1989, Zimbabwe 1996, 1998\99 and everything in the calender-year 2001 - none reflect in any way on my judgement of his ability.

You've also grouped together several parts which have no connection, most particularly that part in the early 1990s - he was quite acceptible in Australia in 1990\91 and against Pakistan in 1992, while he was not against West Indies in 1991 and he barely played in the subcontinent in 1992\93. All in all, you've classed what, in my book, is 1 bad series as 4.

see...exactly what i expected from you...are you sure he had even one bad series? of course no one can average 50+ in all the series he plays in but 30s and late 20s are really poor averages for a top order batsman and this guy has pretty low averages strewn all over the place, at the beginning, at the end, in the middle, every where you look....your excuses notwithstanding...and as for "unimportant" series, i'd included every series he played in there, you are making some really biased judgement calls as to what is important and what is unimportant, fine...while we are at it, let's just weed out all the series in which he failed and he will probably average in the 70s or 80s....

I don't judge a player by their technique, I judge them by their output. Atherton may have been superior in technique to Hussain but it didn't actually handicap Hussain too much. In the end his career was broadly very similar to Atherton's, though it was 6 years between his debut and his becoming established in the side.

An average in the late 30s after 90 odd tests doesn't make anyone a world class player...sometimes there are players who are wasted talents, in Nasser's case, he actually overachieved for his average of 37.18....

 

[Fiery]

Gary "I could bowl every style crappily and this apparently makes me the best all-rounder ever" Sobers and Dennis "people rank me #1 for no particular reason" Lillee

Please name the "crappy" bowlers on this list

and also note that his isn't the worst average

 

[Langeveldt]

Please name the "crappy" bowlers on this list

and also note that his isn't the worst average

JH Kallis

 

[Fiery]

JH Kallis

I would have said Harbhajan Singh actually