• 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.

Most overrated cricketer

0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Nothing Wasim says is really of relevance anyway seeing as most ex and current cricket peers (if you want to go down that angle) would overwhemingly rate Sachin over Gavaskar.

Im not saying there isn’t a reverse argument, I’ve made it myself - but it’s mostly based on him being an opener, and a couple of monster series, not so much the other stuff.
 
S

Socerer 01

International Captain
I mean Wasim thinks Umran Malik should have been part of the world cup squad for India and that’s when I stopped taking his opinion seriously
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
trundler said:
There is literally no reason to rate Barrington over Dravid other than a prettier average (over half the games, and half the duration). If anything, Dravid played better bowlers and still was more impressive in his first 9-10 years. And then he continued to be great.
Click to expand...
Yeah no. Agreed that Dravid played better bowlers, but the bowlers Barrington played were no slouches either. Benaud, McKenzie, Hall, Davidson, Gibbs, Goddard, Pollock, Tayfield, Fazal, Adcock. Barrington was more impressive overseas and better against the best teams of his time. I also like that you bring up career length and try to compare Dravid’s peak and then give Dravid points for longevity. And I wouldn’t call Dravid’s career after his first 10 years continuing to be great…~60 tests at 43. Fun fact also, Dravid played the most tests against Bang/Zim apart from some Sri Lankans, Chanders, Fleming/Vettori and Inzy. Bowling attacks that were far worse than any Barrington had to face.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
trundler said:
Extremely? :blink: And all of them? Whom do you rate then?
Click to expand...
His username should be "That 70s Kid" based on his posts.


And honestly, nothing wrong with rating the 70s legends as greater tbh. We all tend to consciously or subconsciously overrate the great players we have seen over the ones we have not.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Coronis said:
Yeah no. Agreed that Dravid played better bowlers, but the bowlers Barrington played were no slouches either. Benaud, McKenzie, Hall, Davidson, Gibbs, Goddard, Pollock, Tayfield, Fazal, Adcock. Barrington was more impressive overseas and better against the best teams of his time. I also like that you bring up career length and try to compare Dravid’s peak and then give Dravid points for longevity. And I wouldn’t call Dravid’s career after his first 10 years continuing to be great…~60 tests at 43. Fun fact also, Dravid played the most tests against Bang/Zim apart from some Sri Lankans, Chanders, Fleming/Vettori and Inzy. Bowling attacks that were far worse than any Barrington had to face.
Click to expand...
Davidson and a bunch of ATVG to meh bowlers. Big whoop. Dravid played a superior bowling quality on the whole. Sure he wasn't as good after that period but he still had a couple of good years *on top* of Barrington's entire career. 9 years is hardly a cherry picked sample especially considering it's *more volume* than Barrington's entire career. Therefore, Dravid was better.

With 10 tons outside Asia and credentials as the supreme player of swing/dodgy bowling friendly conditions, I'm taking Dravid over Barrington any day. I don't think beating up on NZ and India jobbers in the '60s is better than Dravid in England/NZ/Australia. Though Barrington had a great series in SA and was great in Australia. He struggled against quality bowlers more so at home though. I think Dravid in England and NZ was as good as Barrington in Aus/SA in any case. In tougher conditions too. Dravid has him covered on every basis with added longevity IMO.
 
Last edited:
ZK$

ZK$

U19 Cricketer
Coronis said:
I also like that you bring up career length and try to compare Dravid’s peak and then give Dravid points for longevity.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing wrong with doing both tbh. His record after his 9 year peak, which is how long Barrington’s career was, is still pretty good. Continuing to win games for your country(even if it’s not at the same rate as during your peak)instead of retiring should add to your legacy imo.
 
the big bambino

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
trundler said:
No he didn't. The '60s were a notoriously slow, draw heavy era with an absence of great bowlers. The decade almost killed test cricket. Australia's attack was led by McKenzie, West Indies by Hall and there were scarcely any great bowlers. Gibbs would be the closest. The late 90s still had great bowling depth and Dravid regularly played against McWarne, Gillespie Akhtar, Pollock, etc all of whom were better than just about anyone Barrington faced.

Edit: forgot about Davidson but I also didn't mention Murali. The point stands.
Click to expand...
Maybe so but names don't measure difficulty like stats do. Dravid played in an easier era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top