Most overrated cricketer

[Fuller Pilch]

Reading many CW posts I see Kallis and Jadeja as overrated.

Especially the latter.

 

[Prince EWS]

Reading many CW posts I see Kallis and Jadeja as overrated.

Most CW posts about Kallis are about how **** they think he is.

Over-discussed, sure.

Jadeja is a meme lol.

 

[Coronis]

Reading many CW posts I see Kallis and Jadeja as overrated.

You clearly haven’t actually read all the Kallis threads.

Also if anyone’s overrated out of Barrington and Dravid, its Dravid.

Oh and KP sucks. As a person and a player.

 

[trundler]

You clearly haven’t actually read all the Kallis threads.

Also if anyone’s overrated out of Barrington and Dravid, its Dravid.

Oh and KP sucks. As a person and a player.

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.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

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.

Barrington played in a more bowling friendly era while Dravid's peak coincided with second most batting friendly decade.

 

[trundler]

Barrington played in a more bowling friendly era while Dravid's peak coincided with second most batting friendly decade.

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.

 

[smash84]

Barrington played in a more bowling friendly era while Dravid's peak coincided with second most batting friendly decade.

1960s, the golden era for bowling......NOT

 

[_00_deathscar]

Gavaskar for me is the best because he played in a far arder era plus was an opener.

Than Sachin?

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Than Sachin?

It's extremely close between them but imo Gavaskar was better because he faced better bowlers, played in a more challenging position(batting at no. 4 is easy) plus he performed better in tougher situations. Which imo exceeds Tendulkar longevity and consistency.

Tendulkar never played a knock like this

 

[_00_deathscar]

It's extremely close between them but imo Gavaskar was better because he faced better bowlers, played in a more challenging position(batting at no. 4 is easy) plus he performed better in tougher situations. Which imo exceeds Tendulkar longevity and consistency.

Tendulkar never played a knock like this

Agree about #1 vs #4, but the statement about better bowlers is just wrong.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Agree about #1 vs #4, but the statement about better bowlers is just wrong.

Hadlee, Lillee, Imran, Marshall, Holding, Garner > Mcgrath, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald

Plus Akram says Gavaskar is among the toughest h s bowled to while he doesn't rate Sachin because he never bowled to him in his prime.

 

[subshakerz]

It's extremely close between them but imo Gavaskar was better because he faced better bowlers, played in a more challenging position(batting at no. 4 is easy) plus he performed better in tougher situations. Which imo exceeds Tendulkar longevity and consistency.

Tendulkar never played a knock like this

I dunno about that.

Tendulkar certainly faced more worldclass bowlers than Gavaskar, and much better spinners. Gavaskar had it harder opening.

And the Chennai 136 would be up there with Gavaskar's last knock.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee, Lillee, Imran, Marshall, Holding, Garner > Mcgrath, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald

Plus Akram says Gavaskar is among the toughest h s bowled to while he doesn't rate Sachin because he never bowled to him in his prime.

Yeah but Tendulkar faced Bishop, Pollock, Walsh, Bond and Shoaib and then Warne, Saqlain and Murali.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Hadlee, Lillee, Imran, Marshall, Holding, Garner > Mcgrath, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald

Plus Akram says Gavaskar is among the toughest h s bowled to while he doesn't rate Sachin because he never bowled to him in his prime.

So one bowler says one guy who was a seasoned pro was harder to bowl to than another guy who was a literal child when he bowled to him a few times and that is relevant to this discussion because?

Sachin faced far better bowlers on the whole, and even your ranking can be debated.

What I’m saying is it’s by no means a clear cut argument, and certainly not in favour of Gavaskar.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

I dunno about that.

Tendulkar certainly faced more worldclass bowlers than Gavaskar, and much better spinners. Gavaskar had it harder opening.

And the Chennai 136 would be up there with Gavaskar's last knock.

Which world class bowlers are? Mcgrath, Akram, Ambrose are extremely overrated. And Akram rates Gavaskar higher than Sachin.

Spinners aren't real bowlers.

And no the 136 while good isn't close to 96

Yeah but Tendulkar faced Bishop, Pollock, Walsh, Bond and Shoaib and then Warne, Saqlain and Murali.

And Gavaskar faced Roberts, Croft, Willis, Thommo, Akram, Botham

So one bowler says one guy who was a seasoned pro was harder to bowl to than another guy who was a literal child when he bowled to him a few times and that is relevant to this discussion because?

Sachin faced far better bowlers on the whole, and even your ranking can be debated.

What I’m saying is it’s by no means a clear cut argument, and certainly not in favour of Gavaskar.

I never said Gavaskar is clearly better thn Tendulkar even i have doubts. But the asserstion that Sachin faced far better bowlers is really absurd when WI pace battery of 70s and 80s are recognized as the best bowling attack of all time.

 

[trundler]

Mcgrath, Akram, Ambrose are extremely overrated.

Extremely? And all of them? Whom do you rate then?

 

[Socerer 01]

Which world class bowlers are? Mcgrath, Akram, Ambrose are extremely overrated. And Akram rates Gavaskar higher than Sachin.

Spinners aren't real bowlers.

And no the 136 while good isn't close to 96



And Gavaskar faced Roberts, Croft, Willis, Thommo, Akram, Botham



I never said Gavaskar is clearly better thn Tendulkar even i have doubts. But the asserstion that Sachin faced far better bowlers is really absurd when WI pace battery of 70s and 80s are recognized as the best bowling attack of all time.

Gavaskar barely faced the prime WI pace attack at it’s peak though, his best series against them were in the absence of them…

McGrath overrated.. Warne and Murali aren’t real bowl… alright that’s enough internet for today

 

[Socerer 01]

Extremely? And all of them? Whom do you rate then?

The mighty Venkatesh Prasad

 

[ZK$]

And Akram rates Gavaskar higher than Sachin.

Wasim listed Tendulkar as the fifth best batsman he bowled to. Gavaskar didn’t make the top 5.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Extremely? And all of them? Whom do you rate then?

Extremely was an exaggeration but Hadlee, Khan, Marshall were better

Gavaskar barely faced the prime WI pace attack at it’s peak though, his best series against them were in the absence of them…

McGrath overrated.. Warne and Murali aren’t real bowl… alright that’s enough internet for today

And Sachin never faced the Ws in their peak and even when he faced them he didn't score much. Neither did he score much against Mcgrath and Donald.

Wasim listed Tendulkar as the fifth best batsman he bowled to. Gavaskar didn’t make the top 5.