Most underrated and overrated players in the world?

[Richard]

But yet he often still takes wickets, weird isn't it? Not to me, but I'm sure it would be to you.

Not weird at all, the reason is very obvious.
Poor strokes.
The reason for the poor strokes is nowhere near as obvious.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Why you keep going on about playing I really don't know - how on Earth are you supposed to measure with any accuracy in a game?
Maybe that's where you get YOUR misperceptions from?

how do you measure with any accuracy off a TV screen? I go on about playing the game because I assume if you did you'd have some understanding of what it's about, however you seem to be the odd one out in that regard.

Yes, having played cricket for about 20 years now my whole knowledge base is composed of misperceptions. You don't have to measure it down to the level of "that ball just moved 3.675 inches and took a wicket", most normal people get a general idea and can make a fairly accurate estimate....i.e: 2 inches is 5 centimetres, that looked to have moved about that much. Let's face it, you're not going to get 5 centimetres mixed up with a foot and a half are you?

I can tell you now that any time I've induced an edge it's been from a ball that's moved closer to 2 inches than it has been to a foot or more....if you're regularly moving it a foot+ you'll spend most of the day frustrated at watching people play and miss.

 

[Richard]

Playing inside the line is not a leave unless you have very poor technique. If you're playing at it and attempting to leave it at the same time then you're going to get out eventually. The fact that they end up with the bat in that position indicates that McGrath has them in a position of uncertainty.

No, batsmen do it to all sorts of bowlers all the time.
I can't believe you haven't noticed them.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, batsmen do it to all sorts of bowlers all the time.
I can't believe you haven't noticed them.

I've noticed them mate, but it's not technically what I'd call 'a leave'. If you're putting your bat anywhere near the ball in an attempt to leave it you're an idiot. I've seen batsman move the bat inside the line a number of times, I've also seen batsman get out doing this when the ball seams in....it's a risk you take i suppose.

 

[Richard]

Not all the time no, if you put it in an area where a batsman is attempting to drive through cover for instance it doesn't necessarily have to move - it can either be a bit quicker or a bit slower and you might still end up with a result for the bowler.

It certainly can....there aren't many batsmen (if any) who once committed to a shot can pull out of it once there's a variation in bounce. Sometimes though I think your definition of a good batsman is one who is superhuman....Most bats won't be relatively face on all the time if you're bowling in the right areas, McGrath spends a majority of his time bowling in those areas, and combined with an amount of movement this makes him dangerous.

If the ball's a bit quicker it'll just hit the bottom of the bat and probably bobble out on the off-side.
If it's slower (ain't like McGrath takes many wickets with slower-balls) it'll still almost certainly go in front of the wicket - and McGrath doesn't exactly get an enormous amount caught in the cover-ring (mostly because there aren't often many fielders there).

 

[Richard]

I've noticed them mate, but it's not technically what I'd call 'a leave'. If you're putting your bat anywhere near the ball in an attempt to leave it you're an idiot. I've seen batsman move the bat inside the line a number of times, I've also seen batsman get out doing this when the ball seams in....it's a risk you take i suppose.

Indeed, Trescothick has been especially troubled by Gillespie on that leave.
Still, it works a million times, the same way it does for others.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not weird at all, the reason is very obvious.
Poor strokes.
The reason for the poor strokes is nowhere near as obvious.

Talking to you about this is a waste of time Richard. Your knowledge of the game is obviously not at the level you presume it to be, and having to read this stupidity again and again gets a bit much after a while. The idea that you think you can possibly know as much about the game watching it on tv as someone who has played/been involved in a situation similar to the one you're trying to address is ludicrous.

Your mind seemingly only allows one possibility in at a time, not allowing for what leads up to that moment and other things that might influence what you are talking about. It's fine to think that your ideas are revolutionary and everyone else is behind the times but I feel that's a bit delusional in your case.

Anyway, I've just watched an episode of ER, and I'm off down to the hospital to give the surgeons advice and possibly perform an operation of some description. Night all.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If the ball's a bit quicker it'll just hit the bottom of the bat and probably bobble out on the off-side.
If it's slower (ain't like McGrath takes many wickets with slower-balls) it'll still almost certainly go in front of the wicket - and McGrath doesn't exactly get an enormous amount caught in the cover-ring (mostly because there aren't often many fielders there).

and that's a fine example of what I'm talking about - night.

 

[Richard]

how do you measure with any accuracy off a TV screen? I go on about playing the game because I assume if you did you'd have some understanding of what it's about, however you seem to be the odd one out in that regard.

Yes, having played cricket for about 20 years now my whole knowledge base is composed of misperceptions. You don't have to measure it down to the level of "that ball just moved 3.675 inches and took a wicket", most normal people get a general idea and can make a fairly accurate estimate....i.e: 2 inches is 5 centimetres, that looked to have moved about that much. Let's face it, you're not going to get 5 centimetres mixed up with a foot and a half are you?

I can tell you now that any time I've induced an edge it's been from a ball that's moved closer to 2 inches than it has been to a foot or more....if you're regularly moving it a foot+ you'll spend most of the day frustrated at watching people play and miss.

If you can tell with any real accuracy whether a ball moved this much or that much you're superhuman.
The only way to know is with instruments - ie a flight-path tracker such as HawkEye. And they show that all the time, usually with measurements to 2dp - and you can get a pretty good idea of how much certain deliveries moved.
You can't when you're playing.

 

[Richard]

Talking to you about this is a waste of time Richard. Your knowledge of the game is obviously not at the level you presume it to be, and having to read this stupidity again and again gets a bit much after a while. The idea that you think you can possibly know as much about the game watching it on tv as someone who has played/been involved in a situation similar to the one you're trying to address is ludicrous.

Your mind seemingly only allows one possibility in at a time, not allowing for what leads up to that moment and other things that might influence what you are talking about. It's fine to think that your ideas are revolutionary and everyone else is behind the times but I feel that's a bit delusional in your case.

Why does everything have to be 4294967296 shades of grey for everyone?
Cricket is nowhere near as complicated as most people like to make it out to be.
Let me assure you, I'm perfectly capable of analysing build-up and prior influence. And I've explained time and again when I feel it's appropriate and when not.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He's been played plenty of times.
Whether he's had the better of certain individuals or not.

Right. Now, you've said that McGrath gets his wickets due to bad shots only, right? And that the reason he gets good figures is because batsmen have poor temprament and can't handle what is ultimately innocuous and unthreatening bowling, right? Therefore it would follow that player who consistently struggle against him over a period of several years would be poor batsmen, right? And since pretty much every batsman in the world has been well beaten by McGrath in the 2000-2005 period, it would follow that all those batsmen are poor, right?

If not, why can't they handle such average bowling and why do they get out to McGrath over and over?

Craig White.
See - all depends on what you call performance. I, personally, call performance bowling good deliveries, not simply ending-up with good figures.

CRAIG WHITE? You MUST be joking. Sorry mate, but I suggest you go and watch a tape of the Adelaide test against New Zealand or any of the tests from the last two Indian tours and then see if you still think CRAIG WHITE is a superior bowler on a flat deck to Glen McGrath.

 

[Richard]

Right. Now, you've said that McGrath gets his wickets due to bad shots only, right? And that the reason he gets good figures is because batsmen have poor temprament and can't handle what is ultimately innocuous and unthreatening bowling, right? Therefore it would follow that player who consistently struggle against him over a period of several years would be poor batsmen, right? And since pretty much every batsman in the world has been well beaten by McGrath in the 2000-2005 period, it would follow that all those batsmen are poor, right?

If not, why can't they handle such average bowling and why do they get out to McGrath over and over?

Because good players play poor strokes.
Simple as.

CRAIG WHITE? You MUST be joking. Sorry mate, but I suggest you go and watch a tape of the Adelaide test against New Zealand or any of the tests from the last two Indian tours and then see if you still think CRAIG WHITE is a superior bowler on a flat deck to Glen McGrath.

Precisely - this is just the point.
Yet Craig White can clearly do things with the ball that McGrath can't, and hence he doesn't need to (mostly) rely on poor strokes.
If you wanted to look at McGrath against New Zealand at Adelaide, you can look at White at Lahore in 2000\01. Not as spectacular (partly because England batted far slower than Australia did at Adelaide against a much better attack than New Zealand's) and England didn't win the game - but every bit as good.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Because good players play poor strokes.
Simple as.

So in other words, the strokes in question were not bad at all, and were in fact shots that ANY batsman would have played, even the best batsmen in the world, and were instead caused by good, consistent, accurate bowling and subtle movement in the air and off the wicket, as well as variation in length and pace. The fact is, if a bowler relies on poor strokes to get their wickets, good batsmen will cut them to shreds by avoiding playing said poor strokes. McGrath has been the most successful seamer in the world since 2000 not by playing against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but by dominating every single batting lineup he has faced, including the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Kallis and so on. These are not players who flail at average bowling and give their wickets away.

Yet Craig White can clearly do things with the ball that McGrath can't, and hence he doesn't need to (mostly) rely on poor strokes.

Like what? Get thrashed all over the park? This is honestly equivalent to claiming that Andrew Symonds is a more lethal bowler on a Kandy dustbowl than Murali. It's not just wrong, it's completely insane.

If you wanted to look at McGrath against New Zealand at Adelaide, you can look at White at Lahore in 2000\01. Not as spectacular (partly because England batted far slower than Australia did at Adelaide against a much better attack than New Zealand's) and England didn't win the game - but every bit as good.

Hell, forget New Zealand at Adelaide, I could give you a dozen other games to look at. As I said earlier, the Adelaide performance was practically a McGrath trademark, taking wickets on surfaces where other bowlers cannot is what he does better than anyone else in the world. That's what is so utterly bizarre about your argument - if you were claiming McGrath was an overrated bowler on dangerous, seaming, uneven decks you may well have an argument as there are plenty of bowlers I would rather have bowling for me on those sorts of wickets. But, just like Curtley Ambrose was perhaps second to none in the 90s on a Perth or Bridgetown minefield, McGrath is in a class of his own on a flat, lifeless deck.

 

[C_C]

comparing McGrath with Craig White is laughable.

Look, variations and movement are all nice and dandy...but what REALLY COUNTS is performance.
Thats where McGrath gets an A+.
If Variation,movement and style were the decieding factors, then the best goddamn pacer in the word ever by a country mile is Wasim Akram....no one...not lillee, hadlee,imran,marshall,mcgrath,holding etc. come anywhere CLOSE to his variations and deviations.
However, others have better performance than him.
McGrath is not a big mover of the ball but he OWNS the corridor of uncertainty like Ambrose did.....incidentally, Ambrose was not a big mover of the ball either.....
and its ridiculous to suggest that McGrath has 470+ wickets solely due to batsmen playing poor shots....he INDUCES those 'poor shots' by having very subtle variations in his deliveries.
And even if he DID take 470+ wickets by sheer luck and stupidity of the batsmen, then he is the luckiest git to play cricket......and luck is one of his skills then and therefore i would pick him.

He gets the wickets. Thats all that matters.

 

[tooextracool]

A bad shot is a bad shot, regardless of what's gone before. If you've been fooled, fine, but like I say - I've never seen McGrath fool a batsman with the outswinger\inswinger tactic or similar.

because as ive said before, he fools them with the front foot- back foot tactic

 

[Richard]

So in other words, the strokes in question were not bad at all, and were in fact shots that ANY batsman would have played, even the best batsmen in the world, and were instead caused by good, consistent, accurate bowling and subtle movement in the air and off the wicket, as well as variation in length and pace.

No, caused by the fact that sometimes good batsmen play poor strokes.
Equally, sometimes they play them more regularly than at other times.

The fact is, if a bowler relies on poor strokes to get their wickets, good batsmen will cut them to shreds by avoiding playing said poor strokes. McGrath has been the most successful seamer in the world since 2000 not by playing against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but by dominating every single batting lineup he has faced, including the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Kallis and so on. These are not players who flail at average bowling and give their wickets away.

It's always interested me that McGrath has supposedly dominated Lara - Lara has scored 2470 runs against Australia, mostly with their side including McGrath, at an average of 51.45. Tell me - how on Earth has he supposedly won a battle with Lara? It's no good getting someone lots out if they're still scoring double-centuries against your team.
Dravid, too, has averaged something like 36 against Australia with McGrath in the side - not up to his normal standards, no, but still not poor enough to say McGrath has conclusively got the better of him.
As for Tendulkar, well, before the 2003\04 series he averaged 57.66 against Australia - McGrath MOST CERTAINLY has not got the better of him.
And I'm pretty confident, myself, that Kallis will have McGrath's number the next time he gets to face him.

Like what? Get thrashed all over the park? This is honestly equivalent to claiming that Andrew Symonds is a more lethal bowler on a Kandy dustbowl than Murali. It's not just wrong, it's completely insane.

No, it's not - as you'd know if you'd watched White bowl in 2000\01.
He not only bowled with extreme accuracy, he bowled cutters and reverse-swing to order. He got more wickets with wicket-taking deliveries than McGrath has probably got in the entire time from 2001 to the present day (excluding that Adelaide Test) on flat pitches.

Hell, forget New Zealand at Adelaide, I could give you a dozen other games to look at. As I said earlier, the Adelaide performance was practically a McGrath trademark, taking wickets on surfaces where other bowlers cannot is what he does better than anyone else in the world. That's what is so utterly bizarre about your argument - if you were claiming McGrath was an overrated bowler on dangerous, seaming, uneven decks you may well have an argument as there are plenty of bowlers I would rather have bowling for me on those sorts of wickets. But, just like Curtley Ambrose was perhaps second to none in the 90s on a Perth or Bridgetown minefield, McGrath is in a class of his own on a flat, lifeless deck.

Go on, then - give me some examples of where McGrath has taken large wicket-bags (3 or more) on flat decks through something other than poor strokes. Ideally after 2001, too, because then I can compare it to my own recollections.

 

[Richard]

Ambrose was not a big mover of the ball either.....

Really?
What a ludicrous comment.
If the pitch offered movement off the seam, Ambrose extracted it.
If it didn't, he used cutters.
To compare McGrath to Ambrose is a massive insult to the West Indian.

and luck is one of his skills then and therefore i would pick him.

Luck a skill - that's one I haven't heard before...

He gets the wickets. Thats all that matters.

To being picked, of course it is.
To being good - no, it's not.

 

[Richard]

comparing McGrath with Craig White is laughable.

Yes, it is - because they're so different it's untrue.
White could bowl wicket-taking deliveries on flat pitches.
McGrath, except in 1 Test, hasn't done since 2001.

 

[Richard]

because as ive said before, he fools them with the front foot- back foot tactic

Because you so often see batsmen getting out as a result of not being quite so far forward as they should have?
Or by being stuck on the front-foot when they should be back?
It happens once in a blue-moon - though batsmen very often look uncomfortable doing it.

 

[tooextracool]

Because you so often see batsmen getting out as a result of not being quite so far forward as they should have?
Or by being stuck on the front-foot when they should be back?
It happens once in a blue-moon - though batsmen very often look uncomfortable doing it.

oh shut up, it happens far more often than the old inswinger out swinger rubbish. thats how mcgrath gets many of his wickets, by getting players in 2 minds about going on the back foot or the front foot.