Most underrated and overrated players in the world?

[social]

If you look closer, you'll see that McGrath was actually combatted well for most of 2001\02 (by both NZ and SA).
He only had 1 really good Test-match - the match I enjoyed least out of all the God-knows-how-many I've watched.
The Wanderers - everything I hate in a Test-match.

Simply because these teams' only tactic was not to play at anything outside the stumps.

Negated his wicket-taking ability somewhat but meant the runs dried up almost completely and, as such, they had to attack the other bowlers which, in turn, led to wickets at the other end.

 

[Richard]

yes, because after the success of the black cap's tactics, south africa used a similar way of playing him. since then, however, mcgrath has adjusted his line and length to those opponents who wish to leave him at every opportunity.

Which has simply meant he should be blocked at every opportunity... but no, people aren't satisfied with that...

 

[Richard]

Simply because these teams' only tactic was not to play at anything outside the stumps.

Negated his wicket-taking ability somewhat but meant the runs dried up almost completely and, as such, they had to attack the other bowlers which, in turn, led to wickets at the other end.

So... it'd be better to let him get the wickets, would it?
Slow runs are better than no runs - and with Lee at the other end runs are never going to be in short supply - and ain't like Gillespie was as accurate then as he is now - and Bichel even got into the side, which says a lot...

 

[social]

So... it'd be better to let him get the wickets, would it?
Slow runs are better than no runs - and with Lee at the other end runs are never going to be in short supply - and ain't like Gillespie was as accurate then as he is now - and Bichel even got into the side, which says a lot...

Considering we thrashed SA and the Kiwis were only saved from a similar fate by rain in the first 2 tests, it was hardly a resounding success.

Significantly, the Kiwis abandoned these tactics after the first innings of the 1st test in the last series.

 

[Richard]

Or rather McGrath just bowled so that no matter what tactics anyone employed you weren't going to play him.
So what if it wasn't successful in terms of results? McGrath still got just 23 wickets at 37.17 when you get rid of that horrible Wanderers match - I'd say that's preferable to him getting 35 at 22, wouldn't you?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Or rather McGrath just bowled so that no matter what tactics anyone employed you weren't going to play him.
So what if it wasn't successful in terms of results? McGrath still got just 23 wickets at 37.17 when you get rid of that horrible Wanderers match - I'd say that's preferable to him getting 35 at 22, wouldn't you?

How do you come up with credible stats by removing a players best results?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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

Do you realise how completely ******** this argument is? Firstly you claim the most dominant seamer in the world in recent times gets all of his wickets through luck and/or poor play by the batsman. Then you respond to the obvious point that McGrath gets plenty of good batsmen out by saying those batsmen played bad shots, then you claim that good batsmen play poor strokes enough to be regularly dismissed by this particular poor bowler. Did it ever occur to you to wonder why said good batsmen don't get out so often to OTHER poor bowlers? I mean, Kyle Mills could get plenty of wickets if people played bad shots at him all the time too, so why isn't he as successful as McGrath? Why do so many great batsmen feel the need to swing wildly at McGrath or whatever it is you think they do? How on earth does he manage to have such a mammoth number of poor strokes played against him that he has close to 500 test wickets at an average under 22?

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.

McGrath and Lara has been one of the great battles of the last decade, and yes Lara has had his share of the good performances as well, but McGrath has certainly had the wood over him at times, which seems rather unlikely if McGrath was such a poor bowler.

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.

Perhaps if you actually watched the battles between Dravid and McGrath you would see why McGrath has the better of him on the whole. Dravid has played some great knocks (well, one in particular) against Australia while McGrath was in the side, but on the whole he has struggled against him. In the 2004 series Dravid looked well beaten every time they faced each other. The only Indian batsman who could really handle McGrath that series was Sehwag.

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.

I've heard some pretty idiotic things on this forum, but that absolutely takes the cake.

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.

Very well. You can start with the first India vs Australia test in 2004, where McGrath took 4/55 and 2/39 on a deck with little in it for seamers, and was widely announced as "back", as it was his first really strong performance since returning to international cricket. For a game you might remember, McGrath took eight wickets in the first Ashes test in 2003 on a Brisbane pitch which flattened out a great deal after the first morning (and never did that much to begin with). And for another one, take a look at the third Pakistan vs Australia test in 2002, where McGrath took 7/59 in the match on a pitch with plenty in it for spinners but nothing for seamers.

Mind you, I'm just picking the MOST flat pitches I can remember that McGrath dominated on. The perth wicket where McGrath destroyed Pakistan with his eight wicket haul this summer was a hell of a long way from being a minefield. In fact, aside from being fast and bouncy as the WACA always is, it was really a pretty flat pitch, the ball did very little off the seam or in the air.

 

[social]

Hayden is the luckiest batsman in history because he plays poor bowling on flat wickets.

McGrath is ineffectual on flat wickets and only takes wickets via poor strokes (or luck, if you like).

Therefore, as Hayden's record indicates that virtually every wicket Australia plays upon is flat, McGrath is the luckiest bowler in history.

And here was I thinking that they each posessed abnormal levels of skill. What a fool am I.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And here was I thinking that they each posessed abnormal levels of skill. What a fool am I.

Indeed. The real world talent in the last decade has been Craig White, with his awesome test average of 37.63 and his one series in his whole career where he averaged under 30 coming against the 2000 West Indies. On top of that, against the world's best he had an awesome 15 wickets @ 48.

Undoubtedly a vastly superior bowler on a flat deck to McGrath, who in the period of increasingly large numbers of flat pitches since 2000 taken 215 wickets @ 19.62, through luck and poor strokes.

 

[C_C]

McGrath is one of the BEST EVER pacers when it comes to bowling on flat tracks.
His super-consistent record around the globe proves this.

And Ambrose was NOT a big swinger of the ball. I have seen ATLEAST 50 of Ambrose's tests live and he swinged it marginally more than McGrath but McGrath's cutter is more potent....King Curtley had a heavier bounce and a bit more consistency IMO.

 

[vic_orthdox]

swinged...hehe

 

[Corbin]

Overated: Harmison

Underated: Hauritz

 

[C_C]

swinged...hehe

should read 'swung'....happy now professor wren/martin ?

 

[Arjun]

Rana has to be one of the most overrated players of the last couple of years.
One of the worst bowlers I've seen, and people talk about him as if he's a Pakistani legend...

Rana No-Ball-Hasan.....first three balls are no-balls, all hit for fours, the next one is a dot...no-another no-ball........that's what I had seen of him when I first saw him bowl a full over live- must have been a long one.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Rana is a pretty good bowler. He's not great, but he was easily Pakistan's best in the VB series.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Overated: Harmison

Underated: Hauritz

Quick, get a camera. Someone rates Hauritz.

 

[tooextracool]

Mostly because there are very few bowlers who can bowl inswingers and outswingers to order..

you fool, how many people in the world today can bowl with anywhere near the accuracy of mcgrath? i can think of one other bowler, and hes largely medium pace right now.

If McGrath gets so many of his wickets like that I wonder why I've seen so few.

possibly because you've watched a whole 20 tests in his entire career, of which you've seen all of his worst tests.you really are a genius.

 

[Marcus]

Most certinly overrated is JAMES ANDERSON, he has played well for one world cup, and one series vs Zimbabwe...woooooooo......he cant hit the cut strip at the moment......i think id have more chnce of getting the ball to hit middle and off then he can....and i cant bowl faster than spin pace. He is a player that needs to go back to Lancashire and get his form back.

Stuart Mcgill for Australia is soooooo under rated,...... he lives under the sahdow of Warne, for any other international team he would walk in.....i mean any of Australia A is underated internationally.....Jamie Cox would of walked into England...never played a test for Australia. Keith Dutch is underated at a domestic level....great bowler batsmen...who has to bowl on c**p wickets at taunton with the short boundaries...no wonder somerset have no decent spinner in the team

 

[tooextracool]

No, but AFTER WC99 his OVERALL economy-rate was precisely what I said it was.

for someone who lives in england, you really have poor english dont you?
if its AFTER wc 99 then why do you keep including wc 99?
wc 99 was an anomaly, to what was a rubbish career, that was inflated for a small period of time on seamer friendly wickets.

Noticed how I've reassesed Oram, given that I've realised it's frankly impossible (especially with you around) to think along those lines?.

yes you finally admitted that oram is a fairly good bowler, and it took me having to show you that hes been bowling just as well as vaas has on non seamer friendly wickets off late.

Which I didn't - I just said he contributed (very sparely - given he only played a handful of games) to a great decade for bowling..

so why not include bowlers like anderson as the best of 2000s because he had a brilliant wc in 2003. contributing one good series on seamer friendly wickets isnt exactly a contribution, especially given what came before and after that series.

I make it out on this single series because it forms such a large part of his career...

it doesnt even form 50% of his career(Without the injury period), and even in that wc period he had an average ER, which would suggest that he had never been accurate.

Which says one thing - he was bowling better in one form than the other.
And either could have changed - or it could have remained the same.
We'll never know..

you are so blinded, its insane. if he was bowling well for one series in one form of the game, and failed in every other series in both forms of the game, it would suggest that that one series was an anomaly, especially considering that his ER would suggest lack of accuracy- without which any bowler is useless in ODIs.

No, I'll not look at Tests, it's very simple in Tests - he wasn't any good.

and why wasnt he very good? because he wasnt accurate enough. you have to look at the reasons for failure in one form of the game. no matter how stupid you are even you know that no bowler can be accurate in one form of the game and not in the other. and if you analyze any series including the world cup, you'll find that we was never accurate, even if he was taking wickets.

I'll keep looking at 1 series in ODIs, yes - because it forms such a large part of his career.

a whole 9 games, out of 25, give him a medal.

And the part you've removed forms a damn sight more than you seem to think.
You can't remove 1\3rd of someone's career..

why not? you have no problems removing 4/5ths of mcgraths career. get over it, allott was rubbish, the period that he had any form of success is doubtable, because of the state of the pitches.

I've said it where, precisely?
I've said other people's ideas about what is fact is irrelevant (so if you've said "let's have a poll on whether Ealham bowled at the death" I've said that's pointless), but I've never disregarded other people's opinions, especially where they have access to stuff I don't - like watching Australian domestic cricket..

rubbish, the number of times you've refused to consider other peoples opinions on here is insane, such as the vettori case and the several other times ive asked you to have a poll to see whos right.

IAre you ever going to get this right?
One, how the hell does it help you even if Brown, Swann and Salisbury were useless? It just means he was even worse if he struggled against them.

it helps me because the above 3 are so useless, that it would be preposterous to suggest that anyone can possibly struggle against them. its like saying somone has problems against pace because he struggled against adam sanford & rikki clarke.

Two, it wasn't 5 years ago - there were TWO instances, THREE years apart, in which nothing had changed, in which he was clearly very uncomfortable against spin, in both 2000 and 2003. If I'd had the chance to watch him in 2003\04 I would have done - sadly I didn't. So the first chance I had to see that he'd improved against spin was the SCG Test. But I wasn't prepared to say someone had improved because of a single game, when he'd been poor against spin for a long time before that.
Now, however, I've seen enough evidence that he quite clearly has improved.

WOW a whole 2 INSTANCES!!! given your knowledge of cricket, i wouldnt be surprised if you confuse lack of form with 'uncomfortable against spin' either. you have to realise that an isolated instance that is 3 years apart doesnt help your case, it makes it worse. if someone had 2 poor games against spin in a row, it would help your case a lot better.

 

[tooextracool]

Again, interesting, you really do like manufacturing making me "look like a fool" don't you?

i dont need to , you do a good job of it on your own.

I don't know how long ago it was, or even if that's exactly what I said - ain't like it's unlike you to twist my words - but yes, only a fool would consider a bowler who's been so poor in 2001-2005 a great bowler.

oh yes, so poor has he been that hes destroyed every team in that period of time. pure genius. and this is coming from a person whos missed both tours of india during that time, and a couple of other series.