-
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.
My International OverRated XI
- Thread starter Goughy
- Start date
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Two years ago, Jan 2004, at the end of his 101st test match, Lara had
- Runs : 9031
- 50+ scores : 67
- 100+ scores : 24
The others are more or less reaching or have just crossed that stage. Here is the comparison
PLAYER...TESTS....RUNS....50+ ....100+....200+ ...300+
Lara............101.......9031.......67........24.......6...........1
Ponting........101......8273.......60........28......4..........NIL
Inzemam......107......8172.......67........25......2...........1
Dravid............99.......8492......63........22......5.........NIL
Kallis............97........7619......61........23....NIL........NIL
Again, the stats dont show the comparable class of a player but if we insist on using them we must try and make them as fair as possible.
Just as an aside, I dont think Kallis belongs in this group stats be damned. Dravid and Ponting are the one's who are showing their best cricket today and history may rate them as Lara's equals depending upon what they do with the rest of their careers.
Even if they do great for more years and are bracketted with Lara and the other greats, it would elevate them but not bring down Lara.
Comparing a Lara at the end of his career with two great batsmen (in their own rights) and then to draw the conclusion that the player in decline is over rated because during his lows he doesnt compare with other greats more or less at the peak of their prowess is not just simplistic but tantamount to intellectual dishonesty.
- Runs : 9031
- 50+ scores : 67
- 100+ scores : 24
The others are more or less reaching or have just crossed that stage. Here is the comparison
PLAYER...TESTS....RUNS....50+ ....100+....200+ ...300+
Lara............101.......9031.......67........24.......6...........1
Ponting........101......8273.......60........28......4..........NIL
Inzemam......107......8172.......67........25......2...........1
Dravid............99.......8492......63........22......5.........NIL
Kallis............97........7619......61........23....NIL........NIL
Again, the stats dont show the comparable class of a player but if we insist on using them we must try and make them as fair as possible.
Just as an aside, I dont think Kallis belongs in this group stats be damned. Dravid and Ponting are the one's who are showing their best cricket today and history may rate them as Lara's equals depending upon what they do with the rest of their careers.
Even if they do great for more years and are bracketted with Lara and the other greats, it would elevate them but not bring down Lara.
Comparing a Lara at the end of his career with two great batsmen (in their own rights) and then to draw the conclusion that the player in decline is over rated because during his lows he doesnt compare with other greats more or less at the peak of their prowess is not just simplistic but tantamount to intellectual dishonesty.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Why are we only looking at a part of his carreer. Can we pick and choose? and how does what happened 2.5 years ago have any relation to whether I think a guy is currently overrated.SJS said:
3 of the 6 total scores over 200 were scored in draws and we can add the 400 in a dead draw against Eng.
He averagres 74 in draws, if you look at my reason I think Lara is overrated it was not because he is not great but I think he is a player rated more on freakish statistic acheivements and style rather than the fact he is inconsistent and a boot filler in draws.
As for the issue why did I choose 20 runs rather than 15 or anyother number. Well I judge 20 runs to be the standard that I consider a player being set. Below 20 a player I beleive a player is not played in and can be considered getting out early.
Will people stop looking at 1 part of a comparative analysis. The over 50 stat is only relevant when compared with the below 20 figure. It was used to show consistency (or lack there of). I would call taking one part of an argument and taking it out of context. I mean how often were the guys out early in their innings.SJS said:
I think this may be more of a case of intellectual dishonesty.
As for the list most of the guys on the list are very good players not great and as you are only taking one part of my anlysis and drawing conclusions the list is irrevelvant
Last edited:
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
Lara isn't overrated - he's just not as young as he used to be. Border's greatness didn't stop Australia losing lots of games when we had a poor team through the eighties - it doesn't detract from his calibre.
I don't want to bring down a heap of abuse on a player I like, but how is Brett Lee overrated? He's expensive, but he takes wickets. I'd say his profile outstrips that of better, but less enjoyable to watch players - but that doesn't equate to an overestimation of his capabilities. Since getting a long overdue call-back to the test team in England, he's been the heart and soul, along with Warne, of the Aussie bowling attack - yet the very fact that it took so long for him to be recalled indicates he's underrated, not overrated. I expect to have his average thrown in my face - but talk about his strike rate instead, esp. in ODIs, but increasingly in tests. Lee gets attention because he's flamboyant on field, bowls v. quick, and hits the stumps a lot. But nobody says he's as good as McGrath, or Ambrose, etc.
How to you compile a 'over-rated XI' and not have Shoaib Akhtar? At least Lee has some heart. Shoaib is the most overrated bowler in world cricket - why was he in the World XI? when he has a good day he's devestating - but for that to happen the planets need to align, the tides have to be just right, and most importantly, he needs to feel like it. Needless to say, that doesn't happen often.
I don't want to bring down a heap of abuse on a player I like, but how is Brett Lee overrated? He's expensive, but he takes wickets. I'd say his profile outstrips that of better, but less enjoyable to watch players - but that doesn't equate to an overestimation of his capabilities. Since getting a long overdue call-back to the test team in England, he's been the heart and soul, along with Warne, of the Aussie bowling attack - yet the very fact that it took so long for him to be recalled indicates he's underrated, not overrated. I expect to have his average thrown in my face - but talk about his strike rate instead, esp. in ODIs, but increasingly in tests. Lee gets attention because he's flamboyant on field, bowls v. quick, and hits the stumps a lot. But nobody says he's as good as McGrath, or Ambrose, etc.
How to you compile a 'over-rated XI' and not have Shoaib Akhtar? At least Lee has some heart. Shoaib is the most overrated bowler in world cricket - why was he in the World XI? when he has a good day he's devestating - but for that to happen the planets need to align, the tides have to be just right, and most importantly, he needs to feel like it. Needless to say, that doesn't happen often.
Last edited:
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
This is kind of my point. Both Lara and Border are great, but not too many people are calling Border one of the alltime greatest ever. They do with Lara and I think its a bridge too far. Hence the overrated thing.Matt79 said:
Lets say I put Lara in Borders class (maybe a tad ahead). I don't call that an insult, I just think there have been better players (an certainly better players currently).
As for the discussion. Lets draw a line under it and agree to differ.
Last edited:
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
Lack of heart is pretty difficult to get past - going back to the overrated issue, rather than Lee vs Akhtar, not having heart, everyone knowing you don't have heart, and people still arguing your case as a great bowler, selecting you for world XI's etc, is certainly to be overrated.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
NO. I am not looking at a part of his career. I am trying to make the use of statistics (a doubtful medium I keep repeating lest someone forgets) a bit more relevant by taking them at similar stages in their careers. Dravid and Ponting need to go to the ends of their careers for us to see what happens. Maybe their figures will end up favourably in comparison with Lara'a maybe they wont. time will tell but to compare them today when Lara is ending his career while they are at a peak is less than fair.Goughy said:
PURELY subjective.Goughy said:
I was sure this was coming which is why I named Sobers and hammond specifically. I named the others (and the list can run to a hundred) only to give a flavour of what kind of variations exist in the "50+ index"Goughy said:
Surely it isnt your case that Sobers and Hammond arent great batsmen. I coinsider Sobers the greatest left hander of all times and one of the five greatest batsmen in the history of the game. (its my opinion and I am not going to get into a debate over Sobers plaease)
I also believe that bur for the fact that Hammond's career ran parallel to that of Bradman's who overshadowed him completely, the world may have talked of him today as the greatest batsmen of all time.
Delete the other names from the list if you wish
Just for your information George Headley averaged 66.72 till 1939 and then the war broke out. After the war he came back and played till 1954 and managed a grand total of 54 runs in the three test matches he played. Thank God he still retired and had an average in the 60's. If he had played another ten games we would be calling him over rated though he would remain the same player.
You know, I have a cricket stats data base which I hadnt updated for quite some time. To look up the 50+ scores of all the players in the game I went back and found that Dravid, Ponting and Lara had very similar 50+ index. I mentioned this in my post just to indicate that these figures change. Obviously since then the relative performances of Lara and these two have changed. Does that mean Lara is over rated? If so, then clearly we are influenced by what happened in Lara's career in the recent period rather than his entire career.
Thats the point.
I am done with this by the way.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Shoaib's display of a lack of heart and committment on various occasions is disappointing, no doubt about that. But if Brett Lee ever has a series like this (http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/S...yerProgressBat.asp?PlayerId=2124&Series=0538), on tracks as flat and unresponsive like they were in that series, then maybe he can be judged close to Shoaib. For the time being, at test level, Shoaib is the far better bowler.Matt79 said:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I think the point Matt is trying to make is about Shoaib/Lee being 'over rated' rather than which of them is better and one can have an opinion on that too.Jono said:
Clearly their is more hype surrounding Shoaib than Lee thus Lee doesnt suffer in comparison (on the over rating stakes) to what the perception about him is. Shoaib does.
I dont like the term over rated because then one has to define the rating(good, great, God???) and tell who is rating (public at large???) which is very difficult to put in proper perspective. But some players do have a greater hype about them (over time it also attract greater negative opinions - Sachin and Lara are examples) and Shoaib is one such player. Unfortunately in his case he has done much too little to justify the raving and ranting mob of fans.
I am afraid history will talk of him like it does of Thommo whose name crops up whenever cricket lovers talk of pace but NEVER when we talk of greates fast bowlers in history or even in an all time Australian XI. Shoaib is not going to figure in anyone's all time Pakistani XI while the medium paced Fazal Mehmood might and there in lies the tragedy of being Shoaib Akhtar.
I am convinced that but for the hype surrounding his speed and the desire to reach (which he did finally - I dont remember when
) 100 MPH, he could have become a far better bowler than he is and has the possibility now of becoming considering he is 27 or 28 , whatever.That is the tragedy of the hype of Shoaib Akhtar.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Its so unfair to say that Akhtar has no heart, the guy comes from a country which is obsessed with fast bowing, more than him it was his (pakistani) fans that wanted him to break the 100 mph barrier and I know this because I was part of many pakistani forums and almost everyone on those forums wanted him to bowl faster and faster at any cost.
He comes from a country where there is no system to groom youngsters,esp someone as crazy and as talented as Shoaib. Every performance of his is under scrutiny if not throwing a match then for chucking. Every injury of his is considered fake by his own countrymen so much that they call him Shoaib ACTOR for supposedly faking his injuries.
I have been very critical of Shoaib in the past, (I guess most of it was because of jealousy that India couldn't have someone like him and also because of the escessive bragging of my pakistani friends - which I have gotten over with now, I hope). But now when I see him perform, I admire him more than any other bowler in the world.
This is not to say that I dont like Lee as a bowler, but I dont think he is anywhere close to Akhtar as a TEST bowler and that is despite the fact that he comes from an Aussie system where he had the opportunity to play in a team(A great team) and under a super captain like Steve Waugh, under good (if not great administrators) and also bowling on bowler friendly pitches most of his career. Shoaib didn't have all that, still statistically he fares way better than Lee in almost every bowling category as a test match bowler.
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype
So no Akhtar isn't over-rated and neither is Lee under-rated.
As for Lee's ODI average, it is only mariginally better than Akhtar's.
He comes from a country where there is no system to groom youngsters,esp someone as crazy and as talented as Shoaib. Every performance of his is under scrutiny if not throwing a match then for chucking. Every injury of his is considered fake by his own countrymen so much that they call him Shoaib ACTOR for supposedly faking his injuries.
I have been very critical of Shoaib in the past, (I guess most of it was because of jealousy that India couldn't have someone like him and also because of the escessive bragging of my pakistani friends - which I have gotten over with now, I hope). But now when I see him perform, I admire him more than any other bowler in the world.
This is not to say that I dont like Lee as a bowler, but I dont think he is anywhere close to Akhtar as a TEST bowler and that is despite the fact that he comes from an Aussie system where he had the opportunity to play in a team(A great team) and under a super captain like Steve Waugh, under good (if not great administrators) and also bowling on bowler friendly pitches most of his career. Shoaib didn't have all that, still statistically he fares way better than Lee in almost every bowling category as a test match bowler.
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype
So no Akhtar isn't over-rated and neither is Lee under-rated.
As for Lee's ODI average, it is only mariginally better than Akhtar's.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Also, it is possible that Shoaib may not end up in an all time Pakistan XI but that is not because he is no good or over rated, but because Pakistan has produced so many outstanding pacer over the years. I personally think If a pakistan XI was to pick to play in Australia where they would require 3 fast bowlers and one spinner, I would pick Akhtar ahead of Waqar.