My International OverRated XI

[Goughy]

Well put.
Botham was overrated 1984-1987.
Atherton was overrated in 2001.
Etc., etc.
Almost everyone had a down period at the start of their careers and the end.
Overrated is not an easy thing to define.

I don't disagree with putting Botham and Atherton in the overrated column for the periods mentioned.

I just find it funny that you say its a hard thing to define and then do it yourself.

IMO, overrated just means people who at any period of time are held in higher esteem than they currently merit. Obviously many players towards the end of their careers are overrated as people do not recalibrate their opinion of a players ability as time or events progress. They hold the same high opinion despite things changing.

This is not a comparision with any of the above cricketers, Im just using it to illustrate my point. Talk to many Liverpool fans about Robbie Fowler and they are still thinking he is capable of doing what he did 10 years ago. Now he is back at Liverpool images of a bleached blonde terror whisper though their minds rather than what is now in front of them.

 

[Richard]

Well - all right, then, it's easy to define - but the point is Atherton wasn't overrated for most of his career and Botham certainly wasn't overrated before 1981\82 (bowling) and 1984 (batting).
By that token, as SJS mentions, virtually every player if not every player is overrated at some time. Equally, though - almost every player is overrated by someone, somewhere, at any time - even Bradman was probably overrated by someone, who said he was God or whatever.
The most important thing is to realise that, for instance, Atherton being overrated (as he probably was, by most people including myself - I thought he was still a capable player when, having read his autobio, it seems he might just have been starting to run on empty) in his last 10 Tests doesn't mean he was overrated for most of his career. Nor does the fact that Botham was overrated after 1983\84 change the fact that he was a fantastic player beforehand.
It's difficult, therefore, to say that anyone is "most overrated" or whatever because there's just so much of the stuff going around. "You overrate him" is really only something that can be said truthfully to an individual.
(I'm doing a Corey here )

 

[Goughy]

It's difficult, therefore, to say that anyone is "most overrated" or whatever because there's just so much of the stuff going around. "You overrate him" is really only something that can be said truthfully to an individual.
(I'm doing a Corey here )

I agree with lots of what you said. Bothams exploits early in his career took him to the top of the mountain. Im saying that people didn't change that opinion quick enough after the back injury and the suspension and in the mid-late 80s he was given far more responsibility with the ball than he actually deserved. Selectors and public overrated him.

It is difficult to categorically define someone as overrated or say anyone is overrated but just because something is difficult does not mean it should not be attempted. Did you find it too difficult to say and not vote on the poll? If you did who vote for and what did you see in them to make them overrated?

I will not take offense, Im just interested.

 

[brettishere]

Vettori?

Well the last thing I looked at was for career figures, not in their prime or now. And the others out perform Lara.

Yes the Overrated list was for current form and ability not for when there are in their prime. That is why Sachin and Lara are so prominent.

I call them overrated because people forgive them for their failings and give them more leeway (which maybe they have earned) than other great players would be given.

The fact that guys would still currently pick Lara and Tendulkar over Dravid, Kallis, Inzi and Ponting when they are past their prime illustrates to me (my humble opinion) that they are being rated on reputaion and legend rather than current ability.

It does amaze me, that when I said Lara was past his prime I was told that he wasn't and I was wrong and I should look at what he has done lately.

When I look at recent stats to illustrate a point Im told you can't compare players in their prime with aging players.

Its a beautiful thing to combat opposing statements arguing the same conclusion

How the heck can vettori be overated?

 

[brettishere]

This is my Team of overrated cricketers from around the world (primarily for Test Cricket). One of the keepers is playing as a batter. Actually, it is a pretty damn good team.



Vettori
Bowl av of 35 per wicket and makes ICC World XI


Remember these are not bad players but those whose profile and standing is above what they deserve.

Vettori has 212 Test wickets in 60 odd tests, he was the youngest to reach 100 wickets, he went through some injuri4es and now he is coming back.

He is not overarted IMHO.

 

[Richard]

I agree with lots of what you said. Bothams exploits early in his career took him to the top of the mountain. Im saying that people didn't change that opinion quick enough after the back injury and the suspension and in the mid-late 80s he was given far more responsibility with the ball than he actually deserved. Selectors and public overrated him.

It is difficult to categorically define someone as overrated or say anyone is overrated but just because something is difficult does not mean it should not be attempted. Did you find it too difficult to say and not vote on the poll? If you did who vote for and what did you see in them to make them overrated?

I will not take offense, Im just interested.

Out of the lot IIRR I thought Harmison was most widely overrated - don't know about others, but Englishmen still routinely refer to him in the same breath as Hoggard, Jones and Flintoff when he's clearly massively inferior. Equally, people still talk of him as if he's one of the best bowlers in The World.
But there are plenty of players who I feel are widely overrated. Certainly Botham was, from what I've heard, in the 1984-87 period (was anyone seriously expecting much from him when he came back in 1989, 1991 and 1992?), and people often still expected him to perform the miracles of the past, when he clearly wasn't up to it any more.
But I don't really see that there's much importance in someone being overrated for 10 or 12 Tests at the end of a 70 or 80 Test career.
As to why was Harmison is overrated - he's had a good period of 7 Tests and that's what people base all this World expectations on. When for most of his career he's been absolutely dreadful, with the odd really good game mixed in there.

 

[tooextracool]

Zimbabwe were Test-class at all times before April 2003 - there's a difference between being the worst of the class (as WI currently are) and being utterly overwhelmed every time or almost every time they play.
This didn't happen until April 2003.

their bowling did not get worse from 2003 onwards though. they still had the streaks, blignauts, mahwires before and after, only ray price didnt play after. therefore if scoring runs against them after that was not considered an achievement, then scoring runs against them before wasnt much of an accomplishment either.
before 00/01, at least Zim had the brandes, paul strangs, olongas and neil johnsons to complement streak.

 

[Slifer]

Well, I would have a middle order of Ponting, Dravid, Inzi and Kallis.

Lara has been brilliant and has single handedly won a few games for WI. However, this sticks in our mind more than the fact that he is more inconsistent than the others I have mentioned. Also as I have mentioned before he has padded his stats in draws more than others.

If Im choosing the best XI then consistency is just as important as ability (all the others apart from Inzi also have a higher batting av.)
If I am designing the best team in the world I do not want 1 brilliant innings followed by a bad one. I would want to keep the opposition under pressure from a constant weight of runs throughout the series.

Laras Inconsistency
% of Test innings when out for under 20 runs
Lara - 39.81
Inzi - 37.85
Kallis - 35.4
Dravid - 31.73
Ponting - 31.32

% of innings with a score greater than 50
Kallis - 37.89
Inzi - 37.85
Dravid - 37.72
Ponting - 36.14
Lara - 35.65

He ranks last on both lists
Lara is the only player of the 5 with a higher % of innings under 20 than over 50.

Lara does not even top the % of innings over 100. That belongs to Ponting at 16.87%.
Lara, Inzi and Kallis all average between 14.1 and 14.35%

Seems to me that u r goin to great lengths to prove ur point on Lara but I am glad that the majority of the people on this message board donot share ur point of view. Ditto for Tendulkar. Its no secret that Lara has been inconsistent but ill like to add that this was mostly durin the period when there were still respectable attacks around. Do u think it is ne coincidence that the batsmen u place ahed of SRt and BCL are out performing well now. hint hint it may have to do with the reduction in bowling standards.

 

[Ming]

Ha ha. This is ridiculous. So Lara is inconsistent because he is behind the leader by 2%?Oh dear....

 

[Goughy]

Seems to me that u r goin to great lengths to prove ur point on Lara

Without doubt, What kind of post would it be if I made what is clearly a controverial statement without being prepared to try and defend my position and illustrate my point? I do not randomly spout bizarre ideas from the top of my head.

Do u think it is ne coincidence that the batsmen u place ahed of SRt and BCL are out performing well now. hint hint it may have to do with the reduction in bowling standards.

Im not denying that there are some relatively weak attacks out there at the moment, but I don't buy into the belief that attckes in the 1990's were completly made up of supermen.

Also if attacks are so weak now and Sachin and Brain are still so much better than the others why are their figures worse than the others I have mentioned for the recent past. Please do not say that they are now over the hill as we have been through this already.

 

[Goughy]

Ha ha. This is ridiculous. So Lara is inconsistent because he is behind the leader by 2%?Oh dear....

What!! how do you take 1 part of a comparative statistic and ignore the rest and make a ignorant comment.

He is inconsistent because of a combination of both factors.

• The most likely to score under 20
• The least likely to score over 50

and the fact that he is more likely to score under 20 than over 50.

Ponting is 5% more likely to score over 50 than under 20

Lara is 4 % less likely to score over 50 than under 20

This is a big difference if you have even the smallest understanding of stats.

 

[Richard]

their bowling did not get worse from 2003 onwards though. they still had the streaks, blignauts, mahwires before and after, only ray price didnt play after. therefore if scoring runs against them after that was not considered an achievement, then scoring runs against them before wasnt much of an accomplishment either.
before 00/01, at least Zim had the brandes, paul strangs, olongas and neil johnsons to complement streak.

You can't simply say one part was Test-class, the other wasn't for mine. In any case, Olonga and Strang only retired after WC2003. You've got to make a simple distinction - matches involving Zimbabwe were worthy of being called Tests and ODIs before WC2003 - they weren't thereafter.
Anything thereafter I discount from the reckoning when Tests and ODIs are discussed. If I had my way I'd strip them of Test and ODI status altogether.

 

[Slifer]

Without doubt, What kind of post would it be if I made what is clearly a controverial statement without being prepared to try and defend my position and illustrate my point? I do not randomly spout bizarre ideas from the top of my head.



Im not denying that there are some relatively weak attacks out there at the moment, but I don't buy into the belief that attckes in the 1990's were completly made up of supermen.

Also if attacks are so weak now and Sachin and Brain are still so much better than the others why are their figures worse than the others I have mentioned for the recent past. Please do not say that they are now over the hill as we have been through this already.

Well recent history says that Lara has scored over 1000 runs in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. In 2002 he was recovering from a injury he sustained in Sri Lanka. Earlier i asked u who would u choose over Lara to face the best (Australia in this case) and despite the fact that none of the batsmen u mentioned have done ne thing of note against a respectable Aussie attack some how u put them above Lara. Key question did u watch the 1999 series in the WI where lara came up against the likes of Mcgrath, Warne, macgill and gillespie and he proceeded to decimate them... he very nearly ended Warne's career.U mention how lara has a higher of scores below 50 and 20 but what about his percentage of scores over 150 and 200. or even over 300? i would very much like to see how the others on ur list compare to Lara in this respect.Point is Lara is a bad starter admitedly but when he gets started, more than anyone (bar Bradman) he is quite difficult to dislodge.

I for one dont think Lara is remotely overated. at best he is one of a handful of batsmen (along with Viv, Sobers, SRt, Gavaskar, G Chappell, Hammond and Hobbs etc) vying for the title of 2nd greatest batsman of all time. At worst he is in the top 15. at best he is the best West Indian batsman of all time and at worst he is the third best possibly behind Sobers and VIV. Tell where in here do u consider Brian to be overated?

 

[marc71178]

You can't simply say one part was Test-class, the other wasn't for mine.

But you can?:

One simple threshold: WC2003.
Before that, games against them were worth considering as Tests and ODIs.
After, they're not.

 

[tooextracool]

You can't simply say one part was Test-class, the other wasn't for mine.

neither part was test class. one part relied on andy flower, the other on streak. however if scoring runs against zimbabwe after 2003, is not considered a part of the batting averages then why should scoring runs before 2003 be taken into account for the averages when they both consisted of almost an identical bowling attack?

In any case, Olonga and Strang only retired after WC2003.

paul strang played only 3 test series after 98, the last of which was in 01/02. more importantly however post 98 he was injured at regular intervals and was clearly no longer the same bowler that he was pre 98. im surprised someone as knowledgable as yourself didnt keep up with that.
Olonga too has been injury prone after the 99/00 tour of the WI, and its quite obvious looking at his record that he was bowling far worse thereafter.

You've got to make a simple distinction - matches involving Zimbabwe were worthy of being called Tests and ODIs before WC2003 - they weren't thereafter.
Anything thereafter I discount from the reckoning when Tests and ODIs are discussed. If I had my way I'd strip them of Test and ODI status altogether.

the simple distinction is that after johnson and goodwin left after the tour of England they were finished and anything against them didnt matter. as said earlier losing andy flower and price did not make them go from test class to not test class, it was merely part of the process that began in 00/01

 

[tooextracool]

But you can?:

i think hes referring to parts with respect to bowling/batting.

 

[Richard]

But you can?:

No, I don't.

 

[Richard]

neither part was test class. one part relied on andy flower, the other on streak. however if scoring runs against zimbabwe after 2003, is not considered a part of the batting averages then why should scoring runs before 2003 be taken into account for the averages when they both consisted of almost an identical bowling attack?

Because the amount of runs you're facing does make a difference to how challenging facing the bowling is?

the simple distinction is that after johnson and goodwin left after the tour of England they were finished and anything against them didnt matter. as said earlier losing andy flower and price did not make them go from test class to not test class, it was merely part of the process that began in 00/01

All this is well and good but as far as I'm concerned Zimbabwe lost one hell of a lot in competetiveness after WC2003, far more than they lost in 2000\01.

 

[GIMH]

Whether you agree with Goughy or not, you have to give him credit, the guy has done his homework

 

[SJS]

Handle Stats With Care !!

Statistics are a dangerous medium to deal with. They can lead to bizzare conclusions. Let me just give a couple of ideas.

1. The Below 20 stat is an arbitrary one. Why below 20, why not below 15 or below 25. For example if you take the stats for innings of 25 and below the % looks like

1. Lara.........43.33
2. Dravid......44.52
3. Ponting....48.25
4. Inzy.........48.73
5. Kallis.......49.25

I dont think these stats prove or disprove anything.

2. The fifty plus innings percentage is not a measure to beat Lara with although I must tell you that a few months ago, Lara was ahead of Dravid on this "vital" stat but Dravid is going through a purple patch and Lara is clearly coming to the end of an illustrious career. The same is true when comparing Lara with Kallis and ponting who are bang in the middle of their peaks.

Even so I thought of looking up some cricketers who have a 'fifty plus" percentage lower than the 35.65 quoted for Lara. Here are some of them

Name......50 +%......Test runs
Border........33.96.......11174
Waugh.......31.54......10927
Gooch,,,,,,,,30.70.......8900
Miandad.....34.92.......8832
Gower........27.94.......8231
Boycott......33.16.......8114
Sobers.......35.00.......8032
Waugh.......32.06.......8029
Hammond...32.86.......7249
Chappell, G.36.42.......7110
Thorpe........31.14.......6349
Kanhai........31.39.......6227
Azharuddin..29.25......6215
Viswanath...31.61......6080
Crowe.........26.72......5444
ChappellI....29.41......5345
Zaheer........25.81......5062
Graveney....25.20......4882
May...........33.02......4537
Dexter.......35.29......4502
Kallicharran.30.28.....4399
Trumper.....23.60......3163
Sutcliffe.....26.32......2727
Ponsford....27.08......2122

Again this is not to prove anything but just to stress that stats need to be loked at carefully. There are some big names here including Hammond and Sobers arguably amongst the all time greatest right and left handed batsmen the game has known. Lara would be honoured to be in the same company.