Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

[Francis]

I thought you didn't rate Murali, Francis? Or at least not that highly?

I don't know where you got that impression from.

I regard Warne as better than Murali. I enjoyed watching both of them, and made a habit out of revolving my Test match watching around their spells. For example, I knew Warne would bowl the last over before lunch and usually nothing more before lunch, and then he'd come on after lunch. That's how the Aussies used him.

If pressed I'd probably rank Murali as one of the five best bowlers ever. He's not a certainty in my top five, but yeah I'd pick him in my top five right now if I had to pick one.

I would say Murali is a tad overrated here, but that was always going to be the reality of Murali because his stats are arguably the greatest stats in history. 50 years from now people will look at those stats are say he was the greatest. So often when I talk about Murali I do tend to talk about padding-up wickets, and highlighting certain things about him, because people do overrate him.

But he was an absolute champion of the game and a great bowler. He could bowl as long as Kumble could, but had the discipline of a Warne that enabled him to remain accurate and spin the ball a long way. Sri Lanka wouldn't have won many games without him, and he's an absolute champion.

So yes I do rate Murali very highly. Maybe I haven't given that impression here because I try and taper back people getting carried away, but to me Murali is one of the five best bowlers in history.

 

[Maximus0723]

Yikes I'm being misunderstood all over the shop.

I never said McGrath didn't have a great strike rate. I'm talking about a period in 2006 when his form dropped off and the press started saying he should retire. McGrath wasn't effective like he usually was, yet he was still economical. It's good to be economical, but you're not helping the side if you don't take wickets.

Of course McGrath DID take wickets and is one of the greatest bowlers ever. I said that before. It's the first thing I said. But I'm talking about selected periods of his career when I don't think he was the match winner other fast bowlers were, like for most of the 90s and in late 2006!

During those periods his impact, while notable, was not as good as that of others, but you don't notice it because he always remained economical. Of course it's good to be economical, but it's no substitute for taking wickets.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's one of the 10 best fast bowlers ever though. But to me it's not even a certainty that he's the best bowler of his generation. I'd take Murali and Warne over him.

This highlighted seems like your "bottom line".

But again,
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

His SR is right there with the others even in the 90s.
What you are underestimating is McGrath's impact in setting up the game in first hour or so.

Talking about impact in 90s(minnowless)...
McGrath - 57 games played - 15 5fers
Ambrose - 71 - 21
Wasim - 52 - 13
Donald - 58 - 18
Waqar - 47 - 16

Outside of Waqar, he is pretty close to others in taking wickets.
Though, SR is better example then above. Amount of balls bowled vs. 5fers is a stat I would be interested in though I don't know the number for amounts of bowled for that period.

 

[Shri]

What does "padding up wickets" mean?

 

[silentstriker]

The thing about McGrath is he keeps his stats tidy when he's not playing well.

..
When ESPN did their Legends of Cricket series back in 2001, Glenn McGrath came in the 40s, which at that time made perfect sense to me. Of course if it were re-done today you'd expect McGrath to make the top 25.
...

McGrath was a player who, when he wasn't taking wickets, wasn't doing much for his team.

As opposed to other bowlers who do a lot when they aren't taking wickets? The fact that you can keep it so tight even if you're not taking wickets just adds to his greatness, instead of detracting from it.

And I don't see how you can hold on to that argument (he was merely economical a lot) when his strike rate is as good as bowlers who people traditionally think of as much more aggressive (ala Lillee).

So what you're really saying is - he took wickets at a strike rate comparable to almost any other all time great and even when he was out of form, he helped his team by never letting his economy rate go too high. Sounds like an argument to put him in the top two, let alone top 25.

Oh, and he did all of this in this era of flat wickets, helmets, and super bats. Make it top one.

 

[hang on]

where would one put pigeon in the ranks of great australian fast bowlers?

3rd? 4th? 5th?

lillee and lindwall would/should be ahead of him, in my opinion.
then perhaps davidson, and perhaps even miller.

really not sure about this...

 

[silentstriker]

1. McGrath
2. Lillee


Add in Miller and Davidson for an all time xi fast bowling attack. Miller for obvious reasons and Davidson for a little variety. Obv Warne as the spinner.

 

[Burgey]

where would one put pigeon in the ranks of great australian fast bowlers?

3rd? 4th? 5th?

lillee and lindwall would/should be ahead of him, in my opinion.
then perhaps davidson, and perhaps even miller.

really not sure about this...

First in my book. It's between him and Lillee imo. Lindwall was great though, and Davo massively under-rated. Would have Davo > Lindwall.

Overall I'd have McGrath =/> Lillee > Davo = Lindwall > Miller.

 

[Spark]

Not greater nor equal to?

 

[smash84]

Alan Davidson massively under rated guy too

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I didn't say he was the worst ever captain, I said he is the worst captain (tactically) that I've ever seen. That's ~15 out of 100+ years of there being Test captains.

And we're not talking about tactical mistakes, or bad, or even terrible decisions, we're talking about 'lol thx for the series' decisions. Anyway, I don't want to harp on this at all - just said my two cents when someone mentioned his captaincy actually takes him higher.

Ponting is slaughtered for his captaincy because he is nowhere near as good as Border,Taylor and Waugh were before him. Is he any worse as a captain than say Atherton was for England? I don't think there is much in it.

The fact Ponting has been outthought by Strauss and Vaughan has made him look worse and Vaughan was a very good captain and Strauss had a better team anyway.

Ponting may well be the luckiest captain as he had a great side that didn't really need leading as they were so superior and knew what they were doing. Is he the worst ever, a big fat NO.

 

[smash84]

Ponting may well be the luckiest captain as he had a great side that didn't really need leading as they were so superior and knew what they were doing. Is he the worst ever, a big fat NO.

This

 

[abmk]

ponting may well be the luckiest captain as he had a great side that didn't really need leading as they were so superior and knew what they were doing. Is he the worst ever, a big fat no.

awta

 

[Jono]

Ponting is slaughtered for his captaincy because he is nowhere near as good as Border,Taylor and Waugh were before him. Is he any worse as a captain than say Atherton was for England? I don't think there is much in it.

The fact Ponting has been outthought by Strauss and Vaughan has made him look worse and Vaughan was a very good captain and Strauss had a better team anyway.

I agree with most of your point, but there are matches other than England vs. Australia that Ponting has ****ed up in by the way.

 

[robelinda]

There's also a hell of a lot of matches he's got right.

 

[Jono]

Definitely. But my point is that whilst in the media Ponting's judgment as captain may live or die by how he did in the Ashes, it's actually his performance against India in 2008 which was most questionable, and had a few here calling for his sacking.

 

[robelinda]

And that was a bad series for sure, very hard to watch seeing such tactical errors. Not quite sure if he's really learning from his mistakes.

 

[hang on]

i, for one, certainly do not subscribe to the notion that ponting is one of worst captains of all time. ok, he is not a good captain, leave alone a great one, and perhaps some might even argue that he is actually subpar....and they might have a point, too....but he is not among the worst in terms of strategy or tactics.

leaving aside tactical nous and strategy, one reason i think that the leadership aspect of ponting's captaincy left a lot to be desired was how easily he allowed himself to be flustered as evinced in his mouthing off at umpires, opposition players and even opposition coaches (essentially a visible and egregious indication of a loss of control of his pwn emotions and the events on the field). now, perhaps i am rather old-school about this, but i firmly believe that loss of control, frustration (and, most importantly, panic) and the like are too easily transmitted to one's men, be it in an army unit, a political party or a cricket team. and that is where ponting gets most of his minus marks due to his surprising 'incompetence' or 'lack' in this area.....my tuppence.

that is one reason why dhoni, to use an ultra modern example for u young pups on here, is, purely by virtue of his general unflappability, a far superior leader of men than is ponting, whatever maybe their respective grasp of strategy and the finer points of field setting.

mind, i am not questioning ponting's ability to lead and inspire with the bat.

 

[silentstriker]

Definitely. But my point is that whilst in the media Ponting's judgment as captain may live or die by how he did in the Ashes, it's actually his performance against India in 2008 which was most questionable, and had a few here calling for his sacking.

Well by questionable, you mean, 'Hey thanks for giving us a series, please be the captain on the next tour. Please come again."

 

[GIMH]

Well, that's revisionist. His decision were farcical but it's hardly conclusive that Australia would have gone on to win.

 

[Jono]

SS didn't say that. But it guaranteed India couldn't lose the test, which guaranteed India would win the series.

Hence he gifted India the series.