Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

[Red]

That wisden 5 is proof of him being overrated, not argument against it. Those other players averaged something like 18 year test careers against Warnes 7.x years. He might keep company with them now, but not after half a career (especially what you consider the bad half). Nor would he have compared to someone like imran (who tbh is more deserving of a spot than some of the others anyway).

Anyway, I think he's pretty fairly rated on the whole these days, now that the hype has died down and with cricket media being a bit less controlled by England and aus. Overrated by some, underrated by others (I'm looking at you, odi thread). If a vote was done now for last 120 years, he would be a bunch of places lower, but still near the top.

You know what this list is?



Jonathan Agnew
Trevor Bailey
Jack Bannister
Sir Alec Bedser
Scyld Berry
Dickie Bird
Brian Close
Lord Cowdrey
Ted Dexter
Matthew Engel
Alf Gover
Tom Graveney
Frank Keating
Tony Lewis
George Mann
Vic Marks
Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Derek Pringle
Netta Rheinberg
Mike Selvey
E. W. Swanton
Bob Taylor
Fred Trueman
Crawford White
John Woodcock
Ian Wooldridge
Peter Wynne-Thomas
Greg Baum
Percy Beames
Richie Benaud
Bill Brown
Richard Cashman
Ian Chappell
Mike Coward
Alan Davidson
Gideon Haigh
Murray Hedgcock
John Inverarity
Bill Lawry
Peter McFarline
Jim Maxwell
Arthur Morris
Jack Pollard
Paul Sheahan
Bob Simpson
Cec Starr
Steve Waugh
Ali Bacher
Eddie Barlow
Colin Bryden
Russell Endean
Trevor Goddard
Norman Gordon
Michael Owen-Smith
Peter Pollock
Krish Reddy
Peter van der Merwe
John Waite
Gerry Alexander
Tony Becca
Sir Carlisle Burton
Tony Cozier
Esmond Kentish
Clive Lloyd
Reds Pereira
Allan Rae
Donna Symmonds
Sir Clyde Walcott
Sir Everton Weekes
Mihir Bose
Dilip Doshi
Sunil Gavaskar
Ayaz Memon
R. Mohan
K. N. Prabhu
Raj Singh
Kris Srikkanth
Polly Umrigar
S. Venkataraghavan
Dick Brittenden
Don Cameron
Walter Hadlee
Don Neely
John R. Reid
Bert Sutcliffe
Lindsay Weir
Graeme Wright
Arif Abbasi
Fareshteh Gati
Hanif Mohammad
Intikhab Alam
Javed Burki
Mushtaq Mohammad
Omar Kureishi
Qamar Ahmed
Stanley Jayasinghe
Ranjan Madugalle
Gerry Vaidyasekera
Dave Houghton

 

[Red]

Warne fan triggered.

Triggered? Hardly. Just not going to listen to a bunch on flogs on the internet say Warne was "overrated". Legitimately the most skilful bowler in cricket ever, who mastered cricket's most difficult art to perfection, and who also carried with him an aura players from some other continents could only dream of carrying.

 

[Daemon]

y u bringing other continents into this lol

 

[ankitj]

Triggered? Hardly. Just not going to listen to a bunch on flogs on the internet say Warne was "overrated". Legitimately the most skilful bowler in cricket ever, who mastered cricket's most difficult art to perfection, and who also carried with him an aura players from some other continents could only dream of carrying.

Precisely what people were doing in the other thread when you made the snide remark about Tendulkar fans being triggered. And really, you look lot more worked up.

 

[ankitj]

And any player can be argued to be overrated. Even Bradman. There is nothing extra ordinary in that in itself unless you start arguing that they are poorer than another player who is clearly a few notches below.

 

[CricAddict]

When a player's name is put up here as over-rated, he automatically becomes under-rated.

 

[Borges]

Not too sure about Bradman. But this Warne character is monstrously overrated, for a spinner who was vastly ineffectual against against any and all competent players of spin.

 

[the big bambino]

Pretty sure his record was brilliant to decent against everyone bar India.

 

[ankitj]

Not too sure about Bradman. But this Warne character is monstrously overrated, for a spinner who was vastly ineffectual against against any and all competent players of spin.

You could always say Bradman is overrated in that he is not twice the batsman Richards was, but only 1.8x. It will be ridiculous if you somehow said he was inferior to Richards because that just won't compute.

 

[harsh.ag]

Agreed that Imran should have been in that list over Warne. They got a bit carried away.

 

[Bolo]

You know what this list is?



Jonathan Agnew
Trevor Bailey
Jack Bannister
Sir Alec Bedser
Scyld Berry
Dickie Bird
Brian Close
Lord Cowdrey
Ted Dexter
Matthew Engel
Alf Gover
Tom Graveney
Frank Keating
Tony Lewis
George Mann
Vic Marks
Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Derek Pringle
Netta Rheinberg
Mike Selvey
E. W. Swanton
Bob Taylor
Fred Trueman
Crawford White
John Woodcock
Ian Wooldridge
Peter Wynne-Thomas
Greg Baum
Percy Beames
Richie Benaud
Bill Brown
Richard Cashman
Ian Chappell
Mike Coward
Alan Davidson
Gideon Haigh
Murray Hedgcock
John Inverarity
Bill Lawry
Peter McFarline
Jim Maxwell
Arthur Morris
Jack Pollard
Paul Sheahan
Bob Simpson
Cec Starr
Steve Waugh
Ali Bacher
Eddie Barlow
Colin Bryden
Russell Endean
Trevor Goddard
Norman Gordon
Michael Owen-Smith
Peter Pollock
Krish Reddy
Peter van der Merwe
John Waite
Gerry Alexander
Tony Becca
Sir Carlisle Burton
Tony Cozier
Esmond Kentish
Clive Lloyd
Reds Pereira
Allan Rae
Donna Symmonds
Sir Clyde Walcott
Sir Everton Weekes
Mihir Bose
Dilip Doshi
Sunil Gavaskar
Ayaz Memon
R. Mohan
K. N. Prabhu
Raj Singh
Kris Srikkanth
Polly Umrigar
S. Venkataraghavan
Dick Brittenden
Don Cameron
Walter Hadlee
Don Neely
John R. Reid
Bert Sutcliffe
Lindsay Weir
Graeme Wright
Arif Abbasi
Fareshteh Gati
Hanif Mohammad
Intikhab Alam
Javed Burki
Mushtaq Mohammad
Omar Kureishi
Qamar Ahmed
Stanley Jayasinghe
Ranjan Madugalle
Gerry Vaidyasekera
Dave Houghton

I looked at the first half of the list only. It appears to be a list of Australian and English cricket pundits.

Yes, I'm aware that these individuals are some of the best placed to judge. I'm also aware of the compositional problems of the jury. See two comments ago.

Do you personally believe that half of Warne's career made him a greater contributer to cricket than guys with 20ish year careers like Imran and Hammond?

 

[trundler]

We can all objectively agree that at that point in time Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Gavaskar, Hammond, for example all deserved to be ahead of Warne with a 7 year career.

 

[Burgey]

I looked at the first half of the list only. It appears to be a list of Australian and English cricket pundits.

Yes, I'm aware that these individuals are some of the best placed to judge. I'm also aware of the compositional problems of the jury. See two comments ago.

Do you personally believe that half of Warne's career made him a greater contributer to cricket than guys with 20ish year careers like Imran and Hammond?

Hammond yes. Imran probably not.

Worrell > all of them in terms of contributor to the game.

 

[Burgey]

We can all objectively agree that at that point in time Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Gavaskar, Hammond, for example all deserved to be ahead of Warne with a 7 year career.

Gavaskar didn’t. Myth. Always surprised me how low Marshall was rated on that list tbh.

 

[ankitj]

Imran probably not? What else must Imran have done to get recognition in top 5 cricketers of the century?

 

[Burgey]

Well, probably be definitvely the second best all rounder of all time. Personally, I think he is but there are arguments about it.

 

[Bolo]

Gavaskar didn’t. Myth. Always surprised me how low Marshall was rated on that list tbh.

Marshall might have been the best bowler, but I'm not sure he contributed all that much. Imran, Hadlee and probably Lillee all ahead of him.

And he didn't benefit from sympathy (largely national) votes either. They were all going Sobers, Viv, and Worrell. Got to throw a bone to the plebs like Bradman.

 

[ankitj]

Well, probably be definitvely the second best all rounder of all time. Personally, I think he is but there are arguments about it.

Even on pure stats and longevity he beats any other contender (Botham? Miller?). Add to it his captaincy and the impact on the game, it is really inexcusable not to include him in 5 cricketers of the century. Especially given the Wisden exercise asked voters to interpret greatness "broadly"

 

[trundler]

I forgot about Worrell. Dumb oversight. Worrell definitely a much more significant contributor to it game than Warne. Legend.

Add Border to the list. Lillee too because of the impact he had on fast bowling. Hutton and Botham also more deserving than Warne.

Imran, Worrell, Hadlee, Border, Botham, Marshall, Hammond, Hutton. All ahead of Warne. Probably Barnes too. Miller maybe.

 

[trundler]

Even on pure stats and longevity he beats any other contender (Botham? Miller?). Add to it his captaincy and the impact on the game, it is really inexcusable not to include him in 5 cricketers of the century. Especially given the Wisden exercise asked voters to interpret greatness "broadly"

There is no denying his impact on the game, or skill for that matter. The top 4 are the only ones I think who were justifiably ahead of him.