Players whose reputation during their career was an inaccurate reflection of how good they really were

[capt_Luffy]

nah

Understandable. Have a nice day.

 

[Brook's side]

I'd agree on concluding whether he was over rated during his career (which was what the thread was about), but you appeared to claim that he was the 2nd greatest batsman of all time. It was that that I criticised, and it was that criticism which you called "brain dead".

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'd agree on concluding whether he was over rated during his career (which was what the thread was about), but you appeared to claim that he was the 2nd greatest batsman of all time. It was that that I criticised, and it was that criticism which you called "brain dead".

That was the question really, was he overrated during his career or not. Hin being the second best after Don is a different debate.

 

[kyear2]

THAT'S THE BRAIN DEAD PART ACTUALLY!! The "players whose reputation during career were inaccurate" means the player was either much better or worse than his reputation suggests; IN COMPARISON TO HIS PEERS AND PREDECESSORS. IT'S LIKE SAYING AFTER 50 YEARS SACHIN WAS OVERRATED BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T MAKE RUNS AGAINST THE NEWER GENETICALLY MODIFIED BOWLERS BOWLING 180+. What they will do if born later isn't the factor; the factor is WG Grace averaged close to THRICE as much as his closest competition for a solid 10 years and went on to play as the World's leading batsman for 30 more. Ignoring his contribution to the sport in brain-dead. Saying he would fail if he came to bat today or was born today is idiotic in this context.

What nonsense is this?

What you seem to miss is that one can recognize his contribution to the history of the game without asserting that could compete within the modern game.

The level of competition / techniques / rules / conditions / skill / expansion and variety isn't comparable even to the 1930's.

Everyone has a cut off point as to how far we go back, for me personally it's either post WW1 or the advent of the LBW rule, Grace didn't even make it into the 20th century.

We've never seen him bat, his technique, opposition... Definitely a case of just going back too far, which is why no one includes him in AT XI's or in such lists, it's just not comparable if even the same game.

 

[capt_Luffy]

What nonsense is this?

What you seem to miss is that one can recognize his contribution to the history of the game without asserting that could compete within the modern game.

The level of competition / techniques / rules / conditions / skill / expansion and variety isn't comparable even to the 1930's.

Everyone has a cut off point as to how far we go back, for me personally it's either post WW1 or the advent of the LBW rule, Grace didn't even make it into the 20th century.

We've never seen him bat, his technique, opposition... Definitely a case of just going back too far, which is why no one includes him in AT XI's or in such lists, it's just not comparable if even the same game.

The nonsense is the question, which is being overrated during career. You can only be rated against your peers and predecessors; and Grace was miles ahead of them really.

 

[kyear2]

The nonsense is the question, which is being overrated during career. You can only be rated against your peers and predecessors; and Grace was miles ahead of them really.

Then obviously two different conversations were being had.

 

[Brook's side]

The nonsense is the question, which is being overrated during career. You can only be rated against your peers and predecessors; and Grace was miles ahead of them really.

The nonsense was claiming that there's fresh air in terms of the greatest ever batsmen between a bloke who scored 1,000 'test' runs during the formative days of over arm bowling and who hit 1 6 in his career, and the likes of Hobbs, Tendulkar, Sobers, Lara, Richards, Weekes, Barrington, Richards, Pollock etc etc below him.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The nonsense was claiming that there's fresh air in terms of the greatest ever batsmen between a bloke who scored 1,000 'test' runs during the formative days of over arm bowling and who hit 1 6 in his career, and the likes of Hobbs, Tendulkar, Sobers, Lara, Richards, Weekes, Barrington, Richards, Pollock etc etc below him.

You mean the bloke who redefined modern day batting, influenced a vast majority of stocks, scored at 60 odd when his competitors struggled to get 25 for a good decade and scored more than 50000+ FC runs, playing till 64.

 

[kyear2]

You mean the bloke who redefined modern day batting, influenced a vast majority of stocks, scored at 60 odd when his competitors struggled to get 25 for a good decade and scored more than 50000+ FC runs, playing till 64.

Or because the game was it's formative stages and the competition was undercooked.

Think it was Red who said that's it's just to divide and rate players from the era separately, which is what most of the forum does.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Or because the game was it's formative stages and the competition was undercooked.

Think it was Red who said that's it's just to divide and rate players from the era separately, which is what most of the forum does.

Which I respect, but All Time means All Time. The game was already well developed by the 80s and he even faced Barnes before retirement. He has done enough in my book to consider inclusion.

 

[SteveNZ]

Martin Crowe. If he played now, on flat modern wickets, I don't think he'd get out if he didn't want to. Incredible player off front and back foot, technically brilliant, great mind for the game, enough for the great Wasim Akram to say he was the best player he ever bowled to. An average of 45 doesn't accurately reflect his skill

 

[kyear2]

Which I respect, but All Time means All Time. The game was already well developed by the 80s and he even faced Barnes before retirement. He has done enough in my book to consider inclusion.

It really wasn't

 

[capt_Luffy]

It really wasn't

Fred Spofforth was the World's first truly great bowler and Charlie Turner and George Lohman followed soon. We, ofcourse can disagree.

 

[kyear2]

Fred Spofforth was the World's first truly great bowler and Charlie Turner and George Lohman followed soon. We, ofcourse can disagree.

1880.

Name another sport where consideration would even be given to players from that era.

Dude, 1880.

 

[capt_Luffy]

1880.

Name another sport where consideration would even be given to players from that era.

Dude, 1880.

Cricket is around from the 1600s.

There were professional cricketers before the French Revolution.

Name another sport which is old or name another figure in a sport as dominant as Grace in its transitioning age.

 

[trundler]

Martin Crowe. If he played now, on flat modern wickets, I don't think he'd get out if he didn't want to. Incredible player off front and back foot, technically brilliant, great mind for the game, enough for the great Wasim Akram to say he was the best player he ever bowled to. An average of 45 doesn't accurately reflect his skill

But he's actually rated very highly by pundits and peers so does he qualify for this thread?

 

[BazBall21]

McGrath underrated? Would have thought most would have him in the top 3?

Yeah he was. Him and Marshall both saw their reputations enhanced post-retirement. Wasim and Lillee went the other way.

 

[Brook's side]

He's not my favourite player by any stretch of the imagination, but it's probably fair to say Kallis was underrated for most of his career.

 

[BazBall21]

But he's actually rated very highly by pundits and peers so does he qualify for this thread?

Yeah. We know he's probably better than his stats but he did fine in terms of peer rating. Hard not to when he looked so good.

 

[BazBall21]

I'd say G Thorpe was underrated when he was active but then I do regard him as the most underrated England cricketer of all time so that's pretty on-brand from myself.

Think S Malik is underrated in retrospect; not sure what his peer rating was like.