Top Five Most Underrated Cricketers Ever.

[viriya]

This is just proof you only look at spreadsheets and not the matches. Gilchrist bailed Australia out plenty of times.

He did, so just because you don't remember Pollock he must not have? Gilchrist also came in at 350/4 a lot too.. I remember those times.

 

[viriya]

He did, so just because you don't remember Pollock he must not have? Gilchrist also came in at 350/4 a lot too.. I remember those times.

Some context.. if you compare the average entry runs/entry wickets for Shaun Pollock and Adam Gilchrist throughout their careers:

Shaun Pollock: 221/6
Adam Gilchrist: 239/5

Gilly on average came to bat at a better situation than Pollock.

 

[Flem274*]

viriya what are you even arguing?

If you're saying Pollock is up there with Miller and Gilchrist then you're smoking crack, but if you're saying he's a very good #8 then anyone who disagrees with you is smoking crack.

Which is it?

 

[Red]

Deleted cos I didn't quote.

 

[Red]

Some context.. if you compare the average entry runs/entry wickets for Shaun Pollock and Adam Gilchrist throughout their careers:

Shaun Pollock: 221/6
Adam Gilchrist: 239/5

Gilly on average came to bat at a better situation than Pollock.

WGAF?

What's even being debated here?

 

[viriya]

Not saying I necessarily subscribe to it, but there is a theory going around that Pollock's test batting average may be a little inflated due to him being part of such a strong batting side for most of his career. The theory being he often got easy runs when the side were already dominating & 39 not outs in 108 test is a hell of a lot.

^ This is the post claiming that Pollock had it easy.. Considering people were claiming Gilly was a match-saver, just checked the average figures to show that it was Gilly who was actually helped out by the platform set by his teammates more than Pollock.

 

[viriya]

viriya what are you even arguing?

If you're saying Pollock is up there with Miller and Gilchrist then you're smoking crack, but if you're saying he's a very good #8 then anyone who disagrees with you is smoking crack.

Which is it?

I'm saying Pollock's batting average of 32 is not overrated. He came to bat on average when the side was in a relatively precarious situation. A worse situation than Gilly faced.

 

[Red]

Given the choice of Pollock and Gilchrist coming in to bat in any situation, I think I know who I'd choose....

 

[viriya]

Shaun Pollock is one of the first names on the sheet for a 00 - 14 ATG side tbh. Third best fast bowler at best and is a brilliant bowling allrounder. He's closer to my all time ATG side than many would put him too because of the batting.

McGrath-Steyn-Pollock-Warne ftr is that post 2000 bowling line up. Jason Gillespie, another underrated gun, just misses out.

You don't have Murali in the post 2000 bowling line-up? He had the best decade by any bowler of all-time.

 

[viriya]

Given the choice of Pollock and Gilchrist coming in to bat in any situation, I think I know who I'd choose....

Obviously I'm not picking Polly over Gilly in pure batting terms.. I think you miss the point.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Kallis
Murali
S Pollock
Srinath
Cairns

 

[NZTailender]

^ This is the post claiming that Pollock had it easy.. Considering people were claiming Gilly was a match-saver, just checked the average figures to show that it was Gilly who was actually helped out by the platform set by his teammates more than Pollock.

As an example
Coming at 350 = piling on more runs
Coming in at 200 = match-turning/saving innings

From that example the average score coming in: 275

Gilly piled on plenty of pressure after being given a good platform, but that was not every single time he went out to bat. He sometimes went out there when the side was in a hole and he dug them out of it. Stats don't tell the story, the actual match situation does.

 

[Flem274*]

You don't have Murali in the post 2000 bowling line-up? He had the best decade by any bowler of all-time.

I do if the deck demands but for both my ATG and this XI where I'm spoilt for choice, give me great bowlers who can also bat or field.

Warne is both a slip and a handy batsman so he gets the gig.

 

[NZTailender]

I do if the deck demands but for both my ATG and this XI where I'm spoilt for choice, give me great bowlers who can also bat or field.

Warne is both a slip and a handy batsman so he gets the gig.

7. Hadlee
8. Warne
9. Marshall
10. Murali
11. McGrath

Done

 

[viriya]

I do if the deck demands but for both my ATG and this XI where I'm spoilt for choice, give me great bowlers who can also bat or field.

Warne is both a slip and a handy batsman so he gets the gig.

Warne averages a monster 6 runs more than Murali.. and Murali is a great outfielder.. No point in getting into a Murali vs Warne debate but especially if you're only considering 2000- onwards not picking Murali is borderline sinful:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd best average after McGrath with almost 7 wickets a match.. that's Sydney Barnes-esque for a whole 85 games.

 

[viriya]

As an example
Coming at 350 = piling on more runs
Coming in at 200 = match-turning/saving innings

From that example the average score coming in: 275

Gilly piled on plenty of pressure after being given a good platform, but that was not every single time he went out to bat. He sometimes went out there when the side was in a hole and he dug them out of it. Stats don't tell the story, the actual match situation does.

Yes I never said Gilly didn't save matches, but he piled on much more often as shown by the average 239/5 when he came in. Of course it's normal to focus on the match-saving innings since those are what are remembered.

 

[Flem274*]

7. Hadlee
8. Warne
9. Marshall
10. Murali
11. McGrath

Done

Haha gun work

Imran-Hadlee-Marshall-Warne is my 8-11 ftr

Warne averages a monster 6 runs more than Murali.. and Murali is a great outfielder.. the only place he didn't perform was Australia where he played <5 tests. No point in getting into a Murali vs Warne debate but especially if you're only considering 2000- onwards not picking Murali is borderline sinful:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd best average after McGrath with almost 7 wickets a match.. that's Sydney Barnes-esque for a whole 85 games.

12 test 50s have to count for a bit?

I'm not saying Murali is the devil incarnate, I'm saying I'll take the package of Warne if I'm playing three quicks. Slips are more valuable than outfielders too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Warne averages a monster 6 runs more than Murali.. and Murali is a great outfielder.. the only place he didn't perform was Australia where he played <5 tests. No point in getting into a Murali vs Warne debate but especially if you're only considering 2000- onwards not picking Murali is borderline sinful:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd best average after McGrath with almost 7 wickets a match.. that's Sydney Barnes-esque for a whole 85 games.

Err, it's barely 4 runs. Which is not much of a difference, really. And to open a can of worms, removing B/Z will mean the difference as always, between Warne and Murali is minimal. It's never a sin to pick either one over the other.

 

[viriya]

12 test 50s have to count for a bit?

I'm not saying Murali is the devil incarnate, I'm saying I'll take the package of Warne if I'm playing three quicks. Slips are more valuable than outfielders too.

Err, it's barely 4 runs. Which is not much of a difference, really. And to open a can of worms, removing B/Z will mean the difference as always, between Warne and Murali is minimal. It's never a sin to pick either one over the other.

I can understand people preferring Warne over Murali overall for whatever reason.. but to pick him for a 2000- team is just ridiculous.. Murali should be a first pick - did you guys watch SL matches when he played? He single-handedly won numerous series..

Even without B/Z:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Murali averages 1 more wicket per game with an average 2 runs less (also bowling to the ATG Aus instead of SL).. you're telling me that's not worth more than 4 more runs batting and a slip catcher (it's not like you don't get other great slip catchers in your team)?

I realize stats aren't everything but there is really no "need slip catchers", "need the extra 4 runs" argument here.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You can keep saying what you want. It's never "ridiculous" to pick Warne over him. Ever.