Who are the most underated and overated players

[Langeveldt]

People say Graeme Smith is over-rated (especially in Tests), but I disagree.

It is no secret about how strong he is through the leg side, but if bowler's bowl there, what is he supposed to do, block? It is like bowling short at Adam Gilchrist, of course he is going to hook and pull.

I have read comments by Neil and Marc in particular, how after he scored 277 and 259 v England, that when England learnt to bowl to him, he was not so great. But if it take's two Tests to work out how to a batsman, and after the amount of runs he had scored, I would be mightly concerned. In fact after he had scored 277 against you, I would have thought you would have worked where to bowl to somebody.

So it shows me the following things:

a) England's management are a bunch of amaturs (sp) and do not have computer video anaylysis technology;
b) They did work out where to bowl to him, but it in one ear and out the other in relation to England's bowlers.

And I saw on occasion when SA were in New Zealand, that he was looking at improving his major flaw.

Also I like his style of captaincy. He has shown me at this stage, if anybody is going to captain a South African side to beat Australia, he looks like the man.

Agreed...

For a 22-23 year old to come and pull South Africa out of the mess that was world cup 2003, and come into test cricket averaging 45 or whatever he averages.. Complete with two double hundreds against a very good England side in England... Wow he takes a lot of stick, especially for a young man... He is great for SA cricket in my opinion (although that is a fairly recent opinion i must admit)

 

[Jnr.]

He's the young, fresh face that SA cricket needs.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, 3.4 was terrible, but the 33 isn't bad if you take into account the fact that he was sawn off in 3 of his 6 innings (twice by umpires, once run out by Hayden).

but on the 97-98 tour to india he averaged only 21.....

 

[tooextracool]

People say Graeme Smith is over-rated (especially in Tests), but I disagree.

It is no secret about how strong he is through the leg side, but if bowler's bowl there, what is he supposed to do, block? It is like bowling short at Adam Gilchrist, of course he is going to hook and pull.

I have read comments by Neil and Marc in particular, how after he scored 277 and 259 v England, that when England learnt to bowl to him, he was not so great. But if it take's two Tests to work out how to a batsman, and after the amount of runs he had scored, I would be mightly concerned. In fact after he had scored 277 against you, I would have thought you would have worked where to bowl to somebody.

So it shows me the following things:

a) England's management are a bunch of amaturs (sp) and do not have computer video anaylysis technology;
b) They did work out where to bowl to him, but it in one ear and out the other in relation to England's bowlers.

And I saw on occasion when SA were in New Zealand, that he was looking at improving his major flaw.

yeah i agree with you here.....greame smith is a very talented opener and i dont think his flaw is something that that he cant work on. in fact a player named greame pollock had a similar flaw in that he was a very strong leg side player but a not so good off side player. he worked on it though and eventually he became a better off side player than a leg side player! what ive been impressed about smith the most though is his concentration and mental toughness. to score 277 and 259 at only 22 is quite an amazing feat on its own but to play that match winning 100 against NZ in the final test and carry his team home is something else

Also I like his style of captaincy. He has shown me at this stage, if anybody is going to captain a South African side to beat Australia, he looks like the man.

absolutely....i think hes a far better captain than pollock and hes definetly the man for the job in SA. like fleming he has taken over captaincy at a young age and i think he will mature into a great captain.

 

[marc71178]

b) They did work out where to bowl to him, but it in one ear and out the other in relation to England's bowlers.

Well done on resurrecting exactly what we were saying 12 months ago and presenting it as your own opinion.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

absolutely....i think hes a far better captain than pollock and hes definetly the man for the job in SA. like fleming he has taken over captaincy at a young age and i think he will mature into a great captain.

Re: his captaincy, Robin Peterson would disagree.

I think he's a good captain, but I still disagree with Pollock's sacking.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Agreed...

For a 22-23 year old to come and pull South Africa out of the mess that was world cup 2003, and come into test cricket averaging 45 or whatever he averages.. Complete with two double hundreds against a very good England side in England... Wow he takes a lot of stick, especially for a young man... He is great for SA cricket in my opinion (although that is a fairly recent opinion i must admit)

He averages 58.67 actually. Not far off.

 

[Langeveldt]

He averages 58.67 actually. Not far off.

Hahah.. Having been accused of bias towards SA, I thought i had better dumb them all down a bit.. Smith?? Absolutely apalling, couldnt hit a barn door with a banjo

 

[Neil Pickup]

Hahah.. Having been accused of bias towards SA, I thought i had better dumb them all down a bit.. Smith?? Absolutely apalling, couldnt hit a barn door with a banjo

Pretty much right there then.. could pass him off for a Kiwi if it weren't for t'accent...

 

[luckyeddie]

Hahah.. Having been accused of bias towards SA, I thought i had better dumb them all down a bit.. Smith?? Absolutely apalling, couldnt hit a barn door with a banjo

mmmmmmmmmm, egg banjo.

 

[Langeveldt]

mmmmmmmmmmm, egg nog

 

[luckyeddie]

mmmmmmmm, tir na nog

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hahah.. Having been accused of bias towards SA, I thought i had better dumb them all down a bit.. Smith?? Absolutely apalling, couldnt hit a barn door with a banjo

Doesn't this revelation undo all your hard work though?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

George Headley is one of the most under-rated players ever. Most people outside the Caribbean would call Viv Richards or Gary Sobers the best batsman the region has produced, but Headley tops them all. The great man scored 21.39% of his teams runs. Only Bradman is better (24.28%).

A lot of people also don't give Clyde Walcott. Yes, he's one of the 3 W's, but Worrell and Weekes get so much more press.

 

[bennyr]

George Headley is one of the most under-rated players ever. Most people outside the Caribbean would call Viv Richards or Gary Sobers the best batsman the region has produced, but Headley tops them all. The great man scored 21.39% of his teams runs. Only Bradman is better (24.28%).

A lot of people also don't give Clyde Walcott. Yes, he's one of the 3 W's, but Worrell and Weekes get so much more press.

Couldn't agree more. It's a great shame that Headley only got to play 22 Tests over his 24 year career. I think if he had played in one of the more established test sides of the time and played 50 Tests he would receive much more of the respect he deserves.

 

[SJS]

George Headley is one of the most under-rated players ever. Most people outside the Caribbean would call Viv Richards or Gary Sobers the best batsman the region has produced, but Headley tops them all. The great man scored 21.39% of his teams runs. Only Bradman is better (24.28%).

Absolutely spot on !!

Actually the war interfered with him at his peak. When he came back after the war he was a shadow of himself and scored only 55 runs in 3 tests played over 6 years. He should have been spared that. Before the war his figures are even more impressive :-

19 Tests, 2145 runs, 10 hundreds and 5 fifties (note the high conversion rate) and an average of 67.03. He seemed particularly fond of England against whom he averaged 78.7 in 14 tests and scored 8 of his 10 hundreds and all five fifties against them. Playing for a weak Windies side against only England and Australia (no freebies ) his was a truly Bradmansque record which we fail to appreciate today.

A lot of people also don't give Clyde Walcott. Yes, he's one of the 3 W's, but Worrell and Weekes get so much more press.

Spot on again.

I think if he wasnt a keeper maybe peolple would have noticed him more. He would have walked into not just West Indies but ANY test side in the world on his day as a pure batsman !! Thats how good a batsman he was.

For test matches one would always choose a keeper on keeping merits alone, thats why Taylor, Evans, Oldfield etc are most people's choice in an all time Test side. But if batting criteria with good enough keeping was to be used then I think Walcott would come first, then Les Ames and only then Gilchrist. I know many people disagree here but its an opinion

 

[Revelation]

Last 30 matches:

Lara: 3502 runs; 11 centuries; 13 fifties; 35 catches; Avg:70.02

Ponting: 3152 runs; 12 centuries; 8 fifties; 32 catches; Avg: 73.30

Lara has scored one less century but 5 extra fifties. His average is slightly lower,no doubt because he has fewer not out innings, due mainly to the lack of support that he gets from the team. In addition, he has taken 3 extra catches. Not to mention the fact that those 11 centuries include 4 double centuries including a World Record 400*. I think it's very clear as to who is better. And it's not the one who has an army of batsmen behind him on the World's # 1 Team.

 

[Linda]

Last 30 matches:

Lara: 3502 runs; 11 centuries; 13 fifties; 35 catches; Avg:70.02

Ponting: 3152 runs; 12 centuries; 8 fifties; 32 catches; Avg: 73.30

Lara has scored one less century but 5 extra fifties. His average is slightly lower,no doubt because he has fewer not out innings, due mainly to the lack of support that he gets from the team. In addition, he has taken 3 extra catches. Not to mention the fact that those 11 centuries include 4 double centuries including a World Record 400*. I think it's very clear as to who is better. And it's not the one who has an army of batsmen behind him on the World's # 1 Team.

Ok, I'm not one for saying 'Ponting is better than Lara' and whatnot, I think theyre both champions. However, there are some big fat flaws in your post there..
When you say 'he has fewer not out innings' did you conveniently forget those 400 runs that were not out? Yes, they were magnificant runs, but I'd say they had quite an impact on his average.
And while you reminded us of the fact that Lara's 11 centuries included 4 doubles, you also forgot to mention that in Ponting's 12 centuries, he had 3 double centuries himself.

In other words, your post reeks of bias.

 

[Revelation]

linda, perhaps you don't realise but scores of 8* and 230 out are the same as 230* and 8 out. So in any case, Lara's 400, magnificent as it was, only counted as one not out.yes, i am aware of Ponting's 250, 240 and 200 odd, but compare that to 400, the WR. (in any case my dear, 4 double centuries are more than 3, and 24 scores over 50 are more than 20.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ok, I'm not one for saying 'Ponting is better than Lara' and whatnot, I think theyre both champions. However, there are some big fat flaws in your post there..
When you say 'he has fewer not out innings' did you conveniently forget those 400 runs that were not out? Yes, they were magnificant runs, but I'd say they had quite an impact on his average.
And while you reminded us of the fact that Lara's 11 centuries included 4 doubles, you also forgot to mention that in Ponting's 12 centuries, he had 3 double centuries himself.

In other words, your post reeks of bias.

What you fail to realize is that Ponting faced the West Indian attack for 4 Tests last year and didn't face Pollock and Ntini. Lara faced the Australian attack for 4 Tests and faced Pollock and Ntini.

West Indian attack or Australian attack?
West Indian attack or Australian attack?
Dillon or Gillespie?
Tough choice, but I'd just prefer to face the Windies.