Do some players get under-rated sometimes on basis of nationality?

[Richard]

Haha, editing your post as I was making mine I see. Shame you were a fraction late.

 

[biased indian]

Haha, editing your post as I was making mine I see. Shame you were a fraction late.

you could still edit the quote rite

and he edited 1 min before your post !!!!!

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think it's impossible to completely eradicate national bias, because our nationality or even city of upbringing defines so much of what we are.

I also believe that the being underrated because of nationality can cut the other way too. Some players are overrated because of the test side they play for. Chubb's point about Streak is well made; a good, possibly even very good test bowler who's probably just short of the pantheon of greatness, but is unquestionably the best bowler his country has ever produced. Guys like Bashar & Mortaza are probably better thought of because they're from Bangladesh than they would be if they were West Indian or English too. Their figures wouldn't cut it for any other test side (bar the current Zimbabwe), but they get a fair bit of attention because they're as close to test class players as the Banglas have.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And what did Gilchrist revolutionise ???

The role of the keeper-batsman.

 

[Richard]

I think it's impossible to completely eradicate national bias, because our nationality or even city of upbringing defines so much of what we are.

Hmm, you see, me, someone moreoreless on the absolute opposite side of the fence to you where that matter (ie, patriotism) is concerned, I feel it's perfectly possible, though rarely is it done.

To me, nationality or city of upbringing (not that the latter has had any constant entity in it ) doesn't really define very much about me at all. Those who don't know my nationality have mistaken it, many times. I mean, I love the UK (unlike many) and can never see myself going anywhere else other than for holidays. But there's not that much about me that's stereotypically British.

There are many things about me that are constant, but few if any of them are along geographical lines.

 

[Richard]

The role of the keeper-batsman.

How did he do that?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hmm, you see, me, someone moreoreless on the absolute opposite side of the fence to you where that matter (ie, patriotism) is concerned, I feel it's perfectly possible, though rarely is it done.

To me, nationality or city of upbringing (not that the latter has had any constant entity in it ) doesn't really define very much about me at all. Those who don't know my nationality have mistaken it, many times. I mean, I love the UK (unlike many) and can never see myself going anywhere else other than for holidays. But there's not that much about me that's stereotypically British.

There are many things about me that are constant, but few if any of them are along geographical lines.

Well, just as one example, let's take the fact that you like cricket: that was contingent on you being English rather than, say, French or American. Had you been from the US the chances are you'd be a baseball fan. And take young stedly: if he'd grown up in say Gloucester or Bath rather than St Helens he'd possibly follow the senior rugby code.

I think the socialisation process is rather subtler than you seem to imagine it to be.

 

[Top_Cat]

How did he do that?

By being not only the country's best 'keeper but one of the best pure batsmen too. No other keeper I can think of could keep to a world-class standard and be worth his place on keeping alone but then also hit a run-a-ball ton and on a consistent basis. It's that consistency of production as a batsman alone which puts him into a new class. And no, Andy Flower is a terrible example because he was a batsman who kept because there were no Test-class 'keepers in Zim at the time, not a wicket-keeper. When he played for South Australia, he didn't keep at all and Graeme Manou/Shane Deitz were preferred.

I mean it just depends on what your interpretation of 'revolutionise' is, I guess. If it's 'hit sixes using a grip which integrated bat handle and scrotum' then yeah sure, he didn't revolutionise the role. But the above, being that no-one else before him could be considered to have done it, meets my definition of revolutionise for me. At least re-defining the role; before him, a 'keeper who would contribute occasionally with the willow was fine. Now, 'keepers have to be able to score tons on a regular basis.

 

[Richard]

By being not only the country's best 'keeper but one of the best pure batsmen too. No other keeper I can think of could keep to a world-class standard and be worth his place on keeping alone but then also hit a run-a-ball ton and on a consistent basis.

And no-one is likely to again any time soon.

Leaving aside the notion of "keeping to World-class standard" (for me 'keeping's simply either good enough or not, once you've reached good enough there's little point differentiating much further, at least so far as terms like "World-class" are concerned), to be able to keep as well as he and yet still be (for a time) one of the best if not the best batsman going around is not something anyone is likely to do with any remote regularity.

Gilchrist will not revolutionise the role of wicketkeeper-batsman. Those who come close to being as good as him are precious few - there might well never have been anyone as good as him before, and if so there might never be again. Gilchrist was simply better than most people, and people who are so far ahead of the crowd can rarely be revolutionaries.

If everyone wants a Gilchrist, or even someone close to the same plane as him, everyone will be disappointed. Sure, everyone wants a wicketkeeper-batsman, but everyone's wanted that for years and years.

 

[Richard]

Well, just as one example, let's take the fact that you like cricket: that was contingent on you being English rather than, say, French or American. Had you been from the US the chances are you'd be a baseball fan. And take young stedly: if he'd grown up in say Gloucester or Bath rather than St Helens he'd possibly follow the senior rugby code.

I think the socialisation process is rather subtler than you seem to imagine it to be.

Well, these are likely, yes. Being the contrarion I am, I do wonder, though. I think the potential to like cricket was always there. Had I come across it at all, I'm pretty sure I'd have ended-up involved.

Anyway, yes, there are clearly always going to be things that virtually come with certain geographical areas. As far as the way I look upon cricket (and many things besides) is concerned, though, I think it's fairly safe to say my nationality doesn't really affect anything.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well, these are likely, yes. Being the contrarion I am, I do wonder, though. I think the potential to like cricket was always there. Had I come across it at all, I'm pretty sure I'd have ended-up involved.

Anyway, yes, there are clearly always going to be things that virtually come with certain geographical areas. As far as the way I look upon cricket (and many things besides) is concerned, though, I think it's fairly safe to say my nationality doesn't really affect anything.

Had you been from Essendon rather than Exeter I would personally doubt you'd rate Nasser Hussain as of a comparable standard as a batsman to Matthew Hayden, but I'll say no more than that.

 

[Richard]

I'm not *from* Exeter TBH but I think I would. In fact, I'm fairly sure I would.

 

[bond21]

I think its exactly the opposite.

If Brett Lee was playing for Zimbabwe, people would say get him tfo of that team and into a better team.

And Heath Streak doesnt compare to Gillespie. Gillespie in his pre mullet days was unbelievable. 2nd best bowler in the world next to McGrath, that was when he could bowl 150 on a good day, now he is lucky to get to 135.

Flintoff for example is one of England's best all rounders ever, if he was Australian he wouldnt be as much of a star, because hes got better players around him. In England hes got players worse than him, so they make him look good.

He would probably play test matches for Symonds, but he wouldnt match up with Clark, Lee and Johnson on his day(hes still very young)

btw on Johnson, he has his good days and bad days, which every cricket does bar McGrath and Warne, but watching him in India he was probably our best bowler.

Hes bloody fast and can get inswing.

 

[PhoenixFire]

btw on Johnson, he has his good days and bad days, which every cricket does bar McGrath and Warne, but watching him in India he was probably our best bowler.

Warne certainly had off days....

 

[sledger]

Flintoff for example is one of England's best all rounders ever, if he was Australian he wouldnt be as much of a star, because hes got better players around him. In England hes got players worse than him, so they make him look good

disagree to an extent, a big chunk of the hype flintoff was given was down to his ability to blow other teams away with his batting, during the ashes in particular, but I dont think anyone would be foolish enough to suggest than Flintoff was the best batsman in the england side at any point in his career, and obviously not during the ashes where he had his biggest sucess to date.

 

[Nate]

btw on Johnson, he has his good days and bad days, which every cricket does bar McGrath and Warne, but watching him in India he was probably our best bowler.

Hes bloody fast and can get inswing.

Haha, interesting calls. Will just state that he's as much of a swinger of a cricket ball as Murali is a leg-break bowler.

And yes, I know.

 

[bond21]

he hasnt swung it in the australian test matches, but he had it on a string in india.

it was unbelievable, you could see right then why Lillee said he was a once in a generation bowler.

 

[Richard]

Flintoff for example is one of England's best all rounders ever, if he was Australian he wouldnt be as much of a star, because hes got better players around him. In England hes got players worse than him, so they make him look good.

Utter rubbish. Flintoff's performances between 2003\04 and 2005\06 would make him a star in any team, anywhere, any time. Whether the injury problems since would have happened differently elsewhere, though, is unlikely.

He would probably play test matches for Symonds, but he wouldnt match up with Clark, Lee and Johnson on his day(hes still very young)

Flintoff is a far better bowler than Johnson (who knows - maybe than Johnson will ever be) and is also comfortably to date more accomplished than Lee.

He's also a more rounded bowler than Clark, though whether that'll mean he turns-out better only time will tell.

 

[Richard]

Warne certainly had off days....

Sometimes, off 3-year periods.

 

[andruid]

Lets take this debate a further notch higher, shall we? What of those rare examples of class cricketers who's obvious talent means that given had they been born a different nationality and thus therefore been granted access to the sort of facilities and competition that would have enabled them to fully maximise on their obvious talent. In cases like these where even the relatively little exposure that these cricketers get shows that the are indeed a whole level beyond their peers one wonders what might have been if these cricketers had received the sort of attention and preparation that your average test cricketer gets. In this case I will put forward the two most discussed examples on Cricket web

1. Steve Tikolo
2. Ryan Ten Doeschate

In the case of Tikolo, It was quite evident right from his first exposure to top level cricket, the 1996 World Cup, that he was a special talent and as a batsman who averages 50+ in First Class cricket from his time playing a a pro fro Boland in the 1990s and from massacreing Associate level bowling in the Intercontinental cup one could reasonably suggest that if he had say been born South African and he would have had been possibly a better player for the access to a far more developed cricket infrastructure and wit the advantage of being able to earn his way into a team which is regularly broadcast all over the world therefore making whatever exploits he achieved as part of that team more accessible to more fans and critics alike and inevitably it would help his status as a legend of the game

In the case of RTD we are presented with the case of a person who does get an opportunity to express his ability in front of a larger cricket audience through the County Championship but because his nationality as a Dutchman cannot transfer his obvious talent to the test stage.

Players like these two, who are in fact generally the lucky two to have achieved what recognition they have, or or any other particularly talented Associate cricketers ( Yes there are more of them out there ) Do not have the same kind of regular exposure to the mass cricketing audience not only on a global stage but to a large extent with their own fans and therefore whatever great feats they achieve more often than not go unnoticed where if the exact same feat were to be achieved in a Test match in front off millions of
fans all over the world. Say for example if a Leg break bowler from say Uganda were to replicate Shane Warne's ball-of-the-century in a match it is highly improbable that the said delivery could hope to reach the same mythical status same delivery bowled out of the hand of a 'famous cricketer' from 'a great cricketing nation' playing in a 'great contest.'

This brings me nicely into the second aspect of my argument. The IPL, especially in the way the player auction panned out, I consider was a real eye opener as to what determines the legend status of the cricketers we worship as Gods. Whereas it is not so directly tied to nationality it is evident that the cash value of the cricketers on sale was determined not so much on their achievements on he field but on their value as commercial props for the companies that run the franchises that they have become proud members of. It is not to say that none of the cricketers who were bid upon lacked talent or that in the eventual bidding that talent had nothing to do with how much was dished out, but that in order to be considered viable for a bid it was essential that these cricketers had hordes of fans willing to set their perceived needs and priorities to whatever product they endorsed. In short, their celebrity standing amongst the target audience. In this way one can argue that unless one belongs to or operates in an environment or a country where the system is set up so that one little smidgin of achievement can be blown up into millions of dollars worth of endorsements, 'autobiographies,' custom colognes, clothing lines and all tha paraphernalia and such it is not practical to expect that his achievement however great or small will get the same kind of exposure and hgence appraisal that someone who is part of the system will.