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

[Flem274*]

Got this idea off the radio just before. I find it interesting how commentators and media wax lyrical about the world class/all time great players from the glamour nations alot more than players from Sri Lanka, NZ, and Zimbabwe when they were good.

I'm struggling to word this right because its a touchy topic but I do notice that sometimes people seem to rate players higher based on nationality. I'm going to try to use few examples of NZ because then you can't all call me a biased little ****.....as often. IMO guys like Andy Flower don't get the credit they deserve with regards to revolutionising the role of the keeper as a batsman, you hear Gilchrist, Gilchrist Gilchrist. With bowlers its Lillee, Lillee, Lillee and Hadlee is...where? I remember a post from I think it was DoG saying Hadlee suffered from being from NZ. Theres also Warne vs Murali but I'm not going to elaborate because that will be the nail in the coffin for intelligent discussion in this thread. You hardly ever hear about awesome players like Andrew Jones, Heath Streak, Arivanda De Silva, Ranatunga, Roger Twose and alot more and I do wonder sometimes whether the get under-rated sometimes because they don't have that glamour team aspect. It almost seems if as these players need to over-achieve to get the credit they deserve wheras lesser players from more popular teams get all the glory.

I know this sounds a bit bitter but I assure you its not, I'm just wondering about what you lot think on this aspect of judgement. And please, PLEASE no stupid "I hate Murali" and "Sobers sucks" "Lillee greentop bully" etc.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Got this idea off the radio just before. I find it interesting how commentators and media wax lyrical about the world class/all time great players from the glamour nations alot more than players from Sri Lanka, NZ, and Zimbabwe when they were good.

I'm struggling to word this right because its a touchy topic but I do notice that sometimes people seem to rate players higher based on nationality. I'm going to try to use few examples of NZ because then you can't all call me a biased little ****.....as often. IMO guys like Andy Flower don't get the credit they deserve with regards to revolutionising the role of the keeper as a batsman, you hear Gilchrist, Gilchrist Gilchrist. With bowlers its Lillee, Lillee, Lillee and Hadlee is...where? I remember a post from I think it was DoG saying Hadlee suffered from being from NZ. Theres also Warne vs Murali but I'm not going to elaborate because that will be the nail in the coffin for intelligent discussion in this thread. You hardly ever hear about awesome players like Andrew Jones, Heath Streak, Arivanda De Silva, Ranatunga, Roger Twose and alot more and I do wonder sometimes whether the get under-rated sometimes because they don't have that glamour team aspect. It almost seems if as these players need to over-achieve to get the credit they deserve wheras lesser players from more popular teams get all the glory.

I know this sounds a bit bitter but I assure you its not, I'm just wondering about what you lot think on this aspect of judgement. And please, PLEASE no stupid "I hate Murali" and "Sobers sucks" "Lillee greentop bully" etc.

Hadlee may well have suffered from being from NZ...but it didn't seem to affect his cricket

I've always thought the Equatorial Guinean opening bowler - Roger Mutambo - was under-rated due to his geographical location.

 

[pasag]

I don't know, have heard this argued a few times, but not really convinced of its credibility as an argument. I guess players who play in one of the cricketing powerhouses on the world stage and are able to win games for their country because of suitable backup are much more likley to get recognised than someone ploughing away with three and a half people watching and less able to perfom matchwinning roles because of the ilford seconds at the other end, so it might have its merits but I'd rather take in arguments at their face value than try and second guess why a person is arguing them.

Wrt Gilchrist though, revolutionising a role and being better at it are two different things. If all teams want a Gilchrist, then you could argue that he was the one to change the role, despite Flower doing it first or being better at it (so I don't think that part fits in with the rest of your argument).

 

[Flem274*]

I don't know, have heard this argued a few times, but not really convinced of its credibility as an argument. I guess players who play in one of the cricketing powerhouses on the world stage and are able to win games for their country because of suitable backup are much more likley to get recognised than someone ploughing away with three and a half people watching and less able to perfom matchwinning roles because of the ilford seconds at the other end, so it might have its merits but I'd rather take in arguments at their face value than try and second guess why a person is arguing them.

Wrt Gilchrist though, revolutionising a role and being better at it are two different things. If all teams want a Gilchrist, then you could argue that he was the one to change the role, despite Flower doing it first or being better at it (so I don't think that part fits in with the rest of your argument).

I'd want Flower TBH, but thats just my preference.

I know its a grey area argument, I am just wondering whether an ingrained part of cricketing psychology is to lean towards a player being better based on the country they represented. Certainly I think bias comes into these things. E.g. A West Indian could prefer Marshall over Lillee or Hadlee based on national bias, or a Canadian cricket fan could prefer Ponting over Tendulkar based on Australias dominance. I'm not asking whether the opinions are right or wrong, just whether "big team" bias comes into the picture.

 

[Prince EWS]

Flower wasn't really a wicket-keeper/batsman anyway IMO - he was a batsman who took the gloves the best interests of the team. Kind of like Dravid in ODIs, but obviously a much better keeper than that. His keeping was never really up to the standard required but it gave the team the balance they wanted and didn't seem to effect his batting, so he did it anyway.

 

[Ikki]

What did Flower revolutionise in terms of keeping? He wasn't a very good keeper but a great batsmen. Gilchrist on the other hand is great in both.

Most of the other lesser knowns you named really weren't that good to be honest either. They were effective on their day but weren't consistent enough.

I don't think Hadlee suffers much. He IS considered one of the best bowlers ever. I just think like Chappell-Viv, there was another guy during the era who was just better and people acknowledged that - including Hadlee himself.

 

[Flem274*]

What did Flower revolutionise in terms of keeping? He wasn't a very good keeper but a great batsmen. Gilchrist on the other hand is great in both.

Most of the other lesser knowns you named really weren't that good to be honest either. They were effective on their day but weren't consistent enough.

I don't think Hadlee suffers much. He IS considered one of the best bowlers ever. I just think like Chappell-Viv, there was another guy during the era who was just better and people acknowledged that - including Hadlee himself.

That is the part that concerns me the most about what I wrote, I wrote this about 5 minutes after I got the idea so didn't really go looking for players though I disagree that they weren't that great. Most of them were awesome and world class players in their era which is what I was getting at in my statement. Obviously not Bradmans and Gods, but world class players that were overlooked a bit in their time.

EDIT: What did Flower revolutionize in keeping? Nothing. No one really has for a long time, including Gilchrist. TBH Steve Rixons unique technique which is used in recent times by Parore, McCullum, Hopkins, and a bloke who kept during the Healy years in Aus domestic cricket is the most revolutionary concept I can remember in keeping. Rixon deserves some huge credit for that IMO.

 

[Ikki]

That is the part that concerns me the most about what I wrote, I wrote this about 5 minutes after I got the idea so didn't really go looking for players though I disagree that many of them were awesome and world class players in their era which is what I was getting at in my statement. Obviously not Bradmans and Gods, but world class players that were overlooked a bit in their time.

I think you should find some players in the more 'favoured' countries and compare them to these ones. Then see if the players in the 'favoured' countries were of higher fame, that would show if there was a bias or not.

I mean, Heath Streak was good, but was he as good as a Gillespie? Gillespie doesn't get that much attention either. Ranatunga was okay, but was he even as good as a Damien Martyn or a Boon?

Good solid players, but there have been so many of them they're not going to get that much attention.

EDIT: What did Flower revolutionize in keeping? Nothing. No one really has for a long time, including Gilchrist. TBH Steve Rixons unique technique which is used in recent times by Parore, McCullum, Hopkins, and a bloke who kept during the Healy years in Aus domestic cricket is the most revolutionary concept I can remember in keeping. Rixon deserves some huge credit for that IMO.

Gilchrist was an outstanding keeper and was more than just a good bat. He was one of the best batsmen in the world. He would come in at 7 and change the game. A keeper at 7 was no longer a tail-ender. Flower didn't really keep very well and he batted, usually at 5.

But if you were to talk in the sense that he was underrated when it comes to talk of batsmen in the 90s, I'd agree.

 

[Flem274*]

I think you should find some players in the more 'favoured' countries and compare them to these ones. Then see if the players in the 'favoured' countries were of higher fame, that would show if there was a bias or not.

I mean, Heath Streak was good, but was he as good as a Gillespie? Gillespie doesn't get that much attention either. Ranatunga was okay, but was he even as good as a Damien Martyn or a Boon?

Good solid players, but there have been so many of them they're not going to get that much attention.



Gilchrist was an outstanding keeper and was more than just a good bat. He was one of the best batsmen in the world. He would come in at 7 and change the game. A keeper at 7 was no longer a tail-ender. Flower didn't really keep very well and he batted, usually at 5.

But if you were to talk in the sense that he was underrated when it comes to talk of batsmen in the 90s, I'd agree.

He didn't revolutionize keeping though, he could keep but what did he change about keeping specifically?

Heath Streak cannot be compared to Gillespie, Gillespie is a specialist bowler, not an allrounder.

 

[Flem274*]

I think you should find some players in the more 'favoured' countries and compare them to these ones. Then see if the players in the 'favoured' countries were of higher fame, that would show if there was a bias or not.

I mean, Heath Streak was good, but was he as good as a Gillespie? Gillespie doesn't get that much attention either. Ranatunga was okay, but was he even as good as a Damien Martyn or a Boon?

Good solid players, but there have been so many of them they're not going to get that much attention

"favoured" players would naturaly have the higher fame though, otherwise they aren't "favoured"

All those except maybe Ranatunga were world class in their era.

 

[Richard]

Virtually no-one's ever going to put Hadlee ahead of Lillee, because Hadlee himself didn't. This was because he idolised and modelled himself on Lillee.

 

[pasag]

I'd want Flower TBH, but thats just my preference.

I know its a grey area argument, I am just wondering whether an ingrained part of cricketing psychology is to lean towards a player being better based on the country they represented. Certainly I think bias comes into these things. E.g. A West Indian could prefer Marshall over Lillee or Hadlee based on national bias, or a Canadian cricket fan could prefer Ponting over Tendulkar based on Australias dominance. I'm not asking whether the opinions are right or wrong, just whether "big team" bias comes into the picture.

Yeah but maybe the team was dominant because of the players performances, maybe the player is preferred because they really are better (novel concept I know ). Yeah there's always going to be some country bias evident, not always because of fanboyisim, but as I said before, because of a higher exposure to the player, but you'll find that in all sports and aspects of life.

But the cricketing psychology, as long as we're not dealing with one eyed trolls doesn't really concern me as much as the arguments or the opinions themselves. And it's kinda insulting and annoying (not directed at you by any stretch of the imagination) to have your opinion shot down because of the country you live in and support, or told that you're blinded by a moustache or a guys on feild personality.

 

[biased indian]

What did Flower revolutionise in terms of keeping? He wasn't a very good keeper but a great batsmen. Gilchrist on the other hand is great in both.

And what did Gilchrist revolutionise ???

 

[Richard]

Gilchrist didn't revolutionise anything, as I've said before. He simply did a job that the odd few people have always done (and no more than the odd few) better than perhaps anyone had ever done before (and certainly anyone is likely to do again any time soon).

 

[Richard]

And it's kinda insulting and annoying (not directed at you by any stretch of the imagination) to have your opinion shot down because of the country you live in and support, or told that you're blinded by a moustache or a guys on feild personality.

I appreciate that, but at times I honestly do believe it where certain people are concerned (and not just cretins like SW\BLE), and it's pointless to pretend I don't.

Can't, incidentally, remember thinking it about yourself, though, and I can't recall anyone else doing so either.

 

[Ikki]

He didn't revolutionize keeping though, he could keep but what did he change about keeping specifically?

Heath Streak cannot be compared to Gillespie, Gillespie is a specialist bowler, not an allrounder.

Well, it's touted he revolutionized the 'role' of a keeper. That he did, IMO.

And Gillespie, whilst being a specialist bowler averaged about 19 with the bat to Heath's 22. The difference between their bowling is about the same to their batting.

 

[biased indian]

Well, it's touted he revolutionized the 'role' of a keeper. That he did, IMO.

And Gillespie, whilst being a specialist bowler averaged about 19 with the bat to Heath's 22. The difference between their bowling is about the same to their batting.

wht about the number of decent inngs they played....

Gillespie was more like a person with whom u can make sure you wont loose the game...
while heath streak if it was his day was good at winning games for you

 

[Chubb]

I'm a massive Zimbabwe fan but I would never claim Heath Streak as one of the greatest bowlers of all time. He was very good, but no more than that. He stood out because Zimbabwe were a comparatively weak side. Neither does he count as one of the great allrounders. He was great in the context of Zimbabwean cricket, nothing more.

Flower gets credit from most people I think, though some in fact overestimate his keeping. He was no keeper, simply a superb batsman, one of the greatest batsmen certainly of the modern era, and possibly of all time.

The best way to compare Streak and Flower's reputations is that if you put Streak into another test side, he wouldn't particularly stand out- he would be one of the better players, but not the best. Put Flower into any test lineup and he would be the finest batsman, even in the Australian or Indian sides. Apart from Tendulkar and Ponting of course.

 

[Richard]

The best way to compare Streak and Flower's reputations is that if you put Streak into another test side, he wouldn't particularly stand out- he would be one of the better players, but not the best. Put Flower into any test lineup and he would be the finest batsman, even in the Australian or Indian sides.

Hmm, nah, sorry, I'd say Tendulkar > Andy Flower. And Lara and Stephen Waugh too.

After those 3, though, he's got a decent claim on being the best batsman since Chappell and Richards.

 

[Chubb]

Hmm, nah, sorry, I'd say Tendulkar > Andy Flower. And Lara and Stephen Waugh too.

After those 3, though, he's got a decent claim on being the best batsman since Chappell and Richards.

Lucky I revised my opinon then, isn't it?