cricket betting betway blog banner small
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 90

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

  1. #1
    123/5 Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    I fall asleep to Neil Wagner's roars
    Posts
    39,049

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

    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.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  2. #2
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    18,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    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.
    R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best

    R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi

    Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath

    "How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.

    "There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball

    "**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball

  3. #3
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    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).
    Rest In Peace Craigos
    2003-2012

  4. #4
    123/5 Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    I fall asleep to Neil Wagner's roars
    Posts
    39,049
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    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.


  5. #5
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    55,802
    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.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    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.
    ★★★★★

  7. #7
    123/5 Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    I fall asleep to Neil Wagner's roars
    Posts
    39,049
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Flem274*; 03-03-2008 at 03:07 AM.

  8. #8
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    123/5 Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    I fall asleep to Neil Wagner's roars
    Posts
    39,049
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    123/5 Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    I fall asleep to Neil Wagner's roars
    Posts
    39,049
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  12. #12
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    International Coach biased indian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    office
    Posts
    11,303
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    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 ???
    Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    RIP Craigos

  14. #14
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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).

  15. #15
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    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.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Most over rated players
    By RedRobin23 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 210
    Last Post: 19-02-2008, 10:08 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 21-01-2008, 03:44 PM
  3. Cricket's most over rated players
    By Bahnz in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 200
    Last Post: 14-07-2007, 07:41 AM
  4. Most under-rated players
    By ramkumar_gr in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 01-05-2007, 10:46 AM
  5. Which Nationality Would You Choose?
    By nikhil1772 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 29-03-2005, 06:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •