Who are the most overrated/underrated cricket teams in the world currently?

[MendisNuffSaid]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Was about to vote for SA as many people are calling them the best right now and it isn't even on the list.

Well i thought SA have proven themselves by winning the tests and the odis in Australia. I'll add them on the list.

[MendisNuffSaid]

Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes

You struggle to understand how SL is over-rated when it's a month since they lost to Bangladesh?

And you seem to think that SL is the only team in the world to lose to Bangladesh? In fact, BD have played them more than most major nations so you can excuse them for dropping a dead rubber . When was the last time any major nation played Bangladesh in their own country? I'm pretty sure, it ain't a month ago so that argument is pretty stupid tbh.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by MendisNuffSaid

Well i thought SA have proven themselves by winning the tests and the odis in Australia. I'll add them on the list.

Against an understrength Australia, they also got beaten by England recently too. I mean they're a good team but still on par with the full strength Indian and Australian teams.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by MendisNuffSaid

And you seem to think that SL is the only team in the world to lose to Bangladesh? In fact, BD have played them more than most major nations so you can excuse them for dropping a dead rubber . When was the last time any major nation played Bangladesh in their own country? I'm pretty sure, it ain't a month ago so that argument is pretty stupid tbh.

NZ did and we lost one match. Also SA had a series there and were pushed in one Test match. Bangladesh at home are quite good, though only because of Shakib, all the other spinners, Mortaza, Ashraful and Tamim.

Still crap away.

[MendisNuffSaid]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Against an understrength Australia, they also got beaten by England recently too. I mean they're a good team but still on par with the full strength Indian and Australian teams.

There was no Graeme Smith, Ashwell Prince, Justin Kemp (ICL but his big hitting capabilities could have been handy as opposed to McKenzie) and Mark Boucher. Australia's main losses were Stuart Clark, Bracken, Symonds and Clarke. Yet Australia were smashed in the 4th ODI.

I remembered that SL whitewashed England in a 5 match series during 2006 but they had a really **** bowling line-up.

[MendisNuffSaid]

Originally Posted by Athlai

NZ did and we lost one match. Also SA had a series there and were pushed in one Test match. Bangladesh at home are quite good, though only because of Shakib, all the other spinners, Mortaza, Ashraful and Tamim.

Still crap away.

Australia only won by three wickets in a test chasing 300 odd, they were in huge trouble before Gilchrist made a century.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by MendisNuffSaid

There was no Graeme Smith, Ashwell Prince, Justin Kemp (ICL but his big hitting capabilities could have been handy as opposed to McKenzie) and Mark Boucher. Australia's main losses were Stuart Clark, Bracken, Symonds and Clarke. Yet Australia were smashed in the 4th ODI.

Going back to Kemp is like going back to Gilchrist.

The loss of Australia's bowling far outweighed the batting losses, Bracken Lee and Clark are their 3 frontline ODI bowlers along with Johnson and all of them were missing. If SA were missing Steyn Ntini and Morkel they'd be in a fair bit of strife too. Australia are better than you give them credit for, while they're probably not the best anymore but they are still certainly right up there.

[honestbharani]

India = most over-rated (by some of the Indian team supporters, esp. here)


India = most under--rated (by some of the non-Indian supporters, esp. here)

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

India = most over-rated (by some of the Indian team supporters, esp. here)


India = most under--rated (by some of the non-Indian supporters, esp. here)

Only cos they pay more attention to cricket in their timezone and India's record makes them kings at home and hobos away.

[Chemosit]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Against an understrength Australia, they also got beaten by England recently too. I mean they're a good team but still on par with the full strength Indian and Australian teams.

never had much time for the 'under strength team' argument. Australia put forward they team they (well selectors anyway) deemed the best at that point in time. Strength of a team includes how they play even when players may be missing.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by Chemosit

never had much time for the 'under strength team' argument. Australia put forward they team they (well selectors anyway) deemed the best at that point in time. Strength of a team includes how they play even when players may be missing.

Reckon it just sucks when so many are missing. I mean I'm a NZer we're lucky if we can ever get a full strength XI on the paddock.

[KiWiNiNjA]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Reckon it just sucks when so many are missing. I mean I'm a NZer we're lucky if we can ever get a full strength XI on the paddock.

Yeah, a big part of that is the overlap of the Cairns and Oram eras.

[Chemosit]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Reckon it just sucks when so many are missing. I mean I'm a NZer we're lucky if we can ever get a full strength XI on the paddock.

Know the feeling - Associates in particular haemorrhage their top players either to England (like there aren't enough Englishmen who could make a team) or to other jobs where they can earn better money. Doesn't mean that the team should be judged by anything else than how they perform on the pitch.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by Chemosit

Know the feeling - Associates in particular haemorrhage their top players either to England (like there aren't enough Englishmen who could make a team) or to other jobs where they can earn better money. Doesn't mean that the team should be judged by anything else than how they perform on the pitch.

I just think its worth taking into consideration that a group of highly talented players weren't in the team when they beat them who will be in the team again.

[Matt79]

I've said Pakistan, purely because they barely play anymore sadly, but are rated as a top team, whereas the reality is that its hard to say where they really sit at the moment.

I guess NZ are so perenially underrated, esp. in ODIs, that its become something of a cliche. England might be, just becuase of their prevailing direness over the past 30-odd years in limited overs stuff, people tend to assume they remain dire no matter what is happening.

Those are all grasping at straws really however, as I don't think any teams are commonly over or under rated.

And I have to agree that all of MendisNuffSaid's posts at the moment do seem to feature a heavy element of schadenfreude and gloating towards the Aussie team, masquerading as considered analysis, but y'know, whatever...