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

[MendisNuffSaid]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Nah i don't agree with that. If you want to know how Ireland are going to do in a world cup match, you'd be best advised to completely ignore their performances in the middle of the county cricket season with an unrecognisable XI. It's almost like using Australia 'A' results in warm-up matches to judge how good Australia are. If you want to judge their merit and achievement as a cricket team you can use whatever you like. But if you're judging how good Australia actually are you simply can't ignore the fact that they're running at less than half strength this series.

 

[Precambrian]

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

Better than England's since Ashes 2005. In fact, both home as well as away.

 

[Uppercut]

Better than England's since Ashes 2005. In fact, both home as well as away.

Besides the point really, i don't think anyone outside of GIMH would rate England as better than India in any way, shape or form.

 

[Athlai]

Sidebottom > India > England TBH

 

[Chemosit]

I wouldn't judge an Irish team on their performances v county sides, but would certainly do so on performances in Internationals (I.C cup and ODIs). No point in judging a team by what ifs and maybes:

If Kenya had Mishra and Shah and Aga all available, we would be a much stronger side. Fact is we don't so we should be judged accordingly.

Same with Australia v SA. The absent players might have strengthened the team, but they weren't there so the team should be judged on how it performed, not on how it might have performed.

 

[Uppercut]

I wouldn't judge an Irish team on their performances v county sides, but would certainly do so on performances in Internationals (I.C cup and ODIs). No point in judging a team by what ifs and maybes:

If Kenya had Mishra and Shah and Aga all available, we would be a much stronger side. Fact is we don't so we should be judged accordingly.

Same with Australia v SA. The absent players might have strengthened the team, but they weren't there so the team should be judged on how it performed, not on how it might have performed.

Well you can't judge how it might have performed, obviously. But if you want to know how a team with Porterfield, O'Brien, Morgan and Rankin in it is going to perform in a match played tomorrow, matches in which none of them played aren't going to be much value as a source of evidence.

It's the same with Australia. If you want to know how good Australia are- and i take that to mean at full-strength or close to it- you don't use as evidence matches in which only three or four of their first-choice players were on the pitch.

 

[Precambrian]

Besides the point really, i don't think anyone outside of GIMH would rate England as better than India in any way, shape or form.

It was soooo obvious trying to get even. But your decency made me fail.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm quite hard to get back at, not having a major cricket team to support. For future reference, something like, "Ojha>Mishra" will do the trick

 

[Chemosit]

Well you can't judge how it might have performed, obviously. But if you want to know how a team with Porterfield, O'Brien, Morgan and Rankin in it is going to perform in a match played tomorrow, matches in which none of them played aren't going to be much value as a source of evidence.

It's the same with Australia. If you want to know how good Australia are- and i take that to mean at full-strength or close to it- you don't use as evidence matches in which only three or four of their first-choice players were on the pitch.

In terms of evidence, the only hard evidence is to judge a team on how they performed on the pitch. How a team is going to perform is more a matter of conjecture in that any eventuality is possible. I'd prefer evidence over conjecture in terms of 'rating' a team.

Australia put the best team they could out v SA and got beat. I would rate them accordingly.

 

[Athlai]

In terms of evidence, the only hard evidence is to judge a team on how they performed on the pitch. How a team is going to perform is more a matter of conjecture in that any eventuality is possible. I'd prefer evidence over conjecture in terms of 'rating' a team.

Australia put the best team they could out v SA and got beat. I would rate them accordingly.

On that day but that rating falls over when a week later the Australian team is stronger.