I agree that Tendulkar is overrated in the strictest definition - i.e. that some think he is a guaranteed #2 of all time or even better than Bradman. That is overrating him. He is still an all time great though.
Just like can say that a great is underrated. E.g. I sometimes think McGrath is underrated (maybe not on here). I believe he is so clearly in the top 10 best cricketers of all time, that anyone who doesn't think that is underrating him.
The colloquial use of overrated/underrated has basically become "I think he's actually ****" or "i think he's actually good"
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
Len Hutton - Jack Hobbs - Ted Dexter - David Gower - Walter Hammond - Frank Woolley - Ian Botham - Alan Knott - Hedley Verity - John Snow - Fred Trueman
Anil Kumble is over-rated as his greatness relies too heavily on longevity and success on home turf. Chandra and Prasanna are comfortably better and greater Indian spinners IMO.
The main reason being that Chandra and Prasanna both had successful overseas tours. Chandra dominated the 1971 series in England against Illingsworth's team, and Prasanna was the outstanding bowler during the 1967/68 series in Australia. There is nothing similar in Kumble's CV that I can find. Although I'm happy to be corrected.
Our squad recently dusted 4 blot are collectively the worst to go to the sub con.
From the sub con,,,hmmm. Using jono's definition that you can be great and over rated, I nominate Gavaskar for the supermanning of his record v WI.
Just checked on Statsguru. Gavaskar and Michael Holding played against eachother in 15 Test matches (1976-1983). Gavaskar scored 1135 runs at 45.40 with 5 centuries during those Test matches.
To my mind that isn't bad. My only real criticism is that Gavaskar seemed to be inconsistent - he either scored not much, or very big. But could Hobbs and Hutton have done any better in the same circumstances? Probably not as I can't imagine an opening batsman with a straighter defensive bat, and a better hook/pull-shot. Then there was that cover-drive down on one knee.....
Edit: story given in detail here
Last edited by Howe_zat; 10-06-2013 at 10:51 PM.
'It seems that perfection is attained, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away.'
According to Statsguru;
Holding AND Roberts V Gavaskar
Tests = 9 (1976-83, 7 in the WI)
Ave = 53.07
100s = 3
Runs = 690
Holding AND Marshall V Gavaskar
Test = 11 (1983, 5 in the WI)
Ave = 41.38
100s = 3
Runs = 745
Holding AND Roberts AND Marshall V Gavaskar
Tests = 7 (1983, 5 in the WI)
Ave = 49.60
100s = 2
Runs = 496
Last edited by watson; 11-06-2013 at 12:30 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)