Who is the most overated player from the subcontinent, ever?

[karan316]

Australian players and the Australian team are generally rated about right. Hence, the Australian team is currently full of crap players so we get beaten, and no one is surprised. A decade ago the Australian team was full of great players so we won a lot of Test matches, and no one was surprised.

But for some reason when the Indian team of the noughties didn't win Test matches, everyone acted surprised. This surprise gives the game away and proves that the Indian players were over-rated. If they weren't over-rated then no one would be surprised when they failed to win a series.

Or to put it another way, the Indian team of the noughties didn't win often because it was, in reality, mediocre. But unfortunately, reality too often gave way to delusion.

We are not talking about teams here, we are talking about individual players being overrated, some journalists make certain events sound like it was "the most special thing" or "x or y was the greatest" and others keep using their lines and over the years it becomes a part of history, in that case, I don't think many Asian players are overrated, because we don't have that kind of a press or journalists who are accepted all over the world, most of our media is rubbish and its not even taken seriously by the people of our own country, but Aus and England have had a strong media after them so whenever they do achieve something, it instantly gets too much of hype.. And m not just talking about players of a decade ago or so, m talking about the entire cricket history.
For e.g.
People rating Lillee above bowlers like Imran or Marshall, plain rubbish
Warne above Murali, on what grounds? seriously, some people point out that Murali has played 25 matches against Zim and Ban and Warne hasn't, what about the 36 matches that Warne has played against England who has been rubbish at playing spin. It's not possible to decide who the better 1 is out of the 2, so why just put Warne ahead of him?

I don't have any hatred towards a particular team, in fact I enjoy good cricket no matter who plays it, but its just not good when the Asian players are not given the credit for what they achieve.

 

[Migara]

Bolton is full of subhumans, probably explains the misunderstanding.

Apology accepted Migara.

For what? And mind you, I am Asian.

 

[watson]

We are not talking about teams here, we are talking about individual players being overrated, some journalists make certain events sound like it was "the most special thing" or "x or y was the greatest" and others keep using their lines and over the years it becomes a part of history, in that case, I don't think many Asian players are overrated, because we don't have that kind of a press or journalists who are accepted all over the world, most of our media is rubbish and its not even taken seriously by the people of our own country, but Aus and England have had a strong media after them so whenever they do achieve something, it instantly gets too much of hype.. And m not just talking about players of a decade ago or so, m talking about the entire cricket history.
For e.g.
People rating Lillee above bowlers like Imran or Marshall, plain rubbish
Warne above Murali, on what grounds? seriously, some people point out that Murali has played 25 matches against Zim and Ban and Warne hasn't, what about the 36 matches that Warne has played against England who has been rubbish at playing spin. It's not possible to decide who the better 1 is out of the 2, so why just put Warne ahead of him?

I don't have any hatred towards a particular team, in fact I enjoy good cricket no matter who plays it, but its just not good when the Asian players are not given the credit for what they achieve.

OK I'll be more specific - Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Kumble, Harbie. Classic under-achievers (as a collective) despite their enormous potential and sometime brilliant individual performances.

 

[Daemon]

For what? And mind you, I am Asian.

And Asians can't be racist?

 

[karan316]

OK I'll be more specific - Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Kumble, Harbie. Classic under-achievers despite their enormous potential and sometime brilliant individual performances.

what? Dravid, Laxman, Kumble, Sehwag and Ganguly are underachievers? these guys had limited talent and they actually overachieved with their hard work. and the only problem with these guys and even Sachin was that they have played with very poor teams in the past and a lot of their efforts have gone in vain because we didn't have strong teams.

And sure, you can go on targeting the Indian players, but my post was based on Asian players and how they are not given enough credit.

 

[Maximas]

what? Dravid, Laxman, Kumble, Sehwag and Ganguly are underachievers? these guys had limited talent and they actually overachieved with their hard work. and the only problem with these guys and even Sachin was that they have played with very poor teams in the past and a lot of their efforts have gone in vain because we didn't have strong teams.

And sure, you can go on targeting the Indian players, but my post was based on Asian players and how they are not given enough credit.

Clearly every subcontinent batsman should be averaging over 70, they have so much talent!!! But seriously, every single good player ever could probably have done better than they did, it's the nature of cricket.

 

[Daemon]

Clearly every subcontinent batsman should be averaging over 70, they have so much talent!!! But seriously, every single good player ever could probably have done better than they did, it's the nature of cricket.

He's actually arguing the opposite..

 

[Maximas]

He's actually arguing the opposite..

I was kidding about the whole 70 average thing, making fun of whoever said all the Indian players underachieved. I was trying to back him up by saying all players under-achieve somewhat, and that Indian players or Asian players shouldn't be targeted.

 

[centurymaker]

what? Dravid, Laxman, Kumble, Sehwag and Ganguly are underachievers? these guys had limited talent and they actually overachieved with their hard work. and the only problem with these guys and even Sachin was that they have played with very poor teams in the past and a lot of their efforts have gone in vain because we didn't have strong teams.

And sure, you can go on targeting the Indian players, but my post was based on Asian players and how they are not given enough credit.

True

and India's always had an ATG bowling attack, right? lol

 

[Migara]

And Asians can't be racist?

Can be. But not against their own lot.

 

[Daemon]

I was kidding about the whole 70 average thing, making fun of whoever said all the Indian players underachieved. I was trying to back him up by saying all players under-achieve somewhat, and that Indian players or Asian players shouldn't be targeted.

oh, my bad

 

[Daemon]

Can be. But not against their own lot.

Rubbish. Sri Lanka itself is a good example.

 

[watson]

Clearly every subcontinent batsman should be averaging over 70, they have so much talent!!! But seriously, every single good player ever could probably have done better than they did, it's the nature of cricket.

Despite having a 'great' batting line-up, 'great' spinners, and excellent pacemen like Zaheer Khan the actual numbers don't match the hype. So I agree, 'every single good player ever could probably have done better than they did' is a fairly good summation.
And I should also point out that Sri Lanka won more Test matches than India during the 2000s - just;

Blogs: Test teams: an analysis of results across ages | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Furball]

Can be. But not against their own lot.

The Murali quote in your signature contradicts that.

I must've imagined the civil war in Sri Lanka as well.

 

[Maximas]

Despite having a 'great' batting line-up, 'great' spinners, and excellent pacemen like Zaheer Khan the actual numbers don't match the hype. So I agree, 'every single good player ever could probably have done better than they did' is a fairly good summation.
And I should also point out that Sri Lanka won more Test matches than India during the 2000s - just;

Maybe a sign of more result conductive pitches? I'm not sure, but there has been some discussion of Sanga and Mahela on this thread too so I'll keep that stat in mind.

 

[Coronis]

Oh its funny the lengths some people will go to...

 

[Jono]

And I should also point out that Sri Lanka won more Test matches than India during the 2000s - just;[/IMG]


Blogs: Test teams: an analysis of results across ages | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

That's because India cbf playing Bangladesh at home.

 

[sledger]

Can be. But not against their own lot.

Oh dear.

 

[Fusion]

Nasser Hussain, Saj Mahmood, Owais Shah, Ravi Bopara, Monty Panesar. pick a random number and it's yours.

Just so everyone knows, this post by Migara was inappropriate and received an infraction. We’d appreciate it if people stop responding to it going forward.