• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Underrated players

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think you may find Aust vs England tests resumed as early as Dec '46 fredfertang. I may be wrong having a touch of "pots 'n' pans" disease ☺☺ but I do recall Bradman scoring 180 odd at The Gabba being out to Edrich(?) Whether that series was an ashes series I do not recall.
They don't count as Australia didn't pick Cec Pepper
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Norm O'Neill, Colin McDonald and Bill Lawry are three players I always think are under rated.
Agree on all, but especially Lawry. Unfairly stigmatised as stodgy. Reckon he was almost an ideal opener. And my god, was he tough. Hearing the descriptions and seeing the pics of his bruises after The Battle of the Ridge is pretty epic.

Would hardly bat an eyelid if someone thought him worthy of a spot in an all time world XI.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'll need to think about this, but NZ's Dion Nash immediately spring to mind.
 

Moss

International Vice-Captain
From the Lankan sides of the 90's I'd go with Gurusinghe, Tillekeratne and Mahanama. None of them had great stats (though Hashan averaged 43 in tests) but each played a big role in Lanka's major improvement in that decade, apart from the obvious names.

NZ - Nathan Astle in tests. Much more to his batting than the 222. Had big scores on most surfaces (including a century in Ahmedabad when unwell). Excellent fifth-bowler and partnership breaker too.

South Africa - Cullinan, at least in India where he only seems to be remembered as Warne's bunny. Also Brian McMillan? Would comfortably walk into any test side at no.6 today.

West Indies - Ridley Jacobs was definitely their most reliable player from 1998-2003 and seems to have vanished from most people's minds. More under-appreciated than under-rated perhaps.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Big fan of Gurusinha and Jacobs. I'm very surprised Jacobs is hardly remembered at all these days. The guy had some series where he totally outshined even Lara when he was going through his late 90s slump.
 

Moss

International Vice-Captain
More names off the top my head:

Robin Smith - some seriously good batting stats for his time. Ditto Alec Stewart when you consider he was being moved up and down the order depending on whether he assumed keeping duties.

Bhagwat Chandrashekar - Discussions on the spin quartet (in Cricinfo at least) seem to revolve around Bedi/Prasanna, and Chandra seems to be regarded as something of a "even he didn't know which way the ball would turn" freak. Which doesn't seem fair (older fans may wish to comment).

Mark Richardson - Rare for a NZer to average 45 in that era. Was 30 when he debuted. And his 89 in that infamous 2002-03 series against India was a masterclass in off-stump judgement.

Damien Fleming - Faded away after 1999/00 but was a terrific foil for McGrath before Gillespie returned from injury with a vengenace.

Mushtaq Ahmed - Was probably one of the biggest matchwinners in test cricket for a good part of the 90's before Saqlain became the first-choice spinner.
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Greg Matthews as a batsman. 41 average overall. Same as MWaugh and not much less than Gower (I know that doesn't mean everything and that Waugh and Gower were heaps better etc but still)

Averaged 53 vs Eng, 47 vs Ind, 97 vs Pak and 54 vs SL. 36 vs NZ. Only averaged 15 against the WIs.

Just a guy who got every ounce out of his ability I reckon. Wouldn't be bad at 6/7 in the Aust side right now.
 

Chrish

International Debutant
Why was 50s bowler friendly era? What were the wickets like compared to earlier/ later decades?

The bowling average is remarkably lower in that time period.. Have often wondered why..
 

smash84

The Tiger King
.

Mushtaq Ahmed - Was probably one of the biggest matchwinners in test cricket for a good part of the 90's before Saqlain became the first-choice spinner.
That's true, mushy quite forgotten now. Was pretty good to watch when on song.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Why was 50s bowler friendly era? What were the wickets like compared to earlier/ later decades?

The bowling average is remarkably lower in that time period.. Have often wondered why..
I'd say it was definitely down to the state of the wickets. Look at the bowling averages of Bedser and Laker in the 40s and compare them to the 50s. Its true cricketers don't maintain the same level of performance throughout a series let alone a career its nonetheless revealing seeing what happens to averages when conditions change.
 

Chrish

International Debutant
I'd say it was definitely down to the state of the wickets. Look at the bowling averages of Bedser and Laker in the 40s and compare them to the 50s. Its true cricketers don't maintain the same level of performance throughout a series let alone a career its nonetheless revealing seeing what happens to averages when conditions change.
Yup. Btw England and Australia, Trueman, Statham, Wardle, Laker, Lock, Bedsar, Tyson, Loader, Davison, Miller and Lindwall were averaging < 25 in that decade (Johnston averaged around 26). Now no doubt some of these bowlers were genuine greats and these two were the strongest teams of the era, still no. of these bowlers is little too high IMO.

So, wickets must had played some significant part here. I see no other logical explanation.
 
Last edited:

the big bambino

International Captain
Take a look at Tony Lock for eg. He averaged 7 in a series v NZ. Granted they weren't great then but that is a club like average. Yet when he did find himself on better wickets (though not all universally good batting wickets) his average invariably increased to more believable proportions (75 in Oz, 50 in the WI and around 30 in the sub con)
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The seamers did well just after the war when a new ball was available every 55 overs (65 after 1949) - with the early 1950s being pretty damp too the outfields here were greener so the shine didn't go quickly either

And the Aussies will have you believe that from the mid 50s we prepared raging bunsens over here - of course being British we would never have done that, so although the evidence is stacked against us it can't be true
 

The Battlers Prince

International Vice-Captain
Neil Harvey won this match, batting, as the following article says, in an uncharacteristically dogged fashion. On a turning pitch facing a fresh faced Hugh Tayfield. This innings came in at number 60 on DoG's all time batting list.
An ability to adapt to a situation is a skill that only the greats have.

After at one time looking almost certain to be defeated, Australia staged a dramatic recovery and gained a glorious victory with only twenty-five minutes to spare. This success gave them the rubber, the first two Tests having been won by convincing margins. The luck of the toss forsook Hassett and South Africa on a good pitch scored easily. E. Rowan showed determination typical of his character in completing his hundred during the first day, and Nourse made runs with characteristic assurance. South Africa reached a respectable total, and no one could have anticipated the remarkable cricket which followed. Yet when the second day was over South Africa had established a lead of 236, Australia having been dismissed for 75 -- their lowest total in a Test match against South Africa. The player largely responsible for this astonishing collapse was Tayfield, a newcomer to Test cricket this season. This Natal off-break bowler worried all the batsmen and took seven for 23 in 8.4 overs. Nourse was left with the week-end in which to decide whether to enforce the follow-on. Probably influenced by the threat of rain, he decided to bat a second time, and though the turf now aided spin the failure of the South African batsmen was difficult to understand. The side were all out for 99, and Australia began the final day needing 256 to win with seven wickets in hand.
The odds still favoured South Africa, but Harvey refused to be deterred by the immensity of the task. Helped by Loxton and McCool, he adopted a dogged style quite out of keeping with his normal game and stayed five hours thirty minutes without making a mistake. This innings of extraordinary patience and skill, which enabled Australia to record their remarkable victory, left a lasting impression upon all who witnessed it. The history of Test cricket provides few comparable feats.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
Take a look at Tony Lock for eg. He averaged 7 in a series v NZ. Granted they weren't great then but that is a club like average. Yet when he did find himself on better wickets (though not all universally good batting wickets) his average invariably increased to more believable proportions (75 in Oz, 50 in the WI and around 30 in the sub con)
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

check Shoaib. He has 17 wickets against NZ and has an average of 5 :laugh:
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
Perhaps Sir Andy Roberts. I had never heard of him until someone picked him in a WI ATG team recently, looked at his stats and they're frankly incredible.
 

Top