• 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.

Ed Paynter - the most under-rated player ever?

Craig

World Traveller
Well was Eddie Paynter the most under-rated player of all time?

Having a look at his record tells the story of a very good batsman at Test and FC level, and finished with a Test average of 59.23, and a Test average 84.25, but got the runs when his side really needed them. He even took the gloves once with no experience ever and did a fantastic job.

At FC level - he made 20,075 runs @ 42.26 with 45 FC tonnes and a HS of 322 (in five hours :-O :blink: ). If he was playing now, he would probably be considered a great player (of course if he was just as successfull), yet never got a go by England selectors.

Certainly by his record he looked like a genius batsman, yet won't get mentioned as one of the greats to the fact he played 20 Tests, so IMO he would be one of the most under-rated players of all time.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
Agreed, he was extemely under-rated and a fine sevant to the mighty Lancashire, but...
a)he made his test debut at the age of 29.
b)Back then they played less cricket
c)And WWII started the year he played his last test, so he lost the last years of his career
...can you see why he had a short career?
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
James90 said:
Vinod Kambli for mine
Kambli was dropped because his mentality was questionable and he had a major weakness against the short ball which was being exposed at test level.

First 7 Tests: 793 runs at 113.29 with 4 centuries
Lat 10 Tests: 291 runs at 22.38 with 0 centuries.

Sometimes you have to look beyond overall career figures and in Kambli's case I believe it is incorrect to say 'an average of 54 is an average of 54.' If Kambli had played many more tests he certainly would not have kept his fine career record.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
James90 said:
Vinod Kambli for mine
Kambli was NEVER under rated. He will rank very high in the list of great initial potentials that fizzled out !!

When he was performing he was considered a talent fit enough to rank alongside Sachin. That is hardly under rating him.

His later rating (or lack of it) is brought on by his performance and attitude (take your pick as to which was worse).
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
a massive zebra said:
How is your book coming along Mr SJS?
Slow :wacko:

Requires lots of time.

I think I need to retire from my job and do it full time but my wife wont let me :huh:
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Under-rated is a bit difficult to define. It is relative. Bradman would be under-rated if we called him a mere great :)

We really have lots of players down history who have been greater thanwhat we remember them to be, (a look back in history is not always 20:20 like hindsight).

Patsy Hendren was another awesome player not always talked of with awe.

Archie Jackson is an unknown amongst most.

Trumper is legendry but not appreciated by the modern fan outside Australia.

Ranji is better remembered for his leg glance and for 'never having played a christian stroke' than for the awesome cricketer that he was.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
SJS said:
Under-rated is a bit difficult to define. It is relative. Bradman would be under-rated if we called him a mere great :)
Then again, the one day format and emphasis on allrounders and quick scoring has changed how we look at wicket keepers.

Evans, Oldfield even Taylor from more recent times are less likely to find favour against Gilchrist or even Knott.

Future generations will be luckier than us, they wont have to rely only on the authenticity 9read lack of exaggeration) of the written word thanks to the moving picture.

Thank God future generations will not be able to run down Viv Richards by saying he wasnt as good as he is made out to be and see the difference in the batting of Steve and Marc Waugh through more than the narrow prism of their career averages.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
a massive zebra said:
Kambli was dropped because his mentality was questionable and he had a major weakness against the short ball which was being exposed at test level.

First 7 Tests: 793 runs at 113.29 with 4 centuries
Lat 10 Tests: 291 runs at 22.38 with 0 centuries.

Sometimes you have to look beyond overall career figures and in Kambli's case I believe it is incorrect to say 'an average of 54 is an average of 54.' If Kambli had played many more tests he certainly would not have kept his fine career record.
Same thing applies to Lance Gibbs.
People look at his career average of 29.something and think "he transcended statistics" when in fact he had the outstanding average of 23.something for the first 10 years of his Test-career and dropped off horribly with only brief moments from then on as pitches were covered and he got older.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Craig said:
Well was Eddie Paynter the most under-rated player of all time?

Having a look at his record tells the story of a very good batsman at Test and FC level, and finished with a Test average of 59.23, and a Test average 84.25, but got the runs when his side really needed them. He even took the gloves once with no experience ever and did a fantastic job.

At FC level - he made 20,075 runs @ 42.26 with 45 FC tonnes and a HS of 322 (in five hours :-O :blink: ). If he was playing now, he would probably be considered a great player (of course if he was just as successfull), yet never got a go by England selectors.

Certainly by his record he looked like a genius batsman, yet won't get mentioned as one of the greats to the fact he played 20 Tests, so IMO he would be one of the most under-rated players of all time.
While undoubtedly a very, very fine player, his First-Class average suggests a player who played a small amount of Test-cricket and started with a bang (at a late age). His career was then ended prematurely, but it meant he had an everso-slightly inflated average.
 

Craig

World Traveller
I'm not just soley talking about his average in Tests, I mean he certainly was successfull given his short Test career. I'm surprised he didn't play Test cricket until he was 29, so he was obviously a late bloomer.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, there were several players around that time who were in a similar boat. It happened a bit more in those days than it tends to today.
 

Top