ok, just explain to me how Gough, Fraser, Caddick, Stewart, Atherton especially were overrated during the 90s & i'll be on my bike?Lehman - No Contest. Hick is highly overrated like every other English cricketer in the 90s.
Atherton was definitely overrated. The guy averaged well under 40 in test cricket, which is a poor career by any stretch.ok, just explain to me how Gough, Fraser, Caddick, Stewart, Atherton especially were overrated during the 90s & i'll be on my bike?
Fraser and Gough suffered badly from injuries. That alone accounts IMO for them being less successful than they could've been.Atherton was definitely overrated. The guy averaged well under 40 in test cricket, which is a poor career by any stretch.
Fraser and Caddick were servicable test bowlers, certainly not poor, and I think that's about how they are rated. Gough and Stewart were a little better. I wouldn't all any of them overrated aside from Atherton, but I wouldn't say any of them were particularly great either.
Considering the fact that the English compare Stewart to Gilchrist(there was a thread where some of tehm argued that), He definately was overrated. Caddick and Gough as a bowling pair were definately over-rated. Fraser - okay there I am wrong. Cork, Butcher, Hick, Ramprakash, Tufnell etc etc all were massively over-rated.Atherton was definitely overrated. The guy averaged well under 40 in test cricket, which is a poor career by any stretch.
Fraser and Caddick were servicable test bowlers, certainly not poor, and I think that's about how they are rated. Gough and Stewart were a little better. I wouldn't all any of them overrated aside from Atherton, but I wouldn't say any of them were particularly great either.
Yeah Right !! And MArk RamPrakash is one of the best batsman of modern era along with John Crawley.Stewart is only one of the best wicketkeeper-batsmen of the modern era.
Why? He was a decent, gritty batsman and played some wonderful innings but overall he didn't make enough runs to be considered a successful test opener. Aside from Carl Hooper he'd be around the worst player ever to play 100 test matches. Stephen Fleming would probably be around that group as well. None of them were terrible (though Hooper in tests was decidedly average) but certainly you wouldn't call them particularly great players.Fraser and Gough suffered badly from injuries. That alone accounts IMO for them being less successful than they could've been.
Stewart is only one of the best wicketkeeper-batsmen of the modern era.
Atherton is undoubtedly one of the most under-rated batsmen of recent times. Seriously, just dismissively saying "he averaged under 40 in Test cricket so he was poor by any stretch" is just crazy.
And Atherton noted that himself in his autobiography when he said his record only was that of a good Test player because his innings at Jo'burg where he batted for nearly an entire lifetime was what he described as being his one innings where he was in the 'zone'.Why? He was a decent, gritty batsman and played some wonderful innings but overall he didn't make enough runs to be considered a successful test opener. Aside from Carl Hooper he'd be around the worst player ever to play 100 test matches. Stephen Fleming would probably be around that group as well. None of them were terrible (though Hooper in tests was decidedly average) but certainly you wouldn't call them particularly great players.
Well if we go from 1990 onwards, Adam Gilchrist aside, go on name names then if you know more...Yeah Right !! And MArk RamPrakash is one of the best batsman of modern era along with John Crawley.
How exactly is comparing the two overrating Stewart? No-one in their right mind would say the former is as good as the latter, but they're certainly not in completely different leagues.Considering the fact that the English compare Stewart to Gilchrist(there was a thread where some of tehm argued that), He definately was overrated.
So how exactly is that? Almost everyone in England who knows anything about anything believes that none of them (except Tufnell) came close to fulfilling their potential, and that had there been less turbulance in the private-lives of every single one they'd have had a better chance.Cork, Butcher, Hick, Ramprakash, Tufnell etc etc all were massively over-rated.
No, they're not.Yeah Right !! And MArk RamPrakash is one of the best batsman of modern era along with John Crawley.
Tell me - how is a whole decade of excellence (except for when your back's so rigid you can barely bend) against some of the finest new-ball bowlers ever to have played the game just "being a decent gritty batsman"?Why? He was a decent, gritty batsman and played some wonderful innings but overall he didn't make enough runs to be considered a successful test opener. Aside from Carl Hooper he'd be around the worst player ever to play 100 test matches. Stephen Fleming would probably be around that group as well. None of them were terrible (though Hooper in tests was decidedly average) but certainly you wouldn't call them particularly great players.
They are in deifferent leagues, there simply is no comparison whatsoever. And Yes there is another guy with name sounding like Sangakkara, he is also in a different league. First there is the likes of Gilchrist, then there is Kumar and then comes the level of Stewart, Tilekratne etc etc.How exactly is comparing the two overrating Stewart? No-one in their right mind would say the former is as good as the latter, but they're certainly not in completely different leagues.
And almost everyone outside of England knows that they were all hyped up by the English Media and fans (something we see in India a lot now a days esp with its pace bowlers)..Ad how the the hell a guy(Tufnell) who averaged close to 40 in test cricket and with a strike rate in mid 90s is considered as 'Fulfilled potential' is beyond me ? IF that was his potential - Then you really prove my point. Tufnell was over-rated, Highly.So how exactly is that? Almost everyone in England who knows anything about anything believes that none of them (except Tufnell) came close to fulfilling their potential, and that had there been less turbulance in the private-lives of every single one they'd have had a better chance.
Gilchrist, Sanga, Tilekratne just to name a few. Besides I would take guys like Healy (on combined Batting/Keeping Skills) ahead of Stewart any day, throw in Healy there in that list as well.Well if we go from 1990 onwards, Adam Gilchrist aside, go on name names then if you know more...
Err, Sangakkara's career overlapped only by a year or two with Stewart's. Even now, Sangakkara is still being relieved of the gloves because he's much better as a specialist-batsman.They are in deifferent leagues, there simply is no comparison whatsoever. And Yes there is another guy with name sounding like Sangakkara, he is also in a different league. First there is the likes of Gilchrist, then there is Kumar and then comes the level of Stewart, Tilekratne etc etc.
Err, just because Media hype players up (is certainly no worse in Britain than in Australia) doesn't mean they're overrated by the end of their careers. Anyone but anyone will tell you that the likes of Cork wasn't nearly the bowler he looked like being at one point.And almost everyone outside of England knows that they were all hyped up by the English Media and fans (something we see in India a lot now a days esp with its pace bowlers)..
Not by me he wasn't. I don't think he was that good. Though there are some who'd have you believe he could've done more.Ad how the the hell a guy(Tufnell) who averaged close to 40 in test cricket and with a strike rate in mid 90s is considered as 'Fulfilled potential' is beyond me ? IF that was his potential - Then you really prove my point. Tufnell was over-rated, Highly.