• 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.

Most over rated players

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
Afzaal, Ealham and Chris Harris were rubbish. ODI selection should be reflective of test performances. Economy rates in ODI cricket don't matter - only taking wickets does. Saj Mahmood should be in the England ODI side because he's a wicket taker, and Matt Prior should be in the side because he's a big hitter. For that matter, Hoggard should be in the team because of his test performances. Ireland and Kenya should have test status. Oh, and Anthony McGrath should be in the test team because of his good showings against Zimbabwe.

Did I leave anything out? :p
:laugh:
 

gwo

U19 Debutant
regarding Symonds being overrated...no one ever said he was a test match player...he slotted in because australia felt compelled to play an all rounder...for what reason i do not know, but he did the job he was mean to do as an all rounder.

you can't be overrated in a medium where you arent really rated in the first place. His ODI cricket on the other hand...

as for the power...BOOO i blame demetriou for not giving us the home prelim...we would have got it in 05...i feel so rorted. 6 day vs 8 day turn around = run over in final quarter.

anywho.. i <3 watto, symonds, haydos, bichel, kaspa, noffke, maher, love, hartley, hopes

Queensland > test playing nations including WI, Pakistan, India, SA, NZ, Banga
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Haha, Qld > SA, Pak and Ind! :laugh:

New Zealand aren't really a Test-playing nation of late, either.

WI are the only Test-class nation you could make a case for Qld being better than IMO. And that'd include NZ if they played.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Except it's very, very far from that - it's 10 years and 90-odd Tests of sustained excellence against some of the best bowling-attacks we've ever seen.
......resulting in an average of 37.69 from 110 tests with 29 against the windies, 31 against the aussies, 41 and 43 against pakistan and south africa respectively(the best attacks of that time)...he certainly had a good technique and good temperament, but just didn't have the consistency to deserve your "sustained excellence" remark....
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
......resulting in an average of 37.69 from 110 tests with 29 against the windies, 31 against the aussies, 41 and 43 against pakistan and south africa respectively(the best attacks of that time)...he certainly had a good technique and good temperament, but just didn't have the consistency to deserve your "sustained excellence" remark....
The number 37.69 is a pretty meaningless one. What's far more important is this:
season 1990 6 11 0 735 66.81
season 1990/91 5 10 1 279 31.00
season 1991 5 9 0 79 8.77
season 1992 3 5 0 145 29.00
season 1992/93 2 4 0 63 15.75
season 1993 6 12 0 553 46.08
season 1993/94 5 9 0 510 56.66
season 1994 6 10 0 480 48.00
season 1994/95 5 10 0 407 40.70
season 1995 6 12 0 488 40.66
season 1995/96 5 8 1 390 55.71
season 1996 6 10 1 425 47.22
season 1996/97 3 4 1 325 108.33
season 1997 6 12 1 257 23.36
season 1997/98 6 11 0 199 18.09
season 1998 5 10 1 493 54.77
season 1999 2 4 0 133 33.25
season 1999/00 5 8 0 225 28.12
season 2000 7 12 0 536 44.66
season 2000/01 3 6 1 341 68.20
Overall 97 177 7 7063 41.55

TBH, I couldn't care two hoots about the series I've knocked-out - he played in 1989 when there's no way on Earth he should have because he was just out of University and the side was in total chaos, and he had a downward spiral towards the end of his career, which really doesn't matter for someone who's been excellent for 97 Tests. Nor do the series in Zimbabwe in 1996 and Australia in 1998\99 have the slightest relevance, because he was barely half-fit for either.

That, therefore, is just 2 periods of any length where he had a genuinely bad time - 1991 against West Indies, where it should be noted his back was far from in tip-top condition, and the 1997-1998 time, which, unfortunately, happened to coincide with playing 2 excellent attacks in Australia and West Indies.

Other than those, however, you might just see what I mean about sustained excellence, given that he rarely failed for any extended time.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Hah, perhaps its not luck that he is dropped more often than others.
So what do you suggest? His bat uses extended topspin, making the ball uncatchable?

Pull the other one - almost all the chances they've missed him off have been sitters, and there's no explanation other than pure chance - luck, in other words - that they almost all happen to have been off him.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
The number 37.69 is a pretty meaningless one. What's far more important is this:
season 1990 6 11 0 735 66.81
season 1990/91 5 10 1 279 31.00
season 1991 5 9 0 79 8.77
season 1992 3 5 0 145 29.00
season 1992/93 2 4 0 63 15.75
season 1993 6 12 0 553 46.08
season 1993/94 5 9 0 510 56.66
season 1994 6 10 0 480 48.00
season 1994/95 5 10 0 407 40.70
season 1995 6 12 0 488 40.66
season 1995/96 5 8 1 390 55.71
season 1996 6 10 1 425 47.22
season 1996/97 3 4 1 325 108.33
season 1997 6 12 1 257 23.36
season 1997/98 6 11 0 199 18.09
season 1998 5 10 1 493 54.77
season 1999 2 4 0 133 33.25
season 1999/00 5 8 0 225 28.12
season 2000 7 12 0 536 44.66
season 2000/01 3 6 1 341 68.20
Overall 97 177 7 7063 41.55

TBH, I couldn't care two hoots about the series I've knocked-out - he played in 1989 when there's no way on Earth he should have because he was just out of University and the side was in total chaos, and he had a downward spiral towards the end of his career, which really doesn't matter for someone who's been excellent for 97 Tests. Nor do the series in Zimbabwe in 1996 and Australia in 1998\99 have the slightest relevance, because he was barely half-fit for either.

That, therefore, is just 2 periods of any length where he had a genuinely bad time - 1991 against West Indies, where it should be noted his back was far from in tip-top condition, and the 1997-1998 time, which, unfortunately, happened to coincide with playing 2 excellent attacks in Australia and West Indies.

Other than those, however, you might just see what I mean about sustained excellence, given that he rarely failed for any extended time.
Even after taking out the series and years you mention, he averages 41...hardly 'excellence'.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
41 against the bowling he mostly had to face is indeed excellence... and there's absolutely no reason to include the games I excluded, TBH. They are as good as meaningless to the greater part of his career.

Besides, the consistency you see in those season's patterns illustrates the "sustained" bit I was talking about.
 

JBH001

International Regular
No way. he is as good as anyone as a test player. his record speaks for himself. If he is rated high, he deserves it.

He would be part of any world Test XI now.
Dude, pull the other one.
Sehwag is an over-rated flat track bully who merely took some time to be found out.
If you look at his 11 hundreds as an opener, only one of them (iirc) has been made against what can be called a great fast bowler, or a great attack (and even that was in India). The rest has been making hay whilst the sun shines on mediocre bowlers on mediocre tracks - nice work if you can get it.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
The number 37.69 is a pretty meaningless one. What's far more important is this:
season 1990 6 11 0 735 66.81
season 1990/91 5 10 1 279 31.00
season 1991 5 9 0 79 8.77
season 1992 3 5 0 145 29.00
season 1992/93 2 4 0 63 15.75
season 1993 6 12 0 553 46.08
season 1993/94 5 9 0 510 56.66
season 1994 6 10 0 480 48.00
season 1994/95 5 10 0 407 40.70
season 1995 6 12 0 488 40.66
season 1995/96 5 8 1 390 55.71
season 1996 6 10 1 425 47.22
season 1996/97 3 4 1 325 108.33
season 1997 6 12 1 257 23.36
season 1997/98 6 11 0 199 18.09
season 1998 5 10 1 493 54.77
season 1999 2 4 0 133 33.25
season 1999/00 5 8 0 225 28.12
season 2000 7 12 0 536 44.66
season 2000/01 3 6 1 341 68.20
Overall 97 177 7 7063 41.55

TBH, I couldn't care two hoots about the series I've knocked-out - he played in 1989 when there's no way on Earth he should have because he was just out of University and the side was in total chaos, and he had a downward spiral towards the end of his career, which really doesn't matter for someone who's been excellent for 97 Tests. Nor do the series in Zimbabwe in 1996 and Australia in 1998\99 have the slightest relevance, because he was barely half-fit for either.

That, therefore, is just 2 periods of any length where he had a genuinely bad time - 1991 against West Indies, where it should be noted his back was far from in tip-top condition, and the 1997-1998 time, which, unfortunately, happened to coincide with playing 2 excellent attacks in Australia and West Indies.

Other than those, however, you might just see what I mean about sustained excellence, given that he rarely failed for any extended time.
that is not the record of someone who was excellent for 97 tests however you try to spin it(and that's what you are desperately trying to do...:))...maybe he was bothered by injuries a lot, the end result though is that he had a pretty average career...one reason why someone like him "stood out" was because he was part of mostly mediocre england teams throughout the 90s....
 

Top