Athlai
Not Terrible
Agreed, Williamson would be better than Bradman if observed side by side. A bold point you've made but I'm with you. Go get 'em.
-
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.
What does this site underrate/overrate?
- Thread starter 91Jmay
- Start date
Brian Lara
School Boy/Girl Captain
Haha, Sir Don needs to step aside.
Seriously though, I'm as guilty as anyone at romancing in the history of sports, but I always feel you get 2 types of sports fans in most scenarios. Most people who favour modern day batsmen tend not to be people who frequent forums and the like and their opinions stem from ignorance of the history of the sport more than anything. And then there are we romantics who revel in the study in the game we love and tend to give a batsman from 1900 the benefit of the doubt over a modern day great in many scenarios, even though all common sense and logic would point towards the opposite more than likely being true.
There is no right or wrong of course, just my thoughts
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is especially apparent in CW drafts where some old timers seem to be put on a pedestal ahead of almost any post 2012 player, with the possible exception of Dale Steyn. It's a psychological thing... some of those old historical names just seem to look better on the team sheet, it's apparent in the draft voting. So when it comes to drafts, tactically speaking, if two players are relatively even, take the oldest one...
I think it is the romanticising thing.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
I think a lot of opinions are formed when you actually watch people play rather than make opinions on spreadsheets. Which other bowler of the last 10 years would you rate on par with Wasim, McGrath, Ambrose, Hadlee, Imran, Holding, Marshall etc?
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah only Steyn in terms of bowling sure, but I was meaning more generally speaking. For a random example, the likes of say a Dennis Amiss seems to get drafted ahead of say David Warner as an opener.... I'm not sure he had as much impact on Tests as Warner has.
smash84
The Tiger King
Draft picks are not the ideal way to judge opinions. It's very easy to forget players and end up picking one that pops up in your mind.
CricAddict
International Coach
Overrated (Probably rightly so): Don Bradman
Underrated: Limited overs cricket
Underrated: Limited overs cricket
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This site, not India.
CricAddict
International Coach
Yes, I meant the same. For India, it's the reverse.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Hmmm funny that. I get the impression its the other way around.
Howe_zat
Audio File
I think the more reasoned line of thought - and I know most regular posters on the subject here agree with me - is that the standard mostly improves over time, but when it comes to rating players against each other it doesn't really matter.Seriously though, I'm as guilty as anyone at romancing in the history of sports, but I always feel you get 2 types of sports fans in most scenarios. Most people who favour modern day batsmen tend not to be people who frequent forums and the like and their opinions stem from ignorance of the history of the sport more than anything. And then there are we romantics who revel in the study in the game we love and tend to give a batsman from 1900 the benefit of the doubt over a modern day great in many scenarios, even though all common sense and logic would point towards the opposite more than likely being true.
There is no right or wrong of course, just my thoughts
Jack Hobbs probably wouldn't be able to play anything like as well as he did if he suddenly got transported to the present day, because the standard of sport generally increases with professionalism. But he doesn't have to because time travel isn't a relevant part of his job. His job was to win matches in his time and he was amazing at that.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah this is common sense
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
ImpatientLime
International Regular
overrated - sangakarra as a wicketkeeper/batsman. he is matt prior tier when combining both facets.
underrated - michael vaughans elegance at the crease. he makes vvs and mark waugh look like a katich/chanderpaul love child.
underrated - michael vaughans elegance at the crease. he makes vvs and mark waugh look like a katich/chanderpaul love child.
anil1405
International Captain
Interesting. Something tells me I gotta agree with you on this. Maybe its coz Vaughan plays those elegant strokes in a more aggressive fashion as compared to VVS n Junior.
Brian Lara
School Boy/Girl Captain
True, but I firmly believe that a great in a respective era would be great in any era (except for maybe the when the game was in its infancy). Transport Jack Hobbs to modern day with the flat tracks, weak bowlers and huge bats and I do think he would perform at an exceptional level still.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
If you transport Jack Hobbs as a kid and he grows up learning the cricket of today then yeah.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
I like how SJS used to make the chain of batsmen whose careers overlapped, all the way from Hobbs through to modern day. Shows that the fact that the greats are the greats holds out - and that the differences between eras (side by side) mean that these players comparable - although when you start talking too far apart (Hobbs to Tendulkar, etc.) then it's probably not worth it.