Do some players get under-rated sometimes on basis of nationality?

[Chubb]

ten Doeschaete is South African with Dutch ancestry, so if he wanted to try his luck in his homeland he could... but he chose to play for Holland. He is more Dutch than John Davison is Canadian, but you can't compare him to Tikolo, he wasn't produced by Holland.

 

[Burgey]

I think this issue is more prevalent when you look at players from, say, the late 90s back than it is now, simply because you can now turn on a TV anywhere and watch ODI and test series from around the world.

To give an example, for a casual Australian cricket fan, rather than a serious fan or a tragic, before the advent of pay tv, which is relatively recent, you didn't get to see a lot of players, unless they came out here to play. Accordingly your view of players from different countries is affected by how they performed out here.

For example, to a lot of Australian followers, the thought of Dravid being rated a much better player than Laxman seems odd, given how the latter has so often played so well out here (of course, Dravid had the wqonderful test series here last time too).

I would think that, as we see more and more of players from all countries, more and more people will be able to rate them based on a broader perspective than that of the past, which can only be a good thing imo.

 

[Richard]

Has always astounded me how anyone managed to (and there's no doubt some did) acquire a truly accurate global view before about 1990, when the first live overseas full-game broadcasts were made. Never mind in the pre-internet days when the only means of following overseas games was Ceefax\Teletext (even that was only invented in the early-1970s, and I don't know when it first carried things like cricket scores either) and perhaps some newspapers.

 

[howardj]

Kallis is the player who is most underrated because of nationality.

If an Indian or Australian was the only other man in the history of cricket to be bracketed with Sobers as someone who has scored 8000+ runs and taken 200+ wickets in Tests, they would be a demi-god.

 

[Chemosit]

I think one of the keys to this is exposure. not only for Associate players, but also for Test players from the 'smaller' Test nations. For a player to be considered a 'Great', most people would argue that they have to achieve great feats against the best opposition. Very few players would be able to do this consistently enough to warrant that label if they only played the odd match against said opposition. For many players, this opportunity is restricted by the lack of opposition afforded to them due to where they come from. for these players, it is not so much a perception that they are not as good, but a reality that they have never had the opportunity to prove it.

 

[andruid]

I would think that, as we see more and more of players from all countries, more and more people will be able to rate them based on a broader perspective than that of the past, which can only be a good thing imo.

It probably can be a good thing but trouble is the more and more cricket from certain parts of the world becomes easily accessible to the masses the more and more cricket outside these parameters becomes marginalised, therefore it becomes harder to make judgements on merit how good a crickets is, or is worth when the overwhelming presence or lack of presence of access to the said cricketer playing against the dominance of a limited group of other probably similarly talented cricketers who get so much more exposure to the general public through advertising endorsements and so forth. For example if for example Tendulkar despite his massive talent as a cricketer and uncanny ability to do special things on the cricket pitch owe as much of his high standing to the exposure through other means like the products he endorses. One can even argue that when compared to a cricketer of similar talent, like say Brian Lara, the reason why the fanaticism that would drive some of the more passionate Tendulkar fans to burn effigies on his performance while the case is not quite so exaggerated with Lara fans could be related to the size of their personalities outside the cricket pitch.

 

[Julian87]

This is an interesting sentiment, but I do not agree with it at all really. Saying players are rated higher if they are from Australia just makes no sense to me. If anything, they aren't rated as highly. I am going to use an example here that some people may get annoyed about, but IMO it proves my point.

Stephen Fleming is rated by many as a world class player, New Zealand's only batsman of such standing in recnt times really. He averages 39.73 in test matches and 43.78 in First Class cricket. Now this is quite a good record and would keep him in most test teams throughout the world.

Now I will compare his record to one Darren Lehmann who was abviously a class player for a long time in Australia and England, but could never hold down a long term spot in the Australian test team. Now, Lehmann averaged 44.95 with the bat in his test career and 57.83 in First Class cricket. Now he truly should be one of the champions of his era, but he isn't because of his nationality. He would have been first or second choice batsman for most countries in the world throughout the entirity of his career, but because he is Australian he was underated. People may bring up the captaincy of Fleming, but IMO, Lehmann was the best captain in state cricket Australia has seen for quite a while and would have done an awesome job at the highest level.

Another two players that are rated very differently are Dhoni and Haddin. Admittedly Haddin is yet to play test cricket, but I want to compare their records. Now Dhoni is thought of as a God by a lot of people and is already captaining India in the shortened forms of the game. Haddin averages 40.95 so far in first class cricket and that has risen quite dramatically over the last three or four seasons. Dhoni averages 34.35 in First Class cricket, but is already considered world class by many.

Now I am spinning the sentiment of the first post in this thread around completely. The players that are underated unfairly in world cricket at this present time are Australians. Because they have to average close to or more than fifty with the bat to get a look in, in the national team. And bowlers have to take a hell of a lot of wickets before they are considered as well. IMO, underated players in world cricket are the likes of Simon Katich, Brad Hodge and Matthew Elliott (I know he has only just retired) because they would most probably be considered absolute world class if from any other country.

 

[howardj]

AWTA Dhoni and, especially, Fleming are two of the most overrated cricketers going around.

EDIT: In fact, Fleming is shockingly over-rated. What has this man actually done?

EDIT 2; Although yes, he is an absolutely blue-chip bloke, as are most of the Kiwi team.

 

[andruid]

This is an interesting sentiment, but I do not agree with it at all really. Saying players are rated higher if they are from Australia just makes no sense to me. If anything, they aren't rated as highly. I am going to use an example here that some people may get annoyed about, but IMO it proves my point.

Stephen Fleming is rated by many as a world class player, New Zealand's only batsman of such standing in recnt times really. He averages 39.73 in test matches and 43.78 in First Class cricket. Now this is quite a good record and would keep him in most test teams throughout the world.

Now I will compare his record to one Darren Lehmann who was abviously a class player for a long time in Australia and England, but could never hold down a long term spot in the Australian test team. Now, Lehmann averaged 44.95 with the bat in his test career and 57.83 in First Class cricket. Now he truly should be one of the champions of his era, but he isn't because of his nationality. He would have been first or second choice batsman for most countries in the world throughout the entirity of his career, but because he is Australian he was underated. People may bring up the captaincy of Fleming, but IMO, Lehmann was the best captain in state cricket Australia has seen for quite a while and would have done an awesome job at the highest level.

Another two players that are rated very differently are Dhoni and Haddin. Admittedly Haddin is yet to play test cricket, but I want to compare their records. Now Dhoni is thought of as a God by a lot of people and is already captaining India in the shortened forms of the game. Haddin averages 40.95 so far in first class cricket and that has risen quite dramatically over the last three or four seasons. Dhoni averages 34.35 in First Class cricket, but is already considered world class by many.

Also using the very same examples you could say that the cricketers who get better ratings are the one's who are constantly playing at the highest level (Test Cricket) where they are more visible to the lay cricket fan and are thus more recognisable than their non-playing counterparts. So Fleming who is virtually undropable to New Zealand will get a better mention than Lehmann who was not necessarily a first choice start whereas Dhoni would not have the God-like status he has had he someone of the calibre of Gilchrist standing in his way to India's test team as has been Haddin's case.

Now I am spinning the sentiment of the first post in this thread around completely. The players that are underated unfairly in world cricket at this present time are Australians. Because they have to average close to or more than fifty with the bat to get a look in, in the national team. And bowlers have to take a hell of a lot of wickets before they are considered as well. IMO, underated players in world cricket are the likes of Simon Katich, Brad Hodge and Matthew Elliott (I know he has only just retired) because they would most probably be considered absolute world class if from any other country.

Like the talented Australians who do not get the appraisal they deserve because they cannot get the baggy green that would expose them to a bigger audience, one can argue that players like Steve Tikolo, Eoin Morgan, RTD, Thomas Odoyo and the like so not get the sort of recognition they deserve because the cricket they play simply does not get aired anywhere.

 

[Julian87]

Also using the very same examples you could say that the cricketers who get better ratings are the one's who are constantly playing at the highest level (Test Cricket) where they are more visible to the lay cricket fan and are thus more recognisable than their non-playing counterparts. So Fleming who is virtually undropable to New Zealand will get a better mention than Lehmann who was not necessarily a first choice start whereas Dhoni would not have the God-like status he has had he someone of the calibre of Gilchrist standing in his way to India's test team as has been Haddin's case.





Like the talented Australians who do not get the appraisal they deserve because they cannot get the baggy green that would expose them to a bigger audience, one can argue that players like Steve Tikolo, Eoin Morgan, RTD, Thomas Odoyo and the like so not get the sort of recognition they deserve because the cricket they play simply does not get aired anywhere.

Which of them are nearly as good as Darren Lehmann?

 

[andruid]

Which of them are nearly as good as Darren Lehmann?

Steve Tikolo averages 50+ in Firts class and while he may not quite be the greatest cricketer alive I feel that he, like Lehmann does not quite get the recognition he deserves because the level of cricket he operates in puts him as well as the best cricketers outside the Test world below the radar of your average cricket fan.

 

[Flem274*]

This is an interesting sentiment, but I do not agree with it at all really. Saying players are rated higher if they are from Australia just makes no sense to me. If anything, they aren't rated as highly. I am going to use an example here that some people may get annoyed about, but IMO it proves my point.

Stephen Fleming is rated by many as a world class player, New Zealand's only batsman of such standing in recnt times really. He averages 39.73 in test matches and 43.78 in First Class cricket. Now this is quite a good record and would keep him in most test teams throughout the world.

Now I will compare his record to one Darren Lehmann who was abviously a class player for a long time in Australia and England, but could never hold down a long term spot in the Australian test team. Now, Lehmann averaged 44.95 with the bat in his test career and 57.83 in First Class cricket. Now he truly should be one of the champions of his era, but he isn't because of his nationality. He would have been first or second choice batsman for most countries in the world throughout the entirity of his career, but because he is Australian he was underated. People may bring up the captaincy of Fleming, but IMO, Lehmann was the best captain in state cricket Australia has seen for quite a while and would have done an awesome job at the highest level.

Another two players that are rated very differently are Dhoni and Haddin. Admittedly Haddin is yet to play test cricket, but I want to compare their records. Now Dhoni is thought of as a God by a lot of people and is already captaining India in the shortened forms of the game. Haddin averages 40.95 so far in first class cricket and that has risen quite dramatically over the last three or four seasons. Dhoni averages 34.35 in First Class cricket, but is already considered world class by many.

Now I am spinning the sentiment of the first post in this thread around completely. The players that are underated unfairly in world cricket at this present time are Australians. Because they have to average close to or more than fifty with the bat to get a look in, in the national team. And bowlers have to take a hell of a lot of wickets before they are considered as well. IMO, underated players in world cricket are the likes of Simon Katich, Brad Hodge and Matthew Elliott (I know he has only just retired) because they would most probably be considered absolute world class if from any other country.

AWTA Dhoni and, especially, Fleming are two of the most overrated cricketers going around.

EDIT: In fact, Fleming is shockingly over-rated. What has this man actually done?

EDIT 2; Although yes, he is an absolutely blue-chip bloke, as are most of the Kiwi team.

Not taking the bait boys

WRT Gilchrist, he carried on from Flower. However I think earlier in this thread some people said he revolutionized keeping. Wrong, he was a fine keeper but he didn't change anything about keeping specifically. IMO as I said before, Steve Rixon has revolutionized keeping specifically more than anyone else I can remember.

 

[Ikki]

Warne and McGrath certainly had off days....

 

[Richard]

This is an interesting sentiment, but I do not agree with it at all really. Saying players are rated higher if they are from Australia just makes no sense to me. If anything, they aren't rated as highly. I am going to use an example here that some people may get annoyed about, but IMO it proves my point.

Stephen Fleming is rated by many as a world class player, New Zealand's only batsman of such standing in recnt times really. He averages 39.73 in test matches and 43.78 in First Class cricket. Now this is quite a good record and would keep him in most test teams throughout the world.

Now I will compare his record to one Darren Lehmann who was abviously a class player for a long time in Australia and England, but could never hold down a long term spot in the Australian test team. Now, Lehmann averaged 44.95 with the bat in his test career and 57.83 in First Class cricket. Now he truly should be one of the champions of his era, but he isn't because of his nationality. He would have been first or second choice batsman for most countries in the world throughout the entirity of his career, but because he is Australian he was underated. People may bring up the captaincy of Fleming, but IMO, Lehmann was the best captain in state cricket Australia has seen for quite a while and would have done an awesome job at the highest level.

Another two players that are rated very differently are Dhoni and Haddin. Admittedly Haddin is yet to play test cricket, but I want to compare their records. Now Dhoni is thought of as a God by a lot of people and is already captaining India in the shortened forms of the game. Haddin averages 40.95 so far in first class cricket and that has risen quite dramatically over the last three or four seasons. Dhoni averages 34.35 in First Class cricket, but is already considered world class by many.

Now I am spinning the sentiment of the first post in this thread around completely. The players that are underated unfairly in world cricket at this present time are Australians. Because they have to average close to or more than fifty with the bat to get a look in, in the national team. And bowlers have to take a hell of a lot of wickets before they are considered as well. IMO, underated players in world cricket are the likes of Simon Katich, Brad Hodge and Matthew Elliott (I know he has only just retired) because they would most probably be considered absolute world class if from any other country.

Dhoni is patently a far better ODI player than Haddin, and it's almost certain to remain that way. And that's all most people would tell you, too. No-one who knows much about cricket will ever claim he's a better long-form player than Haddin.

I also don't think too many people would doubt that Lehmann was a better player than Fleming. If just one or two little things had happened differently, Lehmann would almost certainly have had a long, hugely profitable Test career. As it was, he had just a slightly disappointing postscript-style (but still excellent in many ways) Test career. However, the fact is, Fleming's Test career has been a far better one than Lehmann's. That's mostly just misfortune on Lehmann's part, but it's the way it is nonetheless.

 

[sledger]

AWTA Dhoni and, especially, Fleming are two of the most overrated cricketers going around.

EDIT: In fact, Fleming is shockingly over-rated. What has this man actually done?

EDIT 2; Although yes, he is an absolutely blue-chip bloke, as are most of the Kiwi team.

the guy is obscenely overated imo, does not deserve to play test cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, McGrath had quite a few less than Warne though.

 

[Ikki]

Yea, McGrath had quite a few less than Warne though.

He had less brilliant ones too.

 

[yaju]

Yes, some players do get under-rated.

Had I been born in Somalia, I'd have been playing for the national team.

 

[andruid]

Yes, some players do get under-rated.

Had I been born in Somalia, I'd have been playing for the national team.

Yeah whatever.... Anyway even if Somalia were to produce the next Bradman we would probably never know cos well, Hang On..... Somalia don't even have a central government leave alone a cricket team!!!!

My point is even if Bradman were reincarnate in some Bermudan cricketer we would necer have the opportunity to witness that kid's great talent cos no one gives a s*** what happens in cricket outside Test nations

 

[BoyBrumby]

My point is even if Bradman were reincarnate in some Bermudan cricketer we would necer have the opportunity to witness that kid's great talent cos no one gives a s*** what happens in cricket outside Test nations

Yeah we would. He'd come to England (Bermuda is still a British territory) & do his 4 years' residence and be straight into the test team after.

Ed Joyce (who's hardly Bradman the second, but certainly a decent first class performer) did the same (except from the "straight into the test team" bit, obv).