Most overrated cricketer

[ataraxia]

Crowe – a poor man's Pietersen.

Not false.

 

[Johan]

Not false.

I was talking about Martin Crowe and Kevin Pietersen by the way, don't try to use a Jeffrey Crowe loophole.

 

[ataraxia]

I was talking about Martin Crowe and Kevin Pietersen by the way, don't try to use a Jeffrey Crowe loophole.

I understand. I meant it as you meant it. However, on a review of Martin Crowe and Kevin Pietersen's records I have found that your opinion (and mine of a few minutes ago) is actually categorically false. Sorry to disappoint.

Pietersen > Dave Crowe.

 

[Johan]

I understand. I meant it as you meant it. However, on a review of Martin Crowe and Kevin Pietersen's records I have found that your opinion (and mine of a few minutes ago) is actually categorically false. Sorry to disappoint.

Pietersen averages 47-48 while Crowe is at 44 or 45, Checkmate.

 

[ataraxia]

Pietersen averages 47-48 while Crowe is at 44 or 45, Checkmate.

Pietersen played for 8.5 years. Over Crowe's 9-year peak (and this isn't a product of unreasonable statistical manipulation, it's actually just his test career minus a bad start and a bad end) he averaged 57, which is quite a lot more than 47. I believe it's about, let's see 1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9–10 runs per dismissal more. You have succeeded in convincing me that I have seriously underrated Crowe all this time.

 

[Johan]

Pietersen played for 8.5 years. Over Crowe's 9-year peak (and this isn't a product of unreasonable statistical manipulation, it's actually just his test career minus a bad start and a bad end) he averaged 57, which is quite a lot more than 47. I believe it's about, let's see 1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9–10 runs per dismissal more. You have succeeded in convincing me that I have seriously underrated Crowe all this time.

Ok Daniel Alexander.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Was that when he stayed in the dressing room at the Oval after Darrell Hair accused Pakistan of ball tampering?

Very good.

His incredible innings to beat NZ in the 92 WC semifinal. It would still be a great T20 knock today.

 

[ataraxia]

Ok Daniel Alexander.

Just admit that I'm right.

 

[Johan]

Pietersen played for 8.5 years. Over Crowe's 9-year peak (and this isn't a product of unreasonable statistical manipulation, it's actually just his test career minus a bad start and a bad end) he averaged 57, which is quite a lot more than 47. I believe it's about, let's see 1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9–10 runs per dismissal more. You have succeeded in convincing me that I have seriously underrated Crowe all this time.

learning a strategy from you, now I'll cite this in any Kohli comparison and use the rest of his career and the 1981 WI tour as just bonus, Thank You for the Trick.

 

[ataraxia]

learning a strategy from you, now I'll cite this in any Kohli comparison and use the rest of his career and the 1981 WI tour as just bonus, Thank You for the Trick.

It's perfectly reasonable. I do rate Gooch decently because he played for 20 years. He's definitely better than Pietersen. It's just that I've no idea why you rate him like the God of Cricket apart from English bias and wanking to machismo (for avoidance of doubt I have no idea if Gooch had any machismo).

 

[Johan]

It's perfectly reasonable. I do rate Gooch decently because he played for 20 years. He's definitely better than Pietersen. It's just that I've no idea why you rate him like the God of Cricket apart from English bias and wanking to machismo (for avoidance of doubt I have no idea if Gooch had any machismo).

I mean he's not a god of Cricket or anything but many rate him higher than his average suggests largely because of his performances against all the great bowlers of his era with the exception of Dennis Lillee in early career.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Disagree.

Those are good stats for that era and if he'd been even adequate between the wickets his average and s/r would both be even better. He also produced the greatest performance in Pakistan's greatest ever moment in cricket history.

SR was still low. Not being adequate between the wickets is a limitation. Also his World Cup stats overall is a disgrace.

 

[ataraxia]

I mean he's not a god of Cricket or anything but many rate him higher than his average suggests largely because of his performances against all the great bowlers of his era with the exception of Dennis Lillee.

It's not exactly the most valuable pastime to bash the greatest bowlers of all time because they're not exactly commonplace but I do agree it's better than hitting Max Walker. But why's he better than Amarnath?

 

[Johan]

It's not exactly the most valuable pastime to bash the greatest bowlers of all time because they're not exactly commonplace but I do agree it's better than hitting Max Walker. But why's he better than Amarnath?

tougher batting position, an effectively longer and more continous career, better performance against actual full-strength WI and higher overall career output.

 

[ataraxia]

he's not a pom.

Okay then, interesting argument but I'm not sure I agree.

 

[Johan]

Okay then, interesting argument but I'm not sure I agree.

Damn Kiwis, my most hated fruit by far.

 

[ataraxia]

Damn Kiwis, my most hated fruit by far.

Aha! they're not called that in Kiwiland.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

SR was still low.

Not much lower than Mark Waugh an ODI ATG, and the same as Michael Bevan who was the 5th best ODI bat of all time.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Not much lower than Mark Waugh an ODI ATG, and the same as Michael Bevan who was the 5th best ODI bat of all time.

Same logic shall apply to Dravid (avg - 39 SR - 71) and Kallis (avg - 44 SR - 73) … just a small difference in era and Kallis has a good and Dravid a very good WC record.

Waugh SR is 77…and Inzamam 74. Small difference in era and even if that is not considered Waugh played in more difficult wkts than Inzamam’s flat tops and Waugh has an excellent WC Record.
Inzamam averages in his 20s in WC. Waugh also held the record for 3rd most 100s in ODI once behind Tendulkar and Anwar.

Bevan SR was below 70 because he had to anchor the innings many times and mostly led to match winning ones and above all he averages 53 in an era were none including Tendulkar averaged 45!

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Dravid - won Wisden poll for Greatest Indian batsman.

Kohli - easy era inflated stats makes people believe he is on par with Sachin / Viv / AB.
Comparatively slow, Not a single Good WC. Statistically one league below AB when they were playing together ( and Kohli was in his prime during that period )

Warne - super duper flop against India and in West Indies. Considered by many as Greatest cricketer since Sobers. (Even in his own team Gilly, McGrath > Warne )
Getting selected in ODI AT 11s - he is nowhere near Saqlain or Murali.

Kallis - features in many AT ODI 11s - actually it is better for a strong team to play with just 10 players than letting Kallis destroy the momentum and spirit of the team with his ultra slow batting.

Kohli - Not a Single good WC!!!!!

Kallis - if you made South Africa agree to that idea during 1998 Knockout Trophy, then South Africa’s entire momentum would be 0 cups!