Most underrated and overrated players in the world?

[tooextracool]

Yes, and he exploited the seam-friendly conditions very well, as per usual.
I've never said I know much about McGrath pre-2001, but I do know quite a bit about him post-2001.

you've gone on to claim that hes not a great bowler based on less than 1/5th of his career, part of which he was extremely poor in. the times when he has bowled well you've termed it as an anomaly. if we were to decide whether someone was good or not based on picking any 20 tests, theres never been a great player in the entire history of cricket.

 

[Richard]

or maybe you should get some grey matter?

Eh?

and ive claimed that hogg is brilliant where?

You've said he's extremely underrated, and most people think he's better than rubbish. Hence he's not particularly underrated.

 

[Richard]

you've gone on to claim that hes not a great bowler based on less than 1/5th of his career, part of which he was extremely poor in. the times when he has bowled well you've termed it as an anomaly. if we were to decide whether someone was good or not based on picking any 20 tests, theres never been a great player in the entire history of cricket.

Yep, true - maybe I should have said he's not been anywhere near as good as assumed in the 2001-2005 period.
I do still think it's not at all illogical to deduce that what was the case here was the case before, too.

 

[tooextracool]

In his career of any worth (when he came back in 2000 he was clearly a nothing bowler and had been destroyed by injury) he played 22 games, 9 of which were WC99; that's 41% rounded-up..

he was rubbish before, and after, how had he changed?

In WC99, meanwhile, he was hammered only by Pakistan - even then the 2nd only amounted to 4.56-an-over...

and the first one amounted to 6.4 !! the 2nd one would have resulted in the same thrashing had PA not tried to get themselves set so that they could get to 241 comfortably.
not counting his performances against b'desh, zim and the like, his ER stands at 4.34, and if thats the only time in his entire career where hes actually been somewhat decent, its horrible. not to mention of course that you've already claimed that anything above 4.2 is extremely poor even if its not as poor as being over 4.5.

No, it was something where I didn't say exactly what I meant quite as well as I could have. And no, I don't like it when people try to use that sort of thing against me.

no you cant just type random garbage like that and say that you didnt mean it. as far as im concerned, i could type in something as stupid as rikki clarke is a better all rounder than flintoff, and the next day say that only a fool would not be able to figure out what i was talking about.

 

[tooextracool]

Yep, true - maybe I should have said he's not been anywhere near as good as assumed in the 2001-2005 period.
I do still think it's not at all illogical to deduce that what was the case here was the case before, too.

obviously not, because if he hasnt bowled well in the worst phase of his career, it obviously means he was doing the same before that.

 

[tooextracool]

Eh?.

brain material sherlock.

You've said he's extremely underrated, and most people think he's better than rubbish. Hence he's not particularly underrated.

most people think hes rubbish. i think hes particularly useful when he plays in conditions that suit him. hence hes underrated.

 

[marc71178]

Eh?

It's a phrase...

No, it's not, it's fact.

Keep digging.

 

[marc71178]

Frustration leads to brain-explosions in Test-cricket only for those who've got the wrong mental approach.

Which means that every person in International Cricket has the wrong mental approach then...

Or maybe you might be wrong?

 

[username1234]

most overated player= Shane Watson
Most underated= lance kluesner

 

[ReallyCrazy]

i shld have been more specific...tendulkar is a very gd one day player, and is probably a better one day batsman than dravid....but we at CW are real cricket fans, and so we are looking at the real game, test cricket. where dravid reigns supreme alongside BCL

ummm you seem to have a very short memory. Sachin Tendulkar has been playing test cricket since 1989 when he was 16 years old. And now its been 16 years since he made his debut. For so many years, he's been talked about as the best in the world. He has been consistent for most of his career. Lara's test average dipped below 50 just 3 years back.

Yes right now, he is not as good as he was. I'll also probably agree that both Lara and Dravid outshine him ATM but taking all their total careers into consideration, Sachin comes out as the best.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Overrated: I'll be crucified, but I reckon Harmison. Ripping apart hapless Windies and Kiwis does not a paceman make. He might be a form player, but he hasn't impressed me against a formidable Test nation.

Underrated: Yousuf Youhana. A Test average of damn near 50 and he's always been regarded as Inzy's understudy.
I also think MacGill got a raw deal.

 

[Richard]

Overrated: I'll be crucified, but I reckon Harmison. Ripping apart hapless Windies and Kiwis does not a paceman make.

It depends on how he does it - if he does it by bowling extremely well, it most certainly does. If he does it by bowling very few wicket-taking deliveries (as in Harmison's case), it doesn't.

Underrated: Yousuf Youhana. A Test average of damn near 50 and he's always been regarded as Inzy's understudy.

Maybe that's because his Test-average is actually 42.55 (that average of 251 against Bangladesh sure makes a difference), and that he averages 29.6 against Australia, 24.5 against Sri Lanka and 16.85 against South Africa?
All his runs have come against the weak attacks of Zimbabwe, West Indies and New Zealand (and by and large on incredibly flat pitches), and he's scored very heavily against England at home - but not, amazingly enough, in England.
Youhana is one of the most overrated batsmen ever - he's certainly the one who's benefited most from Bangladesh.

 

[Richard]

Which means that every person in International Cricket has the wrong mental approach then...

Or maybe you might be wrong?

Because every batsman has got out cheaply when McGrath's bowling, haven't they?

 

[Richard]

Keep digging.

Keep ducking, it won't change the fact that it's fact.

 

[Richard]

most people think hes rubbish. i think hes particularly useful when he plays in conditions that suit him. hence hes underrated.

The perception I've got is not that he's rubbish, it's the usual "he plays for Australia regularly so he must be OK" stuff.

 

[Richard]

obviously not, because if he hasnt bowled well in the worst phase of his career, it obviously means he was doing the same before that.

I've never heard anyone else say that 2001-2005 is the worst phrase in McGrath's career.

 

[Richard]

he was rubbish before, and after, how had he changed?

He wasn't rubbish before.
Simple.

not counting his performances against b'desh, zim and the like

Oh, come on! Even you've admitted Zimbabwe were ODI-class before 2000, so you can't take out games against them in WC99 and before.

his ER stands at 4.34, and if thats the only time in his entire career where hes actually been somewhat decent, its horrible. not to mention of course that you've already claimed that anything above 4.2 is extremely poor even if its not as poor as being over 4.5.

Not counting the games after 1999 when he was very badly injured, his ER stands at 4.38, not terrible given a remarkable average of 18.83. Even when you get rid of the games against Scotland and Bangladesh it's 20.68 at 4.6-an-over - the economy-rate's poor but the average is so exceptional that he can still be called a pretty useful bowler.
And you still haven't adressed the fact that most of his meaningful career was that part - so it's not like it was a small segment.

no you cant just type random garbage like that and say that you didnt mean it. as far as im concerned, i could type in something as stupid as rikki clarke is a better all rounder than flintoff, and the next day say that only a fool would not be able to figure out what i was talking about.

Depends how clearly it was said - maybe you need to make a little more allowance and not try to jump on anything that could be interpreted to be incorrect, then there might - just might - be a few less long-post wars.

 

[tooextracool]

The perception I've got is not that he's rubbish, it's the usual "he plays for Australia regularly so he must be OK" stuff.

no most people, including australians think hes rubbish, even though hes good enough to make their ODI side.

 

[tooextracool]

I've never heard anyone else say that 2001-2005 is the worst phrase in McGrath's career.

no its not. but the period that included the series against NZ and the WI was. but of course since you missed half of the rest of the series, and consider the other half to be seamer friendly wickets, anomalies and what not, it only leaves those 2 poor series, which you desperately cling on to to suggest that mcgrath isnt a great bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

He wasn't rubbish before.
Simple. .

as explained by his fabulous ER of 5.0

Oh, come on! Even you've admitted Zimbabwe were ODI-class before 2000, so you can't take out games against them in WC99 and before.

no i cant, but i can damn sure take out games that were on complete seamer friendly tracks, which this game most certainly was on.

Not counting the games after 1999 when he was very badly injured, his ER stands at 4.38, not terrible given a remarkable average of 18.83. Even when you get rid of the games against Scotland and Bangladesh it's 20.68 at 4.6-an-over - the economy-rate's poor but the average is so exceptional that he can still be called a pretty useful bowler..

oh shut up, 4.6 is rubbish at any point of your career irrespective of the average. had he not played on those seamer friendly wickets in the world cup, his average would have been as disgraceful as his test average.

And you still haven't adressed the fact that most of his meaningful career was that part - so it's not like it was a small segment.

it was 1 series! on a bunch of seamer friendly wickets, and even then when you remove performances against clearly inferior sides and clearly seamer friendly wickets its still poor. as i said earlier, he was rubbish before the wc and rubbish after, he was simply what you claim bichel was, peaked at the right time before displaying his mediocrity again.

Depends how clearly it was said - maybe you need to make a little more allowance and not try to jump on anything that could be interpreted to be incorrect, then there might - just might - be a few less long-post wars.

maybe you need to learn to type, instead of coming up with random garbage whenever you feel like and trying to get away with it. foolish comments such as the australian side bar hayden arent especially good players of spin, was simply insulting the likes of martyn and katich, and its even more insulting when it comes from people like you who'd never watched either of them play spin.