My International OverRated XI

[Goughy]

This is my Team of overrated cricketers from around the world (primarily for Test Cricket). One of the keepers is playing as a batter. Actually, it is a pretty damn good team.

All the players on this list are VERY good, however it is a list of those whose credit is above what they deserve.

Jayasuriya
Will forever be remembered as a revolutionary who changed the way ODI cricket was played. A legend whos legacy will out shine his good but unremarkable record (42 in Tests, 32 in ODI)

Gayle
Internationally known and feared he has managed to combine incredible innings with just an above average test average of 38 in tests.

Lara
The most losing player in test history. Fills his boots in draws and historically WI perform better without him in the team.

Tendulkar
Just under the last 2 years played 16 tests with 1 century at av of under 30 (29.86). The constant comparisons to Bradman are at best a little embarrassing at worst insulting. If you are compared this highly you must be overrated.

Symonds
Would have been a great England player. Very talented but with weaknesses and flaws. Looks out of his depth surrounded by the other super-human Aussies. A supposed allrounder who averages about 1 wicket per game in both Test and first class cricket both at an average over 36.

Afridi
The greatest entertainer. The crowds flock to see him play and administrators love him as he means revenue. Played for the ICC World XI despite an ODI average of under 25 and the inability to adapt his game to suit different situations makes him the poster child for style over substance. Never able to stamp his authority on Test cricket and played only 23 games in 8 yrs since debut.

Taibu
Was often called Zims only world class player and the jewel in Zim cricket. Well 24 tests with 1 century and an average of under 30 is not world class to me. High profile due to the lack of any other talent and would prob not make any other test team squad.

Boucher
Loved in South Africa, played ICC World XI. Has had a long and decent career. However, SA cricket loves him and weakens its test team by playing 2 keepers instead of another batter.

Vettori
Bowl av of 35 per wicket and makes ICC World XI

Lee
I love watching Brett Lee but his profile and advertising revenue far outweigh his statistical achievements. Redefining the allrounder category as a bowler who can bat a bit but can't get into line and is destined to make useful runs rather than a weight of runs.

Harmison
Talent and ability with traditional English softness. Great when he is great but when he is bad I would rather see Trescothick mark his run up out.


I wish Atherton was still playing as I would love to have included him on the list.

I am sure people will disagree, any other Overrated XIs out there?

Remember these are not bad players but those whose profile and standing is above what they deserve.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Athers' did okay in a period of very strong bowling, not overrated IMO. Interesting list though Goughy.

 

[Barney Rubble]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but you've got to take into account that averages can only tell you so much.

 

[Goughy]

but you've got to take into account that averages can only tell you so much.

I agree but they help cut throught the hype surrounding guys. Should it matter when rating a cricketer how the press hype them, how high profile their endorsement deals are, if they are good looking, if they have a snazzy hair cut (ahem Jimmy A), how hard they hit the ball etc?

It shouldn't but it does. Many think high profile equals high ability. Often it does, but this list is about those whose profile outstrips their contributions. Using stats can help strip away the hype and publicity and make true observations.

Stats can only tell you so much but its a better judge than newspaper column inches which unfortunatly how many people still make their judgments.

Lara and Tendulkar have the highest profiles in the world but I would think that many like myself who watch a lot of cricket would take Inzi, Ponting and maybe Kallis over them.

 

[Barney Rubble]

I agree but they help cut throught the hype surrounding guys. Should it matter when rating a cricketer how the press hype them, how high profile their endorsement deals are, if they are good looking, if they have a snazzy hair cut (ahem Jimmy A), how hard they hit the ball etc?

It shouldn't but it does. Many think high profile equals high ability. Often it does, but this list is about those whose profile outstrips their contributions. Using stats can help strip away the hype and publicity and make true observations.

Stats can only tell you so much but its a better judge than newspaper column inches which unfortunatly how many people still make their judgments.

Lara and Tendulkar have the highest profiles in the world but I would think that many like myself who watch a lot of cricket would take Inzi, Ponting and maybe Kallis over them.

Good points, but I do think there are certain things which have to be considered apart from a player's average - how dependable are they in a crisis, how adaptable they are to situations, how likely they are to win you a match on their own, how they inspire their team-mates etc.

For example, you mentioned earlier that Lara is the most losing player in Test history - true, statistically, but for the last three to four years he's been playing in a West Indian side that's ranged from slightly below average, to terrible.

Bottom line is, averages tell you a lot about a player, and are a fairly good way of judging how good they are at face value - but to determine who's over-rated and who's not, it basically comes down to an individual interpretation of the context in which each average is placed. It's all about circumstances.

 

[Richard]

Stats tell you a great deal but only if you use them carefully, not just taking overall careers as overall careers and ignoring the many details that are concealed within.
IMO Atherton certainly wasn't overrated - picked prematurely (like quite a few) in 1989 (just a couple of months out of Uni - said a lot about the chaos of that summer), and (like many) had a bit of a downhill run at the end (averaged 23.57 in his last 19 innings). He also suffered from his back and IMO 3 series (West Indies 1991, Zimbabwe 1996\97 and Australia 1998\99) would be best wiped completely from his record as all they show is you can't bat if your back's barely moving, they say nothing whatsoever about his ability.
IMO of the current lot it's a toss-up between Taibu and Harmison.

 

[Goughy]

The Atherton comment was a throw away comment really, but I will tell you why I put it.

Atherton was defined as a defensive batsman with a strong technique. When he arrived on the scene there was the talk of the next Boycott.

However, one thing happened (no, Im not talking about his back though Im sure it did make a contribution) bowlers around the world reaized he had 2 holes in his technique that would never be corrected.

Defensivly on the back foot he was ALWAYS squared up and did not bring his bat through properly. Guys like Ambrose and McGrath ruthlessly exploited it. It came to the stage that it was not even a competition.

He never fixed the problem, so later in his career he decided to compusivly hook the short ball. Set a man back, bowl the short one and bobs your uncle. Now in order to fix one problem he had created a 2nd.

Atherton was hyped as a technical and defensive batmen and it was these aspects in a couple of areas that let him down that caused the mediocre career.

Hyped as something he was not=Overrated

 

[Richard]

When did Atherton constantly Hook?
The only time I can think of where he did it much was The Ashes 1998\99, when his back stopped him from ducking.
Most of the time (see the Donald duel 1998) he was very effective at parrying, evading and ducking.
If you mean he wasn't as good as Boycott - no, he wasn't, but did anyone seriously believe he was going to be (genuine question, I'm too young to remember it)? If so, I think they were clutching at straws (not un-understandible after '85\86-'89).
And I don't think it's really fair to say he was overrated because some people thought he was going to be another Boycott.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I never believed any hype. Boycotts' and Dravids' don't come along very often. Atherton averaged 40+ for alot of his career, for an opening bat that is pretty good, particularly in that era of bowling, IMO. I always rated him as a "fairly decent" opening bat, and I think many others would agree.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

When did Atherton constantly Hook?
The only time I can think of where he did it much was The Ashes 1998\99, when his back stopped him from ducking.
Most of the time (see the Donald duel 1998) he was very effective at parrying, evading and ducking.
If you mean he wasn't as good as Boycott - no, he wasn't, but did anyone seriously believe he was going to be (genuine question, I'm too young to remember it)? If so, I think they were clutching at straws (not un-understandible after '85\86-'89).
And I don't think it's really fair to say he was overrated because some people thought he was going to be another Boycott.

Yeah, it was FEC not FEB.

 

[Richard]

Fooking Excuse (for) Boycott?

 

[Autobahn]

You can't use batting stats to say Taibu is overrated when he's really a specialist keeper who has to bowl far too much because of his team's poor bowling, in fact after all that i'm susprised he has anything left for batting.

I mean was Bob taylor overrated then since he wasn't a Gilchrist clone?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Fooking Excuse (for) Boycott?

Aye

 

[Richard]

I never believed any hype. Boycotts' and Dravids' don't come along very often. Atherton averaged 40+ for alot of his career, for an opening bat that is pretty good, particularly in that era of bowling, IMO. I always rated him as a "fairly decent" opening bat, and I think many others would agree.

As I say - Atherton's record 1990-2000 is good enough as it is, and when you remove West Indies 1991, Zimbabwe 1996\97 and Australia 1998\99 it becomes even better. Then you think about the fact he faced McDermott\Reid\Hughes\Reiffel\McGrath\Fleming\Gillespie\Warne some of the time, then Wasim\Waqar\Mushtaq\Saqlain at others, then Donald\Pollock\De Villiers at others, then Vaas, then Bishop\Ambrose\Walsh\Benjamin... it gets pretty impressive.
I too always rated him a high-quality player - not in the very top class, no, nor even quite in the Edrich\Washbrook league. But good, nonetheless. And certainly his overall career average doesn't do him justice, because in 3 series he played when barely quarter-fit, and he was picked prematurely and went downhill at the end like most.

 

[Richard]

You can't use batting stats to say Taibu is overrated when he's really a specialist keeper who has to bowl far too much because of his team's poor bowling, in fact after all that i'm susprised he has anything left for batting.

I mean was Bob taylor overrated then since he wasn't a Gilchrist clone?

Plenty of people talk of Taibu in glowing terms - yes, he's a very good wicketkeeper, but people talk as if he were more than that, when in reality he's a decent Test number-seven... at best.

 

[Goughy]

You can't use batting stats to say Taibu is overrated when he's really a specialist keeper who has to bowl far too much because of his team's poor bowling, in fact after all that i'm susprised he has anything left for batting.

I mean was Bob taylor overrated then since he wasn't a Gilchrist clone?

Bob Taylor was never Englands best bat. Taibu for a time was Zims.

Taibu was not a specialist keeper at all. He was the heart of the batting and his profile around the world was not based on his stumping ability or lack of byes conceeded. His batting was the area that seperated him from his contemporaries and created his reputation. He was the one player during his time as captian who could consistently make double figures and that suddenly made his a star in a weak team.

Also the fact that he was (an prob still is) a decent bowler prove he wasn't just a specialist keeper.

 

[Autobahn]

Bob Taylor was never Englands best bat. Taibu for a time was Zims.

Taibu was not a specialist keeper at all. He was the heart of the batting and his profile around the world was not based on his stumping ability or lack of byes conceeded. His batting was the area that seperated him from his contemporaries and created his reputation. He was the one player during his time as captian who could consistently make double figures and that suddenly made his a star in a weak team.

Also the fact that he was (an prob still is) a decent bowler prove he wasn't just a specialist keeper.

I don't get why you still think people overrate him

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lara is responsible for the West Indies losing, why? Anyone who rates him as good enough to sustain a winning record for the West Indies single-handedly is a fool. No player is capable of doing that much.

 

[Richard]

Indeed "being in a losing team" is often a misnomer.
If you're not contributing and your team's losing, you're likely to be out before you've played much (unless you're Graeme Wood or someone).
Brian Lara can't be blamed for West Indies' defeats, any more than it's utterly meaningless that Stewart played in more defeats than any other Englishman.
Lara has single-handedly turned enough games as it is.

 

[Goughy]

Lara is responsible for the West Indies losing, why? Anyone who rates him as good enough to sustain a winning record for the West Indies single-handedly is a fool. No player is capable of doing that much.

Where does that say you are from...Ah Trinidad it makes sense now

Im not saying that Lara is responsible for the West Indies losing. However, in many sports a recognised sign of greatness is how you raise the performance of those around you. Look at Imran in '92 World Cup, How Border changed his game and became the lynchpin in turning an average Aus team around, How the England team without Flintoff lacks much more than batting and bowling but presence.

Lara has never redefined himself to benefit a poor WI team. In fact his teammates perfom better when he is not in the team. This is an unfortunate legacy and reflects badly.

I do obviously think Lara is a fantastic player and he has played a couple of unbeleivable knocks (one or 2 are upthere with the best ever). However, he has been elevated to a near God like status by so many people that he cannot possibley live up to the levels expected and therefore is overrated by many.

In fact my biggest issue with Lara is that his stats are padded more than virtually any other batsmen by what happens in draws. He avs 75 in drawn games and many runs have been scored in meaningless games.