SS "Most overrated batsmen of all time: All of them"

[Ikki]

Australian pitch conditions may also have hindered Warne although I think this argument (as mentioned by Kaz many times) overstated. As I have said before, Australia has produced arguably the three greatest leg spinners of all time along with a number of good 'lesser' spinners. Therefore the argument that Australia is not conducive to spin argument is, I think, flawed, or at least suspect. Hence I dont think that Warne has (comparatively) had the mountain to climb that Indian quicks or quicks in India, for example, have traditionally had. Nevertheless, the fact that he has had few surfaces that directly assist him (like perhaps and most famously the SCG) as a spin bowler is certainly something to keep in mind.

They do have 3 of the greatest spinners ever...but they are some 6 decades apart in terms of career. The pitches have not remained the same, they've also been covered.

 

[pasag]

That's not what I'm asking though TC.

Pasag specifically said that the fact that Warne would lift in important matches is why he's rated so highly. Let's ignore the fact its Warne, and go the hypothetical AFL player.

I'd rather a Nathan Buckley who would do it for his team every match, rather than a Brendan Fevola, who when motivated, will absolutely dominate, but at other times is absolutely cold.

Consistency > rising to the occasion when it 'really' matters. I don't think you can argue that.

What is obviously better, is someone who can do both, but my main point is Warne rising to the occasion may make him great, but the fact, if true, that he didn't perform at domestic level is hardly a reason for his greatness. That's what I heavily disagree with in Pasag's statement.

Sorry mate, yours and Richards response to my posts are complete rubbish. Did I ever say that Warne is > than anybody else? All I alluded to was his greatness in that he was a big time performer in that he'd lift a level when it mattered. Did I saying anything about consistency or compare him to people who were more? Same thing with me praising Gilchrist for his WC final efforts, wasn't in good form leading into the WC final but really showed his greatness with that knock. Would it make sense for you to come and say how can I say that when Hayden had a great WC and was incredibly consisten throughout it when I never said Gilchrist had a better WC than Hayden?

And let's get real here, Warne was a great player, who was always great in Tests but seemed to have an extra gear and thrived on the moment. We're not talking about some dire player who would play one good game in 15 ala Afridi.

Not really intrested in continuing this though, don't have the time for one, it was a throw away post but sometimes people get so uptight around here whenever you praise a player, it gets pretty annoying, tbh.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You don't decipher how much match-winning ability anyone had. It can only ever be guessed at, and people call players "match-winners" in plain wrong-headed ways more regularly than cricket matches are played.

That said, obviously the better one's match figures, the better their influence on the game will have been.

Thee's no column in match statistics for the number of times a bowler was simply too good for the opposition.

 

[Ikki]

That's not what I'm asking though TC.

Pasag specifically said that the fact that Warne would lift in important matches is why he's rated so highly. Let's ignore the fact its Warne, and go the hypothetical AFL player.

I'd rather a Nathan Buckley who would do it for his team every match, rather than a Brendan Fevola, who when motivated, will absolutely dominate, but at other times is absolutely cold.

Consistency > rising to the occasion when it 'really' matters. I don't think you can argue that.

What is obviously better, is someone who can do both, but my main point is Warne rising to the occasion may make him great, but the fact, if true, that he didn't perform at domestic level is hardly a reason for his greatness. That's what I heavily disagree with in Pasag's statement.

But at Test level Warne was also consistent and had the extra gear when it mattered.

As Pasag himself has replied saying, and I couldn't really understand how you or Richard took it any other way, he isn't praising Warne at all for his poor domestic record.

And let's get real here, Warne was a great player, who was always great in Tests but seemed to have an extra gear and thrived on the moment. We're not talking about some dire player who would play one good game in 15 ala Afridi.

Exactly.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This has nothing to do with the spin vs. fast bowler argument, which is stupid, but how do you reckon his domestic team-mates felt about that?

A person who plays well when he wants to because its an important match, or there is a big crowd etc. or someone who plays well all the time?

How many domestic matches did Warne play? I'd imagine it's usually much easier to put in consistent performances at domestic level if you were playing that level for the same season. If you're playing tests, then coming home for a few weeks and playing two games, and then heading off again it'd be a bit difficult to focus on giving it your best as well as catching up with family and enjoying some 'time off' from test cricket. Then again, maybe he didn't give a ****

 

[Ikki]

How many domestic matches did Warne play? I'd imagine it's usually much easier to put in consistent performances at domestic level if you were playing that level for the same season. If you're playing tests, then coming home for a few weeks and playing two games, and then heading off again it'd be a bit difficult to focus on giving it your best as well as catching up with family and enjoying some 'time off' from test cricket. Then again, maybe he didn't give a ****

Yeah, I don't think Warne played more than 2-3 games for Victoria a year.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's not what I'm asking though TC.

Pasag specifically said that the fact that Warne would lift in important matches is why he's rated so highly. Let's ignore the fact its Warne, and go the hypothetical AFL player.

I'd rather a Nathan Buckley who would do it for his team every match, rather than a Brendan Fevola, who when motivated, will absolutely dominate, but at other times is absolutely cold.Consistency > rising to the occasion when it 'really' matters. I don't think you can argue that.

What is obviously better, is someone who can do both, but my main point is Warne rising to the occasion may make him great, but the fact, if true, that he didn't perform at domestic level is hardly a reason for his greatness. That's what I heavily disagree with in Pasag's statement.

This doesn't describe Warne though...he dominated for years on end. His domestic record is meaningless really.

 

[Jono]

Sorry mate, yours and Richards response to my posts are complete rubbish. Did I ever say that Warne is > than anybody else? All I alluded to was his greatness in that he was a big time performer in that he'd lift a level when it mattered. Did I saying anything about consistency or compare him to people who were more? Same thing with me praising Gilchrist for his WC final efforts, wasn't in good form leading into the WC final but really showed his greatness with that knock. Would it make sense for you to come and say how can I say that when Hayden had a great WC and was incredibly consisten throughout it when I never said Gilchrist had a better WC than Hayden?

And let's get real here, Warne was a great player, who was always great in Tests but seemed to have an extra gear and thrived on the moment. We're not talking about some dire player who would play one good game in 15 ala Afridi.

Not really intrested in continuing this though, don't have the time for one, it was a throw away post but sometimes people get so uptight around here whenever you praise a player, it gets pretty annoying, tbh.

But at Test level Warne was also consistent and had the extra gear when it mattered.

As Pasag himself has replied saying, and I couldn't really understand how you or Richard took it any other way, he isn't praising Warne at all for his poor domestic record.



Exactly.

How many domestic matches did Warne play? I'd imagine it's usually much easier to put in consistent performances at domestic level if you were playing that level for the same season. If you're playing tests, then coming home for a few weeks and playing two games, and then heading off again it'd be a bit difficult to focus on giving it your best as well as catching up with family and enjoying some 'time off' from test cricket. Then again, maybe he didn't give a ****

Yeah, I don't think Warne played more than 2-3 games for Victoria a year.

This doesn't describe Warne though...he dominated for years on end. His domestic record is meaningless really.

That's why I'm arguing the principle, and not Warne as a case. Clearly i've been misunderstood here.

Being good most of the time, and great when it matters doesn't make someone an all-time great. It just makes them a big-time player, and someone who rose when they wanted to, rather when they 'had' to.

Warne doesn't fit the bill, but I'm arguing the 'factor' that Pasag said made Warne great, isn't actually something that makes someone great.

And Pasag, 'rubbish', wow, pretty harsh. Think you've been arguing a bit too much in CC lately, because that was a touchy reply.

 

[Briony]

Surely Smith of the Saffer variety is the most overrated of all time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[pasag]

And Pasag, 'rubbish', wow, pretty harsh.

Yeah, was looking for a better word. Thought for about 10 seconds, couldn't find one and just moved on.

 

[Richard]

Thee's no column in match statistics for the number of times a bowler was simply too good for the opposition.

Exactly, and as such it cannot even hope to be assessed objectively. The number of times players are wrongly called "a matchwinner" attests to this.

 

[Richard]

Huh? Don't put words in my mouth, I praised his ability to step up to the plate when it mattered, an attribute you refuse to acknowledge in your square and dreary view of cricket.

I'm rarely tempted to use the Rolleyes on you but I don't think there's any other approach here.

You said "Pretty well known that Warne was never a very good domestic player, that's part of the reason why he's so good (imo, anyways)". Now, maybe that didn't fully convey exactly what you meant, but I'm astonished you'd deny that it could be interpreted as "it's a positive for his career that he failed at domestic level".

The reason I so dislike the "he had the ability to step-up to the plate when it mattered" crap and refuse to take it remotely seriously is because there is never a time when it doesn't matter, or even close to it. It will always be better for your team to bowl well than if you don't, and every team is exceptionally important. Yes, Australia > Victoria, but neither of them even comes remotely close to the realms of "doesn't matter". Therefore, someone who bowls well more often than someone else is better.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, was looking for a better word. Thought for about 10 seconds, couldn't find one and just moved on.

Its alright Pasag, Carlton are going to win this weekend, no need to be too grumpy.

 

[Ikki]

Exactly, and as such it cannot even hope to be assessed objectively. The number of times players are wrongly called "a matchwinner" attests to this.

This is silly. If by your own confession there is no way to describe what a matchwinner is, then how did you figure the above and know when a player was wrongly called a matchwinner?

 

[pasag]

Its alright Pasag, Carlton are going to win this weekend, no need to be too grumpy.

Wouldn't put any money on it. Think we've already won our quota for the year

 

[Ikki]

The reason I so dislike the "he had the ability to step-up to the plate when it mattered" crap and refuse to take it remotely seriously is because there is never a time when it doesn't matter, or even close to it. It will always be better for your team to bowl well than if you don't, and every team is exceptionally important. Yes, Australia > Victoria, but neither of them even comes remotely close to the realms of "doesn't matter". Therefore, someone who bowls well more often than someone else is better.

I really wonder if you watch much cricket at all.

 

[Richard]

This is silly. If by your own confession there is no way to describe what a matchwinner is, then how did you figure the above and know when a player was wrongly called a matchwinner?

Because mostly it's a tag given-out without justification.

I'm happier to leave the damn thing out. Obviously you can take a decent look at who contributed and that's not remotely difficult, but the term "matchwinner" is one I'm always wary of and am generally happiest not to use. Can't think that I've ever done so.

 

[Richard]

I really wonder if you watch much cricket at all.

I really wonder if you like making irrelevant comments to try and find excuse to patronise.

And I answer myself: "yes".

 

[Ikki]

Because mostly it's a tag given-out without justification.

I'm happier to leave the damn thing out. Obviously you can take a decent look at who contributed and that's not remotely difficult, but the term "matchwinner" is one I'm always wary of and am generally happiest not to use. Can't think that I've ever done so.

Who says it is given without justification? You? Get over yourself. Not only are they wrongly given, they're wrongly given because you say they're wrongly given!? Amazing.

I really wonder if you like making irrelevant comments to try and find excuse to patronise.

And I answer myself: "yes".

Someone who cannot realise that in a Test match there are different needs at different moments has no clue about the game. To say there is "never a time" when it doesn't matter is silly enough. There are plenty of times that more runs are superfluous and can actually hinder your side, for example. But even within that gambit of nonsense there are times when a wicket or a run is needed MORE. And how can it be more? Because of a situation in a Test match that may arise. There is a difference for example in taking 2 opening wickets than 2 wickets of batsmen that are settled and running away with the match. There is a difference scoring 20 runs at the start of a test when there is no pressure or chasing 20 more runs to win the match.

That's why I say, "I really wonder if you watch much cricket at all." This is not the first time you've made this kind of statement. Only someone with a statsguru view to Cricket would make such a statement.

 

[Richard]

Who says it is given without justification? You? Get over yourself. Not only are they wrongly given, they're wrongly given because you say they're wrongly given!? Amazing.

I'm one of a very large number of people of this nature on this site. It's a very common gripe.

Someone who cannot realise that in a Test match there are different needs at different moments has no clue about the game. To say there is "never a time" when it doesn't matter is silly enough. There are plenty of times that more runs are superfluous and can actually hinder your side, for example. But even within that gambit of nonsense there are times when a wicket or a run is needed MORE. And how can it be more? Because of a situation in a Test match that may arise. There is a difference for example in taking 2 opening wickets than 2 wickets of batsmen that are settled and running away with the match. There is a difference scoring 20 runs at the start of a test when there is no pressure or chasing 20 more runs to win the match.

No, there isn't ever a time when getting out without scoring runs > scoring runs. Or when not taking wickets > taking them. To suggest there ever is really does lack basic understanding of the game - either that or it's trying to give credit where said credit is not due, which is very common.

Obviously there are some occasions in cricket matches where runs\not-conceding-runs\taking wickets matters more than others. Find me where exactly I said there wasn't. Unless you're undertaking a very thorough look indeed at each and every situation throughout a player's career - something that'd take weeks to do effectively - however, no-one with much sense is going to take it very seriously, as it's far more likely to be based on hearsay than anything else.

That's why I say, "I really wonder if you watch much cricket at all." This is not the first time you've made this kind of statement. Only someone with a statsguru view to Cricket would make such a statement.

There's a surprise. Running-out of derogatory stuff as per usual - you can always identify it when someone uses the word "statsguru" with negative connotations.