• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Top Five Most Underrated Cricketers Ever.

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
If you only count the sort of fan that knows significant amounts of stuff about cricketers throughout the years, you would have to conclude that modern-day cricketers are the most underrated because they haven't developed legacies yet. Someone like Chanderpaul will be revered in years to come, but is rarely mentioned alongside older but equals from the past (whom historically-knowledgeable fans romance about).
My only argument to that is, I have watched all of Shiv's career and while his solidly will be missed, his legacy will never approach that of Lara's because of the (very real) perception that he played for him self and placed his numbers above the team.

A
Additionally it is possible to build a legacy while you are still playing. Tendulkar and Stern and two top tier legends of the game and are readily accepted as such by all already.
 

Stapel

International Regular
This concept always seems a bit circular for me. If everyone agrees with you then you're actually far less likely to be right than if everyone disagrees with you. If you suggest someone and get a lot of agreement then it's likely the player in question is either just under-mentioned rather than under-rated, or most people are just wrong about what most other people think. If people disagree then at least you're on the right track.

You can have a fierce argument with someone over whether a player was under-rated despite actually agreeing entirely on how good the player is, because you disagree on how good you think everyone else thinks they are.

tldr: make your list and then leave the thread or your head will explode.
Yeah, wel said. this is exacty what has made me stop posting in this thread for 5 times or so now. Either I mention someone that isn't really underrated, or I mention someone thta is simply not as good as I think he is/was.

Names that come up in my mind:
-Ashley Giles: not as bad as his figures suggest imho, and mostly for the timing of his highscore with the bat.
-Ishant Sharma: I would really like to see him develop in English County cricket.
-Misbah ul Haq. If one has to wonder: lies the succes in the captain, his ship or his crew?
-Ryan ten Doeschate: SA missed a trick to not pick him
 

MrPrez

International Debutant
My only argument to that is, I have watched all of Shiv's career and while his solidly will be missed, his legacy will never approach that of Lara's because of the (very real) perception that he played for him self and placed his numbers above the team.

A
Additionally it is possible to build a legacy while you are still playing. Tendulkar and Stern and two top tier legends of the game and are readily accepted as such by all already.
Oh, but I'm not saying Lara = Chanderpaul. What I'm saying is that Chanderpaul is considered way inferior to Lara, whereas 20 years from now he will be considered a lot more comparable (although still not as good). We tend to be very kneejerk about these sorts of things. Guys like SRT and Steyn are the extreme examples. People are happy to give them elite status because they seemingly have/had no flaws. For other elite players who had slight weaknesses, we tend to focus on those weaknesses excessively. Dravid, Kallis, Chanderpaul - too slow; Pollock - not good enough at taking lots of wickets; Sangakarra - flat track bully. Players of old had similar things that plagued their careers. They get rated fairly now, but during their time they probably got excessively criticised in the grand scope of ATGs. Guys like Chanderpaul, Pollock and Sangakarra will all probably rank higher in the minds of future cricket analysts because they don't deal with the emotions we judge them with.
 

Flem274*

123/5
If anyone here still thinks Sangakkara is a FTB then well...

Where you put him relative to his contemporaries is up to you, but he's the business.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
The truth to threads like this is that older players are underrated the most. Guys like Barnes, Grace, possibly Larwood, Spofforth etc. Because most people overrate players of the past 20 years, barely know guys from the mid 20th century, and by the time you look back to pre-1900, cricket may as well not have existed for the majority of cricket viewers.
Its ironic that we are wary of generational chauvinism as stemming from the past. I think it comes mainly from the modern day fan running down the past in their ignorance of it.

Just like the post below...

because past cricketers are living in the past. Sobers would have been behind all of those batsmen if he played in this era. Past cricketers still rate Lillee ahead of McGrath. Like Lillee, Sobers was the first of a kind hence the exaggeration and extra adulation.
...which is rubbish from first to last.
 

JBMAC

State Captain
This List may slow down some criticism.

BATSMAN WITH HIGHEST AVERAGE IN TESTS ONLY:

1. Bradman 99.94 (52 Tests)
2. Sutcliffe 60.73 (54 Tests)
3. Sangakarra 58.92 (130 Tests) ****
4. Barrington 58.67 (82 Tests)
5. Hammond 58.45 (85 Tests)

**** He is still playing so we could expect this figure to alter

These are up to date as at 04/01/2015
 
Last edited:

Top