Underrated XI

[SJS]

Okay here is a start. Really great players who, somehow, do not appear to get there due.

Dilipsinhji and Eddie Paynter of England. They averaged 58.5 and 59.3 in the 1930's when these astronomical averages were unheard of.

 

[SJS]

Maurice Leyland and Ted Dexter also of England.

Dexter is remembered for his regal bearing and for his elegant strokes but he was a very dominating AND consistent batsman.

Whenever I make an all time England team he is one I really feel bad leaving out.

He averaged 47.9 in 62 tests at a time when averages were not what they commonly are today.

Maurice Leyland averaged 46.1 in 41 tests three quarters of a century ago !

 

[SJS]

Colin Bland of South Africa. Widely acknowledged as one of the finest outfielders EVER in the history of the game, Bland's batting is hardly given due credit. He was a tremendous batsman and averaged 49.1 in test matches.

Today's fans may not realise that here was someone who threw from the boundary with the accuracy of a Jonty Rhodes throwing from short point.

 

[Richard]

Trescothick (still thought of, in these parts, as a bit of a bunny)

Well... but for scores of dropped-catches and a Kasprowicz no-ball, it'd still be borne-out in his against-Aus record, too - even with the imposter being exchanged for his Nemesis.

 

[Richard]

Shane Bond is underrated... but that's probably because a)he is a kiwi and b) people forget about him because he has been injured for so long.

I certainly think Bond is rated exceptionally highly - in Tests, just a little too highly.

 

[Richard]

Some people on this forum don't rate him. Whenever someone mentions that he's a good bowler they'll come up with the stupid stat that his average on dead-flat pitches against non-minnows is only 30-something, then they'll take out his couple of 5-fors against the Windies because they feel like it and so they judge him on his average in a grand total of about 2 games - one of which was in Australia on debut.

Err - Bangladesh and the current Zimbabwe don't mean a thing...
Bond has not done as much in Test cricket as some suggest, however good a bowler he'll probably turn-out (injury permitting) to be.
And I do maintain that any seamer could average in the teens against India on the pitches of 2002\03.
I've never talked down his vs-WI performances, not once. I have, as I always do, mentioned that Bangladesh and the current Zimbabwe are meaningless as far as Tests are concerned, and I have said (and will continue to do) that taking wickets as a seamer against India in 2002\03 was not much of a noteworthy achievement.

 

[Richard]

Most people would rate him as at least ONE OF the greatest new ball bowlers of all time. Thats not under rating. Unless you think every one should rate him as THE greatest ever.

It's difficult - nay impossible - to say for certain that he was better than Marshall and Imran.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I certainly think Bond is rated exceptionally highly - in Tests, just a little too highly.

I think the time will come soon enough when it's justified.

 

[Richard]

Okay here is a start. Really great players who, somehow, do not appear to get there due.

Dilipsinhji and Eddie Paynter of England. They averaged 58.5 and 59.3 in the 1930's when these astronomical averages were unheard of.

TBF both played little. And in the 1930s pitches were VERY good for batting.
A batsman who is far, far more underrated is the great Kenny Barrington, who averaged the same thing in the 1950s, over the course of about 150 innings! How on Earth no-one ever remotely mentions him as an all-time great, or even in the 2nd tier, is totally beyond me.

 

[Richard]

I think the time will come soon enough when it's justified.

I'm pretty sure it will, too.
But the fact remains - in 2003, people were talking of him as being something he wasn't yet proven to be.

 

[Richard]

Colin Bland of South Africa. Widely acknowledged as one of the finest outfielders EVER in the history of the game, Bland's batting is hardly given due credit. He was a tremendous batsman and averaged 49.1 in test matches.

Today's fans may not realise that here was someone who threw from the boundary with the accuracy of a Jonty Rhodes throwing from short point.

Rhodes and Bland have so much in common.
Two South Africans whose magnificence in fielding made their batting rarely ever talked of, when in fact both were very, very capable with the willow.

 

[Richard]

Alright this is a tough one, name the most underrated cricketers of all time in batting order. We will start with the openers, vote who the most underrated openers of all time were.
I'll say Michael Slater and Phil Jacques, Australian Bias shows

Anyone who seriously thinks that Slater wasn't a better opening bat than Hayden underrates MJS.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Anyone who seriously thinks that Slater wasn't a better opening bat than Hayden underrates MJS.

Hayden may not be a classier batsman, but surely has much more of a brain.

 

[Richard]

Err, what?
Slater (as you can tell by his commentary) is extremely clever. He was also a much better player of the seaming and swinging ball.
I don't know much about Hayden's intelligence, but I do know that, until that 94 in the recent Test, we had every reason to consider him a poor player of seam and swing, the thing that Test-match opening is supposed to be about combatting.

 

[SJS]

A batsman who is far, far more underrated is the great Kenny Barrington, who averaged the same thing in the 1950s, over the course of about 150 innings! How on Earth no-one ever remotely mentions him as an all-time great, or even in the 2nd tier, is totally beyond me.

I watched him bat and bat and bat and I can tell you why he isnt mentioned as a great. He was an eyesore. It was painful watching him bat. He was an accumulater and a punisher of the bad ball but he had neither a great technique, nor great strokes, nor was he elegant. He was like a right handed Bill Lawry if you know what I mean.

He just didnt look like an all time great - far from it.

He was a great guy though.

 

[Richard]

Sometimes looks obscure the most important thing - the ability to make runs.
Lawry was good at it, too. Not as good as Barrington, but good.
I find it odd that Ian Botham should list Barrington as one of his heroes of growing-up.
Surely the fact that someone doesn't look good should not debar them from being counted as a great player?
The same thing was actually said about Eddie Paynter - he just played an innings of heroicness to rank with Cowdrey '66 and Sarwan '03.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He's now finally getting some credit, but Hoggy's been terribly undervalued for a long time. Now our tenth highest wicket taker (just moved ahead of Laker) and, of those ahead of him, only Trueman & Goughie have better strike rates.

Ash Giles is underappreciated too, for me. Think our spinning travails this winter have showed his value to us. IMHO the spinning berth is his for as long as he stays fit or wants it.

 

[Richard]

He's now finally getting some credit, but Hoggy's been terribly undervalued for a long time. Now our tenth highest wicket taker (just moved ahead of Laker) and, of those ahead of him, only Trueman & Goughie have better strike rates.

Hmm...
"Hoggy"'s career has been a complex one.
Until West Indies 2004, IMO he had no right to be considered remotely close to Test-class - had bowled well very occasionally (Christchurch 2001\02 first-innings, for instance) but mostly had been rubbish - sometimes, though, his figures flattered him.
Since then, he's been often there or thereabouts, but also he's had spells of impotence. Equally, you never felt "secure" (or I didn't) when he was bowling - always seemed like there was a 50\50 chance of him suddenly starting to spray it everywhere.
However, in India he's taken his game to a new level. Just as we've never seen from Anderson what we saw in the Third Test, so we've never seen from Hoggard what we saw virtually throughout the series. Never did he look like straying much. Just on the spot, ball after ball - and getting swing with old ball and new - something he's not often done before.
While Hoggard has always been the leader of this "new" attack, there could be genuine possibility of him now being the best bowler - yes, better even than Flintoff. Not as dangerous as Jones, but still Jones tends to give plenty of runs away.

 

[luckyeddie]

Err - Bangladesh and the current Zimbabwe don't mean a thing...
Bond has not done as much in Test cricket as some suggest, however good a bowler he'll probably turn-out (injury permitting) to be.
And I do maintain that any seamer could average in the teens against India on the pitches of 2002\03.
I've never talked down his vs-WI performances, not once. I have, as I always do, mentioned that Bangladesh and the current Zimbabwe are meaningless as far as Tests are concerned, and I have said (and will continue to do) that taking wickets as a seamer against India in 2002\03 was not much of a noteworthy achievement.

I should have thought, Richard, that you of all people would have realised by now that the standard of the opposition is totally irrelevant as far as how a bowler performs.

After all, a wicket-taking ball is a wicket-taking ball, is it not? Or does that theory only hold good when it's a bowler you don't like taking a wicket with a not-quite-out-of-the-top-drawer delivery?

 

[Richard]

I should have thought, Richard, that you of all people would have realised by now that the standard of the opposition is totally irrelevant as far as how a bowler performs.

After all, a wicket-taking ball is a wicket-taking ball, is it not? Or does that theory only hold good when it's a bowler you don't like taking a wicket with a not-quite-out-of-the-top-drawer delivery?

Oh, quite.
But I don't attach any signficance to anything involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
Bowling wicket-taking balls in matches against said teams means as much to me as bowling them in domestic cricket.
IE - it doesn't prove anything as to Test cricket.