There is always one player that many other people seem to hold in high esteem but for some reason or another, you just dont see what the fuss is about. Now i'd like you see who, in your opinion, is overrated as an international player.
Do not be afraid to be controversial, its just your opinion and you may be suprised to find other people agreeing with you.
Now mine is going to be highly controversial, but based on the past year, the player i deem overrated is G.Swann.
Now last year was supposed to be a great year for swanny, the trips to sub con was supposed to be bread and butter for the 'best spinner in the world' however i find him highly irritating on the field, lucky in the slips, as his last catch proved, he cannot for the life of him field anywhere else. Whenever a misfield occurs off his bowling, he shouts at the player, i find this HIGHLY irritating as it makes the fielder feel small on an international level.
He hasnt taken the required amount of wickets which should of been given to him coming off the bowling off anderson and broad but apart from a lovely flighted bowl he possesses, there is no mystery about him. All he does is rip the bowl well, which im certain a few village cricketers can do.
His batting is lucky too, a slogger, and i feel this aspect of his game is overrated as well.
And now he cant take a wicket against a poor W.I batting line up, infact they are finding it easy against him. So, who is your overrated cricketer?
Players who you think are overrated.
posted on 11/6/12
I think Shane Watson as a test player although quite effective stats wise is not a test great.Very loose after 15 or so overs and does not seem to have the attitude to anything pitched off stump area and looks a walking LBW candidate
posted on 11/6/12
to be fair, border and waugh batted most of their career at 5 and 6.
waugh was such a good cricketer.
if i was picking an australia side out of the players i've watched over the last 25 years, i think steve waugh would be my first pick.
posted on 11/6/12
just to add to that, he was coming on the scene at the time i was getting into cricket. at that time he was looked at as a poor man's simon o'donnell, and someone whose main asset was probably his medium pace bowling.
even when he came on the 1989 tour in an australia side that most people had written off before a ball was bowled, he looked like something of a weak link...until the first day's play of that series that is.
posted on 11/6/12
"I think Shane Watson as a test player although quite effective stats wise is not a test great."
Who the cluck said Watson was anything near a test great
posted on 11/6/12
You seem to have missed the point,
If he was the 5th best bowler in one team, how can he be the 2nd best bowler of all time ?
________________
I'm not exactly sure why not being the 2nd best bowler of all time makes you overrated. I understand your point, he's not one of the top 10 greatest, but I don't understand why exactly that makes him overrated. He was a damn fine bowler.
I just think that saying that he was overrated because he wasn't as good as Holding, Roberts and Marshall when they were in the prime of their careers and he was just starting is a little harsh.
You have to remember that no one thinks that someone who is 14th in the all time wicket taking list is the 14th best bowler. Most people would probably make a cut off of 200 wickets and then rank by average.
posted on 11/6/12
You have to remember that no one thinks that someone who is 14th in the all time wicket taking list is the 14th best bowler. Most people would probably make a cut off of 200 wickets and then rank by average.
===================
Yes, that's what I do except as we've discussed before I tend to go to strike rate first rather than average.
I have said though that my point isnt quite what the OP has asked for. In my opinion, the flagship stat for a bowler is how many wickets he takes. You dont get bowlers going round saying i had a bowling average of this, or even a strike rate of that. they tell you how many wickets theyve taken.
when courtney walsh compares the wickets he has taken - the primary stat which he will use to describe his career- he will be able to compare himself favourably with every bowler ever excpet for mcgrath warne and murali.
my point is that in spite of this, he is a long way from being the 4th best bowler of all time. i have clarified that that this does not necessarily mean that he is overrated.
in spite of having made these comments though, i suspect that when people look back on the history books in 50 years time, they will overrate walsh, purely on the number of wickets he took.
i believe these to be valis points irrespective of the fact that his strike rate and average may not be too unrealistic a record of his career and his ability compared to that of other leading bowlers.
posted on 18/6/12
Hazsa said....
Are you Geoff Boycott in disguise? Bowlers can bowl well and get batsmen out...
You need to think more carefully about the dynamic of test cricket. With each ball the bowler poses a challenge to the batsman, and the batsman responds to it.
There is no ball in the game that is - literally - impossible to keep out. If there was, bowlers would bowl it all the time, and the game of cricket would be dead.
Yes, with a skilled bowler there are some balls that are very difficult to keep out, and history proves eventually even the best batsmen will make a mistake. So now I'd like to direct your attention to the word "theoretically" in my post...
posted on 18/6/12
There is no ball in the game that is - literally - impossible to keep out. If there was, bowlers would bowl it all the time, and the game of cricket would be dead.
=================
dont agree with that.
isnt that like saying if a sprinter could run 9.7 every sprinter would do it every race ? makes no sense to me.
posted on 22/6/12
"isnt that like saying if a sprinter could run 9.7 every sprinter would do it every race ? "
No
posted on 9/7/12
Nice article!