Overrated cricketers

[barmyarmy]

I think it's pointless analysing Swann's record in India til he's played a few most games. He's definitely capable of match-winning hauls in the sub-continent imo just not had the chance yet.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I think sifter summed up pretty well what I think about tendulkar. purely as a batsman he's technically brilliant, but during his era he didn't hit the heights of the sublime like lara did, he didn't put together a period of dominance like ponting did. tendulkar's status rests on romanticism and iconic status. The innings he played in australia as teenager was wonderful, a virtual child playing like man, best innings ever? nope. the painful way way he took india so close but failed, in pakistan, the guy who should be retiring still showing the guys in their prime how to play. great story, but the raw hard facts of him don't make for someone that can be indisputably called the 2nd best ever.

in my opinion he's not even the best cricketer of the era, that honour falls to murali.

 

[Gaurav_7]

May I ask everyone who rate Bradman as the best ever batsman, how you all have come to this conclusion? (Obviously I rate him as the best ever too. But, only on the basis of that impractical average. I've never seen him play, in what conditions, which bowlers he faced, where he played, were there so many away matches then and everything else.)

I am not a big fan of Tendulkar but, not a critic too. Sometimes I feel people go a bit overboard when they want to rate him. It is always extreme. Some make him God (mostly Indian fans) while others bring in a thousand stats to show how he is ineffective when it matters. But, he has all those runs, doesn't he? And, those performances have won matches for India, haven't they?

People say 'x' player has had a better impact, he's won more matches for the team. But, I always felt it was a team game. There surely have to be others chipping in too. Cut the guy some slack, I don't know where he stands but, he is probably the only batsman I'd like to watch when in full flow.

 

[puddleduck]

It's because you can never compare generations. He gets held in that regard because in his own time he was so much more successful than his contempories. This has never happened in any other era with any other player!

 

[Hybrid]

[Take away Murali's wickets in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Pakistan and you get 202 wkts @ 29.73. In Australia he averaged 75.42, in India a better but not great 45.45. He also took a whopping 176 wkts against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, 22%. Throw in the kiwis and long time weak windies and that's 340 wkts @ 17.74 and 42.50% of his wickets, the other 460 coming @ 26.41 which is still good but not nearly as low as his career 22.73

I agree about those flaws in Murali's career like reliance on home pitches and minnows but why exactly are you taking Pakistan out?

 

[Aislabie]

Everyone seems to be slagging Dave Warner off - I've seen him kick off Australia's innings today with a slightly less than a run-a-ball slightly less than fifty, and I disagree with your criticism of his technique. He can play really good, correct shots, and competent shot selection. If he becomes as consistent as he looks like being, then he'll be potent.

What's more, he's completely ambidextrous. He was having difficulty playing Nathan Hauritz turning the ball across him in a grade or training match, so he switched round and played him right handed. I mean to say, if he can do this regularly like in the IPL, it could be a really disruptive weapon.

 

[Sedition]

I doubt a lot of Warner's naysayers have seen much of him apart from a couple of blistering T20 innings and have incorrectly labelled him as too aggressive and not Test material because he's unconventional. Plus, I don't think people take a liking to someone who's overhyped before proving themselves at the highest level.

His first class stints have shown what he can do in the longer format though and his T20 performances show what he can do against international attacks. I hope he'll be there for India alongside Watson and Hughes can refine himself back in shield cricket.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

May I ask everyone who rate Bradman as the best ever batsman, how you all have come to this conclusion? (Obviously I rate him as the best ever too. But, only on the basis of that impractical average. I've never seen him play, in what conditions, which bowlers he faced, where he played, were there so many away matches then and everything else.)

good question, and I also was someone that used to discredit him until I realised it was futile. In sport usually the best players have just that bit more drive, they want it a bit more. 100m runners usually ebb the record up in tiny increments, tennis greats pull through their toughest matches, football players have that ability to do something that no one expects. Bradman on the other hand looked at the acceptable benchmark of a great player (which was actually closer to 60 in his day) and decided that wasn't even close to what he wanted to achieve, and obliterated it. The mental focus and fortitude to not only will yourself to be the best, but to absolutely blow the competition so as to make your own achievements look nonsensical is just staggering. He got out for ducks as well, had bad shots like other batsmen, but he didn't settle at just bettering them a bit when he had the chance, he set his own standards and competed against himself.

and lets be honest, cricket is not all about technique, the top 10 batsmen in the world are not the top 10 by technique, and frankly, tendulkar probably does have better technique, due to batting in different conditions, better coaching and fitness regimes and newer bowler techniques. However, mentality is probably a bigger part of it, and no one can really claim to have anything like the mentality of bradman. All he ever did was focus on scoring runs, didn't matter if the 100 was up, or he'd already hit a 200 in the first innings, or in an earlier match, always just looking for runs. and his focus was always rewarded, he had a unique cricketing brain. he never went out of form, his class and form were permanent.

you can't top him because the only person he ever competed with was himself. unbeatable.

 

[puddleduck]

Come on now Sedition, don't be ridiculous, if you actually had to watch cricket to pass some form of accurate comment on it, then this forum would be very quiet

 

[Papa_Smurf]

May I ask everyone who rate Bradman as the best ever batsman, how you all have come to this conclusion? (Obviously I rate him as the best ever too. But, only on the basis of that impractical average. I've never seen him play, in what conditions, which bowlers he faced, where he played, were there so many away matches then and everything else.)

I agree with what Stinky said. It was his mental approach more than anything. He even stated that at the time, there were better batsmen than him who played the game. But they lacked the ability to concentrate for long periods of time and value their wicket. And that's what batting is all about - occupying the crease as long as you can. And Bradman took that philosophy to a whole different level - he averages almost twice as much as all other great batsmen before and after him.

 

[macintosh]

I think Bradman is overrated, best batsman of his time? sure he was, but the best ever? don't think so and nor is he the greatest cricketer of all time.
Lillee is very overrated aswell, there have been many bolwers who have achieved much more than him. His career was limited to mostly playing in England and Australia where the conditions are favourable for fast bowling.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Are you serious? I can understand Where you're coming from for Lillee, but Bradman? His average is the greatest statistical feat in the history of sport.

 

[puddleduck]

Are you serious? I can understand Where you're coming from for Lillee, but Bradman? His average is the greatest statistical feat in the history of sport.

You obviously didn't see my bowling figures two years ago

 

[macintosh]

Are you serious? I can understand Where you're coming from for Lillee, but Bradman? His average is the greatest statistical feat in the history of sport.

But is there anyway he can be compared with the modern batsmen??
Can't compare between eras right? so how is he the greatest batsman ever?

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Because his average is more than twice than anyone of any era. That's why.