Most underrated players of all time

[Donny]

Some interesting thoughts although it beats me how any true cricket pundit could name some of the above as under rated. Donald, AB, Polly, Desmond Haynes ??? Actually, Ravi, Damien Fleming was the first player who came to mind for me. Allow me to use stats for an example. Andy Flintoff is certainly rated highly. Whether he deserves to be is another question - amply covered in: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=8248 - but Fleming's stats are way better than his. FF: Test bowling average: 32 Fleming: 26. Flem has the same number of ODI wickets in 35 less matches than FF. The same differences are reflected in their first class and List A figures.

[gator]

how did Allan Lamb figure in someone's list as under-rated???? in the 80s, he was considered one of the best odi batters and finishers... i would rather think, fairbrother was very under-rated... another baffling suggestion was Dessie Haynes.... he was considered arguably the best odi opener along with Greenidge before Sachin....

[King]

Some interesting thoughts although it beats me how any true cricket pundit could name some of the above as under rated. Donald, AB, Polly, Desmond Haynes ??? Actually, Ravi, Damien Fleming was the first player who came to mind for me. Allow me to use stats for an example. Andy Flintoff is certainly rated highly. Whether he deserves to be is another question - amply covered in: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=8248 - but Fleming's stats are way better than his. FF: Test bowling average: 32 Fleming: 26. Flem has the same number of ODI wickets in 35 less matches than FF. The same differences are reflected in their first class and List A figures.

Amazing isn't it? Warnie averages about 25 in test cricket and Fleming averages 26 but I wouldn't have guessed his average if you didn't mention that here.

[King Tendulkar]

Under rated XI : 1. Desmond Haynes 2. Gary Kirsten 3. Allan Border 4. Mohammed Azharuddin 5. Saleem Malik 6. Andy Flower 7. Shaun Pollock 8. Anil Kumble 9. Jason Gillespie 10. Joel Garner 11. Bob Willis

Eh ???? Most of those are recognised legends of the game. How are they under rated? Garner, Kumble, Pollock, Border and Haynes are well recognised heroes of world cricket!!!

[Donny]

Andrew Hall is another player who comes to mind. He's probably rated higher by other teams and other country's fans than by the SA selectors. His stats aren't standout but part of that is his uncertain place in the first XI. Scored 70 in his first Test innings, against Australia, and has a Test century (163) against India as opening batsman. After only one more Test, he was back to #8 and has batted at 8 & 9 since. Not a frontline bowler but a very handy second stringer, especially in ODIs.

[The Outsider]

Donald, AB, Polly, Desmond Haynes

Donald, I wouldn't say was under rated but the rest though recognized as top class performers fail to get the billing they deserve, IMO. Haynes was one of the least talked about batsmen in the WI lineup during the 80s though his contributions were much bigger. I don't find many people putting Pollock in the same all rounder category as the big 4 of the 80s, though he certainly deserves that billing and more. Border, again, is always mentioned after Gavaskar, Chappell, Richards, and Miandad from his era but his contribution to Australian cricket was immense.

[CC1981]

Who do you think are the most underrated players of all time? I will list only bowlers, as I don't really like watching batsmen, so I don't much care about batting feats. My most under-rated bowlers of all time (in order of appearance :p): Fred 'The Demon' Spofforth Bart King Harold Larwood Allan Donald Who are the players that you think don't get enough credit?

I'd take Alan Donald 10 times out of 10 even while carrying a niggle over those namby-pamby unprofessional ones.

[CC1981]

The greatest underrated bowler IMO was Fanie deVilliers. A better bowler than most i've seen and i'd have loved to see him have a 80-100 test career. If Fanie was Indian, he'd easily be our second best alltime greatest pacer, if not the greatest alltime Indian pacer.

[silentstriker]

I'd take Alan Donald 10 times out of 10 even while carrying a niggle over those namby-pamby unprofessional ones.

That is actually an excellent question. If I had to rank the ones I posted in terms of their ability, they would go in this list:

1. Fred 'The Demon' Spofforth
2. Allan Donald
3. Bart King
4. Harold Larwood

I might switch Bart King and Allan Donald, not sure.

[CC1981]

That is actually an excellent question. If I had to rank the ones I posted in terms of their ability, they would go in this list:

1. Fred 'The Demon' Spofforth
2. Allan Donald
3. Bart King
4. Harold Larwood

I might switch Bart King and Allan Donald, not sure.

Totally unjustified to rate one of the greatest bowlers of the professional era behind an amatuer bowling on the most bowler-friendly surfaces ever created and who nobody here has even watched bowl a single delivery.

[Cricketics]

Stuart Mcgill, very underated bowler..

[Lurker]

Heath Streak. Great bowler and a decent batsman. Was certainly a lot more complete all-rounder than the likes of Razzak, Afridi, Pathans of our times.

[silentstriker]

Totally unjustified to rate one of the greatest bowlers of the professional era behind an amatuer bowling on the most bowler-friendly surfaces ever created and who nobody here has even watched bowl a single delivery.

Nah, I don't think so. If I had to pick a team, I would definitely take Spofforth over 99.99% of fast bowlers. And I'd bet anything that they'd get the better of the pampered modern era covered-track batsmen

[CC1981]

Nah, I don't think so. If I had to pick a team, I would definitely take Spofforth over 99.99% of fast bowlers. And I'd bet anything that they'd get the better of the pampered modern era covered-track batsmen

Your basis for that is nothing more than some lucid prose from nearly a century ago and blind adherence to statistics. Spofforth was a genuine fast bowler in an age when there were none- probably the first in the world. That and only that is his sole claim to fame. There is nothing suggesting that Spofforth would be anything more than a Brett lee today.

[silentstriker]

Your basis for that is nothing more than some lucid prose from nearly a century ago and blind adherence to statistics. Spofforth was a genuine fast bowler in an age when there were none- probably the first in the world. That and only that is his sole claim to fame. There is nothing suggesting that Spofforth would be anything more than a Brett lee today.

It's a weird claim to make. I could say there is nothing suggesting that Tendulkar or Dravid would score even a single century on the uncovered pitches back in those days.... You can only judge people by their contemporaries.

[CC1981]

It's a weird claim to make. I could say there is nothing suggesting that Tendulkar or Dravid would score even a single century on the uncovered pitches back in those days.... You can only judge people by their contemporaries.

Given that tendulkar/Dravid are professionals with experience against a far bigger variety of bowlers & pitches and come from an era where cricket is a professional contest, not a 'game' ( cricket was NOT a sport till the post-war era..it was just a game...big difference), i'd put far bigger faith in their adaptability to the unknown than Spofforth's. Judging players by their contemporaries is fine- as long as one realizes that over a sufficiently long timescale (ie, say 75-100 yrs period), the sport develops to a higher level, just like every other human endavour which evolves to a higher degree of competence with time. Its ludicrous to think that the world's first fast bowler, bowling barely a generation after bowling round-arm became common in an era of unprofessionalism had the steel in his guts or the ability to compete with players 100 yrs down the road. And yes, if someone said this about Tendulkar 100 yrs from now, i'd be inclined to agree as well. Your MO assumes that cricketing skills and level of cricket played is a constant factor in terms of competence or quality of the game- while that is a very commonly held perspective, its gotto be one of the most ludicrous i've come across. There may be instances where the latest batch of cricket played is of inferior quality to its immediate predecessessor ( and cricket in the 90s WAS superior in quality to cricket today) but overall, its an incremental graph, not a flat-line.

[CC1981]

You are right. He had a measure of even the great tendulkar . Do you remember that.

Ofcourse..he had a good measure on lara too from what i can remember. And Tendulkar back then used to bat like a God- being dismissive of the great Alan Donald and McGrath,who used to try and avoid bowling to Tendulkar in those days ( i remember him bowling from 2nd over onwards- Fleming used to bowl the first over in ODIs to all teams- except when playing India- Tendulkar usually took 2nd strike opening and McGrath used to bowl the first over to try and stay away from Tendulkar). Guy was as miserly as they come and could move the ball both ways, bowled at a healthy speed and got it to bounce alarmingly. if he were around today,i'd think he'd quite easily be the best pacer in the world in the post-McGrath era.

[kumble_rocks]

how did Allan Lamb figure in someone's list as under-rated???? in the 80s, he was considered one of the best odi batters and finishers... i would rather think, fairbrother was very under-rated... another baffling suggestion was Dessie Haynes.... he was considered arguably the best odi opener along with Greenidge before Sachin....

Neil Fairbrother was also considered one of the best odi batters and finishers in the English side. I guess underrated is relative term. Both Alan Lamb and Robin Smith were heck of players against genuine pace but somewhat struggled against spin. Their clash against Ambrose and co is one for the books. They never got the billing that they deserved is my personal opinion.

[Dhondy]

In a 9 year career, Fred Spofforth was ranked lower than first or second only three times. On the 18 occasions that rankings were published, he was ranked first on no less than 8 occasions. How exactly was he underrated?

[Dhondy]

It's obviously quite romantic to pick a player from 100 years ago, who nobody has heard of and call him underrated. Well, for those drawing breath today, he is not so much underrated, but unrated. You have to see how he rated amongst his own peers, before calling him underrated. He had the same status in the 1880s as Glenn McGrath enjoys today among his contemporaries. Underrated?