Who is the Most Overrated Cricketer?

[velu]

MTC .. you realized it very late .. you cant change my views .. anyway if you want my reply , unblock and quote me .. no use in replying to you if you wont read :giggle: Thanks for letting me know that you blocked me .. otherwise i might have ended up replying to your posts without knowing that you blocked me :icflove:

[velu]

It is clear that you have never played any organized sports/received coaching or seen through a manager/coaches eyes. In EVERY SPORT, the types of Sachin Tendulkar/Henrik Sedin/Jerry Rice are the model players because consistency is the #1 benchmark for a successful sportsman, not domination. Nobody wants the guy who scores 700 runs in one series and 120 runs six months later in the next series. It does not help your team to be the guy who can singlehandedly bail out the team one series and then compete with Anil Kumble for worse batting stats. But the guy who scores 300-400 runs every series for years and years ? Now THAT is a bankable player who is not a liability in any given series. Coaches/players/managers don't want the guy who is inconsistent. So you should apply metrics that ACTUALLY matter, not metrics that you came up with. The fact that Sachin averaged nearly 60 in a decade where only ONE other batsman (Steve Waugh) came close to averaging 60 is proof enough of dominating performance. The fact that Sachin had no series of 500+ runs (despite the fact that unlike Lara or Ponting, he didn't play 5 test series every calendar year) but hardly ever had a series were he didn't average 40, is proof of his consistency. And the reason Lara himself rated Tendulkar as the best batsman is because nobody combined dominance AND consistency as Sachin.

I dont agree with you that consistency is the most important thing in a sport. But it can be a very good topic to discuss. i never played any organised game .. but IMHO there is a place for inconsistent players or x-players.. and let me give you some samples from cricket itself where inconsistent players did indeed were profitable .. 1 )aravinda de silva and jayasutya in odis 2) KP 3) Mitchel Johnson - Both jimmy and mitch has got similar stats .. But i am sure even you would prefer mitch. my view is same as yours about sachins consistency .. he is one of the greatest batsmen , but he is stlll hyped.. Edit:- What do you mean METRICS that actually matter ? The metrics that we are applying wont matter in the actual game. Ask poor england about how their statistics worked in this WC.

[Muloghonto]

I dont agree with you that consistency is the most important thing in a sport. But it can be a very good topic to discuss.

You can disagree all you want. But fact remains that teammates, coaches and managers across ALL team sports rate consistent world class performance as #1 benchmark criteria.

i never played any organised game .. but IMHO there is a place for inconsistent players or x-players.. and let me give you some samples from cricket itself where inconsistent players did indeed were profitable .. 1 )aravinda de silva and jayasutya in odis 2) KP 3) Mitchel Johnson - Both jimmy and mitch has got similar stats .. But i am sure even you would prefer mitch.

of course there is a place for them. This is not a 'boom or bust' scenario where you are either worth your weight in gold or you are a useless hack with nothing in between. Obviously, i will pick Lara right after i pick Sachin.

my view is same as yours about sachins consistency .. he is one of the greatest batsmen , but he is stlll hyped..

There is nothing hyped about a guy who has the most runs, the most centuries, the best average over 17 years of play in the hardest batting decade, a guy who debuts at 16 and averages well within the batting average of top 6 for the decade ( 35) against an ATG attack, who has more runs than anyone by the time he was 21 to all the way to 30. It would be hype to say there cannot be a better batsman than Tendulkar ever but it is not hype to say that he is the best batsman to've played cricket in the last 50 years and possibly the greatest ever.

[velu]

You can disagree all you want. But fact remains that teammates, coaches and managers across ALL team sports rate consistent world class performance as #1 benchmark criteria.

its your view and not the fact ..

of course there is a place for them. This is not a 'boom or bust' scenario where you are either worth your weight in gold or you are a useless hack with nothing in between. Obviously, i will pick Lara right after i pick Sachin.

depends on what kind of player you want .. i dont deny that many would prefer consistency .. but this is preference and not fact

There is nothing hyped about a guy who has the most runs, the most centuries, the best average over 17 years of play in the hardest batting decade, a guy who debuts at 16 and averages well within the batting average of top 6 for the decade ( 35) against an ATG attack, who has more runs than anyone by the time he was 21 to all the way to 30. It would be hype to say there cannot be a better batsman than Tendulkar ever but it is not hype to say that he is the best batsman to've played cricket in the last 50 years and possibly the greatest ever.

i dont deny his consistency .. in addtion to that he got some more weightage for his longevity .. if i argue by using your logic .. In tests, batting -> kallis statistics is as good as sachin .. bowling ->> no contest do you agree if i say kallis is a better cricketer than sachin because cricket is not only about batting ??

[Muloghonto]

its your view and not the fact ..

No, it isn't. I am involved in youth sports here, have been for many years and have met many, many coaches and managers in my time, some from the big leagues(Canada is a small country). Its pretty much unanimous- consistent world class performance is #1 criteria.

depends on what kind of player you want .. i dont deny that many would prefer consistency .. but this is preference and not fact

Again, false. From professional sports players and management perspective, it is a near unanimous fact that they will take the guy who scores a goal every 3 games over the guy who scores a hattrick one game and doesn't score for 10, the guy who scores 120 every 3 innings over the guy who scores 300 every 10 innings.

i dont deny his consistency .. in addtion to that he got some more weightage for his longevity .. if i argue by using your logic .. In tests, batting -> kallis statistics is as good as sachin .. bowling ->> no contest

Its not about consistency, its about being a prodigy. In the 80s, seasoned veterans averaged 35-40 batting in the top six. These guys were in their late 20s/early 30s. A 16 year old boy entered that category. The greatest thing about Tendulkar is not his longetivity, which is greater than any other cricketers in 50+ years, its the fact that he was a prodigy greater than any, literally being as good as a professional man before he was old enough to drive. Tendulkar had everything- dominating top form, sole responsibility for the batting fate, then being the grand-daddy anchor/safety net of the team, greater consistency than anyone else, greater longevity than anyone else and by far the greatest cricketing prodigy the world has seen. To say such a guy is the #1 batsman ever, is not overrating the guy.

do you agree if i say kallis is a better cricketer than sachin because cricket is not only about batting ??

Ofcourse Kallis is a better cricketer than Sachin. The same way Kapil was a better cricketer than Viv Richards, Botham a better cricketer than Gavaskar. Allrounders are better cricketers than specialists. PS: Kallis's statistics are NOT as good as Sachin's. Kallis is a greater minnow/mediocre attack basher than Sachin. But Kallis failed to average 40+ against Wasim-Waqar/McGrath-Warne/Ambrose-Walsh in six years of their career overlap, while Tendulkar averaged 40+ against every single one of them.

[velu]

No, it isn't. I am involved in youth sports here, have been for many years and have met many, many coaches and managers in my time, some from the big leagues(Canada is a small country). Its pretty much unanimous- consistent world class performance is #1 criteria. Again, false. From professional sports players and management perspective, it is a near unanimous fact that they will take the guy who scores a goal every 3 games over the guy who scores a hattrick one game and doesn't score for 10, the guy who scores 120 every 3 innings over the guy who scores 300 every 10 innings.

your claims are backed with no proofs and it is more like your views than facts.. lets take this Australian wc winning team .. warner , maxwel , watson and faulkner in top 7 are hit or miss players .. lets take the finalists, baz & anderson in top 7 are again hit and miss players.. my view is both consistent and xfactor players have place in every team and in every sports.. my view is totally opposite of your in this ( and unsurprisingly my favorite player is sehwag :--D )

Its not about consistency, its about being a prodigy. In the 80s, seasoned veterans averaged 35-40 batting in the top six. These guys were in their late 20s/early 30s. A 16 year old boy entered that category. The greatest thing about Tendulkar is not his longetivity, which is greater than any other cricketers in 50+ years, its the fact that he was a prodigy greater than any, literally being as good as a professional man before he was old enough to drive. Tendulkar had everything- dominating top form, sole responsibility for the batting fate, then being the grand-daddy anchor/safety net of the team, greater consistency than anyone else, greater longevity than anyone else and by far the greatest cricketing prodigy the world has seen. To say such a guy is the #1 batsman ever, is not overrating the guy.

great players upped their games in pressure cooker situations .. sachin is a bottler .. this is one of the reasons i wont rate him as #1 ( but this is my opinion man :--D )

Ofcourse Kallis is a better cricketer than Sachin. The same way Kapil was a better cricketer than Viv Richards, Botham a better cricketer than Gavaskar. Allrounders are better cricketers than specialists. PS: Kallis's statistics are NOT as good as Sachin's. Kallis is a greater minnow/mediocre attack basher than Sachin. But Kallis failed to average 40+ against Wasim-Waqar/McGrath-Warne/Ambrose-Walsh in six years of their career overlap, while Tendulkar averaged 40+ against every single one of them.

When wasim+waqar played: Sachin - 39.71 ( 4 games ) kallis - 39.5 ( 1 game ) When mcgrath+warne played: Sachin - 42.28 ( 7 games ) kallis - 40.47 ( 14 games ) When ambrose+walsh played: Sachin - 64.33 ( 4 games ) kallis - 44.25 ( 3 games ) sachin did well vs ambrose+walsh but otherwise they r neck and neck .. infact sachins average vs wasim/waqar/mcgrath/donald/jimmy is drastically low .. there is a strong case for an argument that sachin did poorly against these bowlers ..

[velu]

Sachin & Laras average in the matches when playing against the bowlers who averaged 25 & less . [TABLE=head]#|Bowler|Sachin|Lara 1|Ambrose|57.8| - 2|McGrath|36.77| 46.38 3|Bond|25.00| 39.50 4|Donald|32.9| 34.05 5|Steyn|56.25| - 6|Muralitharan|48.64| 77.73 7|Imran|35.83| 24.50 8|Pollock|39.71| 42.93 9|Harris|15.25| - 10|Wasim|32.91| 30.3 11|Waqar|39.71| 32.18 12|Bishop|50.25| - 13|Asif|21.00| - 14|Walsh|66.11| - [/TABLE] Sachin's average drops drastically when facing the great bowlers except windian bowlers , steyn and murali . Same goes with lara but he utterly demolished murali and did well vs mcgrath. This stats clearly proves that both sachin and lara feasted in the absense of main bowlers. Sachins record is great in austarli and alos against australia . But we dont find any video where he demolished mcgrath. This is one stat which proves that we tend to overrated players based on the stats which always hides something. My Two Cents

[Muloghonto]

your claims are backed with no proofs and it is more like your views than facts..

You can think what you want. Proof argument over the internet is pointless and dangerous. But if you ever bother talking to coaches, managers, players, etc. you will see there is a near unanimous consensus on consistency at a high level of performance is the mt. everest of sports. To understand this, is another story altogether but i would point out certain aspects of performing day in, day out at top quality level in a professional setting. Anyways, there is a reason why players like Crosby, Tendulkar, Schumacher, Federer, Jordan, etc. were/are lumped in the supreme league by the establishment. The reason, i will admit is mostly what the establishment is privvy to from 1st hand interactive experience but that is the fact.

lets take this Australian wc winning team .. warner , maxwel , watson and faulkner in top 7 are hit or miss players .. lets take the finalists, baz & anderson in top 7 are again hit and miss players.. my view is both consistent and xfactor players have place in every team and in every sports.. my view is totally opposite of your in this ( and unsurprisingly my favorite player is sehwag :--D )

My favorite player is Sehwag too. I rate him very highly too incase you don't notice. You are correct you need both types of players. Its just that Tendulkar-type or Henrik Sedin/Jerry Rice type players are just nearly impossible to find and they present a unique dimension to your team : performing like the top 1% so bloody consistently that it is crazy. Consistency is not just about how many 50s or 100s you score overall in your career. Guys do go through stretches of : 0,4,15,5,1,1,150,150,80. That is the norm, for 99.999% people. It is freakish when a guy goes entire decade of 10,10,55,150,10,150,10,50 patterns. That is quite literally, consistent every 2-3 matches played, day in, day out. To top that, Tendulkar's prodigy status is pretty much, unquestionable. Freakish how good a kid can be.

great players upped their games in pressure cooker situations .. sachin is a bottler .. this is one of the reasons i wont rate him as #1 ( but this is my opinion man :--D )

Sorry, you simply are too young or too ignorant of Sachin's career to call him a bottler. A guy who averages 50+ in tournament elimination games at 85+ strike rate is not a bottler. You can pick and choose but when there are dozens after dozens of pressure situations and 'man on the burning deck' duties he's pulled off, its just mind boggling that you consider him a bottler.

When wasim+waqar played: Sachin - 39.71 ( 4 games ) kallis - 39.5 ( 1 game )

4 games is a much bigger sample space than 1.

When mcgrath+warne played: Sachin - 42.28 ( 7 games ) kallis - 40.47 ( 14 games ) When ambrose+walsh played: Sachin - 64.33 ( 4 games ) kallis - 44.25 ( 3 games ) sachin did well vs ambrose+walsh but otherwise they r neck and neck .. infact sachins average vs wasim/waqar/mcgrath/donald/jimmy is drastically low .. there is a strong case for an argument that sachin did poorly against these bowlers ..

There is no such case, because against these type of bowling combos, most batsmen, Lara, Dravid, Inzy, et al did in the 35-45 range. Duh. Its a freak of nature for a guy to average 50 but average anywhere near or above that against great bowlers and somehow get lower than career average against idjit for entire careers. As i said, against all of them, Sachin went extended periods without ever failing to score 50+ every 3-4 innings. Besides, Kallis did not face anywhere close to the batting weight or game-weight as Tendulkar. He was the best batsman of a really good batting side, vulnerable only on spin wickets in his time and a very competetive to the best bowling attacks to back up the batting. Batting or bowling performances are not totally unlinked to one another. A guy who bats for a team, who;s bowlers consistently dismisses oppositions for 250-300 does not get as much pressure as the guy who bats for a team where 400 is not a safe 1st innings total.

[velu]

You can think what you want. Proof argument over the internet is pointless and dangerous. But if you ever bother talking to coaches, managers, players, etc. you will see there is a near unanimous consensus on consistency at a high level of performance is the mt. everest of sports. To understand this, is another story altogether but i would point out certain aspects of performing day in, day out at top quality level in a professional setting. Anyways, there is a reason why players like Crosby, Tendulkar, Schumacher, Federer, Jordan, etc. were/are lumped in the supreme league by the establishment. The reason, i will admit is mostly what the establishment is privvy to from 1st hand interactive experience but that is the fact.

we cant conclude without any argument .. my strong view is consistency is overrated.. maybe this can be argued in another thread .. schumi , federer , jordan are not only consistent , they are head and shoulders above their peers in most part of their career. But sacihin was always in top 10/20 , but never stayed at top 3 for extended period of time. So he is one of the greatest and not the all time greatest.

My favorite player is Sehwag too. I rate him very highly too incase you don't notice. You are correct you need both types of players. Its just that Tendulkar-type or Henrik Sedin/Jerry Rice type players are just nearly impossible to find and they present a unique dimension to your team : performing like the top 1% so bloody consistently that it is crazy. Consistency is not just about how many 50s or 100s you score overall in your career. Guys do go through stretches of : 0,4,15,5,1,1,150,150,80. That is the norm, for 99.999% people. It is freakish when a guy goes entire decade of 10,10,55,150,10,150,10,50 patterns. That is quite literally, consistent every 2-3 matches played, day in, day out. To top that, Tendulkar's prodigy status is pretty much, unquestionable. Freakish how good a kid can be.

i am not denying that he is a podigy or freak .. but to call him the greatest player ever is overrating him..

Sorry, you simply are too young or too ignorant of Sachin's career to call him a bottler. A guy who averages 50+ in tournament elimination games at 85+ strike rate is not a bottler. You can pick and choose but when there are dozens after dozens of pressure situations and 'man on the burning deck' duties he's pulled off, its just mind boggling that you consider him a bottler.

there are few things which can be agreed without any arguments .. bottlng is one thing esp in tests :--D none of his innings are listed in wisden top 100 .. he scored the runs day in and day out , but none of the innings to be remembered ( taking about #100 list )

4 games is a much bigger sample space than 1. There is no such case, because against these type of bowling combos, most batsmen, Lara, Dravid, Inzy, et al did in the 35-45 range. Duh. Its a freak of nature for a guy to average 50 but average anywhere near or above that against great bowlers and somehow get lower than career average against idjit for entire careers. As i said, against all of them, Sachin went extended periods without ever failing to score 50+ every 3-4 innings.

dravid , inzi and kallis were never rated as the greatest .. refer my previous post .. i have no issues if u call him as great but to rate as #1 batsmen ever is taking him bit too far..

Besides, Kallis did not face anywhere close to the batting weight or game-weight as Tendulkar. He was the best batsman of a really good batting side, vulnerable only on spin wickets in his time and a very competetive to the best bowling attacks to back up the batting. Batting or bowling performances are not totally unlinked to one another. A guy who bats for a team, who;s bowlers consistently dismisses oppositions for 250-300 does not get as much pressure as the guy who bats for a team where 400 is not a safe 1st innings total.

sachin too had very good batting side for most of his career and esp in his later half.. agree that kallis has got less scoreboard pressure , but this is not the case with lara ..

[Muloghonto]

we cant conclude without any argument .. my strong view is consistency is overrated.. maybe this can be argued in another thread .. schumi , federer , jordan are not only consistent , they are head and shoulders above their peers in most part of their career. But sacihin was always in top 10/20 , but never stayed at top 3 for extended period of time. So he is one of the greatest and not the all time greatest.

That is pretty much incorrect because Sachin, like these guys pretty much owned the #1 batsman in both formats tag for very long durations of time. Schumi/Federer are incomparables to Tendu because they play individual sports. Obviously the balance will favor the dominant ones in individual sports as opposed to team sports. Crosby or Ovechkin, Gretzky or Lemeiux, Jagr or Selanne- these guys are obviously not going to leave that huge a gap.

i am not denying that he is a podigy or freak .. but to call him the greatest player ever is overrating him..

Not really. We have a prodigy. We have longetivity. We have ATG level consistency for 17-18 years. Those feats are all way, way more special than beating the crap ton out in three months against a whole lotta players. there are few things which can be agreed without any arguments .. bottlng is one thing esp in tests :--D none of his innings are listed in wisden top 100 .. he scored the runs day in and day out , but none of the innings to be remembered ( taking about #100 list )

dravid , inzi and kallis were never rated as the greatest .. refer my previous post .. i have no issues if u call him as great but to rate as #1 batsmen ever is taking him bit too far..

Not really. He is at worst, clear-cut #2, with #1 contender being another freak talent meets professionalism and opportunity, aka Bradman. Most would say Bradman is #1 because of the stats the way many will say Babe Ruth or Maurice Richard are #1s for the stats alone. But IMO there are reasons to consider Tendy better than Bradman in certain ways too. sachin too had very good batting side for most of his career and esp in his later half.. agree that kallis has got less scoreboard pressure , but this is not the case with lara ..

[Scarves]

Kevin Pietersen Eoin Morgan Waqar Younis (His highlight tapes are amazing. But watching entire spells of his is more revealing) Rohit Sharma Ishant Sharma (Still living off his spell to Ponting and his lucky spell at Lords) Any Sharma Stuart Broad MIchael Clarke Harbhajan Singh(still living off his 2001/02 series against Australia)

1. Disagree 2. Disagree 3. He never really gets talked much. It's always Wasim 4. Agree. With his talent he should a great test player 5. lol no one rates him 6. Mohit is alright 7. I think he is underrated 8. Disagree 9. 2000/01 series but yeah I agree. He has been living off that series and a hat trick which was a pretty horrible hattrick lol

[Str8Drive]

Overrated maxwell failed 2 out of 2. He really is a hack, wonder if he can even hit boundaries with normal sized bats

[HippoSucks]

Overrated maxwell failed 2 out of 2. He really is a hack, wonder if he can even hit boundaries with normal sized bats

Everyone can use the same bats. How come other don’t average 50+ in ODIs this year? He failed 2 matches in a completely different environment. That means nothing.

[Guldozer]

Overrated maxwell failed 2 out of 2. He really is a hack, wonder if he can even hit boundaries with normal sized bats

Maxwell does what Afridi did 15/20 years ago yet he is apparently overrated, while Maxwell is apparently a good batsmen.

[Guest noticethis]

Kohli. He is good but people compare him with Sachin :hysterical:

LOL. Kohli has played 158 matches of which India has won 93 games. In 20 of them he has scored more than 100 runs.....yeah I'd call that great. There also have been times when he's scored a century and yet India failed to win. Can you name 5 other players(batsmen) that can boast similar or better performances? Doubt it.

[HippoSucks]

Maxwell does what Afridi did 15/20 years ago yet he is apparently overrated' date=' while Maxwell is apparently a good batsmen.[/quote'] Afridi in his prime was great. There is no denying that. The unfortunate part is that even 15/20 years after, Afridi is still playing while Maxwell relatively recently joined the international scene.

[Scarves]

Afridi in his prime was great. There is no denying that. The unfortunate part is that even 15/20 years after' date=' Afridi is still playing while Maxwell relatively recently joined the international scene.[/quote'] Plus Maxwell has more patience now than Afridi ever did. Afridi is overrated in the sense that people expect him to change the game more often than not. He makes no difference. Maxwell in One Days changes the game very quickly almost all the time.

[dragonfly]

Based on today's stats, Sandeep Hooda.

[putrevus]

Imran Khan has to be the most overrated player and captain of all time. He was tailender who could bat but Pakistanis talk as if he was greater than Bradman, home cooking umpires and ball tampering boosted his average to ridiculous lows otherwise he never was a bowler his average indicates.

[Marut]

Imran Khan has to be the most overrated player and captain of all time. He was tailender who could bat but Pakistanis talk as if he was greater than Bradman, home cooking umpires and ball tampering boosted his average to ridiculous lows otherwise he never was a bowler his average indicates.

Imran worked very hard and improved with age. He was among the better bowlers in WSC, where he did not obviously get the benefit of home umpires. He wasn't the most talented but he knew how to get the best out of himself. He was a gritty batsman during the last third of his career, again he wasn't very talented as a batsman but knew how to get maximum runs out of his skills.