Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

[Jono]

Commentary at Sachin's wicket.

Sachin's wicket
Krejza to Tendulkar, OUT, And more drama as the Aussies charge their way into the Test match. Tendulkar is run out. He pushed it to covers and set of for the run and he was middle of the crease when he realised Dhoni has not budged from the other end. Too late. Gone! And India lead by by 252 runs. Game on. Thrilling stuff. And that's tea.

I said earlier the lead was 272, but it was less. It was just 252!!!

Then White and Hussey are brought on and the game changes with India stretching the lead into the 340+ zone.

And then... over number 77 Watson is brought back on. Over number 78 a wicket falls. Over number 80 another wicket falls. Over 81 another wicket falls. Over 83 the last wicket falls.

It's pretty damn obvious that the decision to bowl White and Hussey cost Australia any chance of winning when they were in the game prior to that.

 

[vcs]

See now you're changing your words.

No one is denying India were favourites. But Australia could have won. It was hardly impossible. In fact, it was not even that far fetched once Sachin's wicket fell.

You said the match was unloseable at the end of Australia's 1st innings, which is palpably wrong.

Hmm.. yes. Still think a bit too much is made on here of the influence that particular decision had on the outcome, but anyway.

 

[Jono]

Nah. Read above.

 

[Francis]

As opposed to other bowlers who do a lot when they aren't taking wickets? The fact that you can keep it so tight even if you're not taking wickets just adds to his greatness, instead of detracting from it.

And I don't see how you can hold on to that argument (he was merely economical a lot) when his strike rate is as good as bowlers who people traditionally think of as much more aggressive (ala Lillee).

So what you're really saying is - he took wickets at a strike rate comparable to almost any other all time great and even when he was out of form, he helped his team by never letting his economy rate go too high. Sounds like an argument to put him in the top two, let alone top 25.

The fact that McGrath could keep it tight when he wasn't taking wickets does add to his greatness, but it also makes his stats look like he had a bigger impact than he did.

The same criticism can apply to Murali. I've seen Sri Lanka invest hours and hours into Murali's bowling, and he's gone for one/two runs an over. But in those rare instants where he didn't take wickets, all that time was a waste because Murali didn't take wickets, and the game slowly would fade away. That's a reason why I don't rate Murali as highly as some people here, because I've seen him take plenty of wickets for Sri Lanka, but often toward the end of innings, and often when teams have the game won. And he was always economical. But the most important thing is to win the game and have the impact that wins teams games, which Murali had, but his stats make him look better than he was.

Yes the fact McGrath was always economical adds to his greatness. But wickets are more important. And of course he took a hoard of wickets - he's got the record for being a fast bowler. But I've seen Tests where Australia needed wickets more importantly than they needed a good economy rate, and I think other bowlers offered a more immediate, imminent attack. I think that's what I'm trying to say - other bowlers offer a more immediate attack.

On the big stage, if Australia needed a bowler to win them the game, I think Warne would be picked 7/10 over McGrath. Warne was the guy who saved Australia in the 1996 semi final, the 1999 semi final. Warne's figures in Adelaide in 2006/07 were terrible, but he bowled so well at the right time in the second innings and won Australia a game they should never have won. He was the big performer of the 2005 Ashes. And when McGrath was awesome in the 2001 Ashes, Warne took almost as many wickets. Warne's the guy Australia would go to.

The Aussie players know it too, that's why they voted him a better bowler than McGrath a few years ago.

I'll give it to McGrath that he performed better against India than Warne. And against India they needed McGrath more, and went to him more (except maybe in 2004 when Ponting seemed happy to see Warne bowl to India). Australia also saw McGrath as the go-to-guy against the West Indies in 1999, but Warne was a shadow of himself in that period, and considering early retirement due to injuries.

With a Wasim (I rate McGrath better than Wasim in Tests) you got the sense he could take a wicket with any ball. McGrath was more methodical and patient - great qualities. But there were times I felt Australia would have benefited more with a player who could swing the ball better, of deliver a ball with more pace and bounce etc.

All of this is really harsh on McGrath since he's one of the 10 best bowlers ever I think. He did take wickets. He took a lot of wickets. He was economical, and that added to his greatness. But for instant immediate threatening bowling, I think there were better. Considering his economy rate, if he had the impact on games people here think he did I'd expect his average to be lower.

That and I saw him play a lot during the 90s, and nobody ever rated him in the league of Wasim and Ambrose back in those days. People here throw stats at me like his strike rate and average and it means little to me. I saw him play, saw the impact he had in games. It wasn't until 1999 he was the world's best fast bowler.

As for Lillee, Lillee was the most over-bowled fast bowler in history. He deserves credit for being able to bowl prolonged spells, and being asked to take the ball at ANY time. But I don't want to talk about Lillee, I do that too much here.

 

[silentstriker]

But I've seen Tests where Australia needed wickets more importantly than they needed a good economy rate, and I think other bowlers offered a more immediate, imminent attack. I think that's what I'm trying to say - other bowlers offer a more immediate attack.

Yes, some games he didn't take many wickets, unlike.....um....????

With a Wasim (I rate McGrath better than Wasim in Tests) you got the sense he could take a wicket with any ball. McGrath was more methodical and patient - great qualities. But there were times I felt Australia would have benefited more with a player who could swing the ball better, of deliver a ball with more pace and bounce etc.

And other times they could have been hurt by that same bowler when he couldn't keep it tight.

If his S/R was 70, you could make this argument, but not if it's 50. Wasim could take a wicket every ball but he took a wicket at a lesser rate as McGrath, so who cares what he looked like taking?

 

[smalishah84]

The fact that McGrath could keep it tight when he wasn't taking wickets does add to his greatness, but it also makes his stats look like he had a bigger impact than he did.

The same criticism can apply to Murali. I've seen Sri Lanka invest hours and hours into Murali's bowling, and he's gone for one/two runs an over. But in those rare instants where he didn't take wickets, all that time was a waste because Murali didn't take wickets, and the game slowly would fade away.

Yes the fact McGrath was always economical adds to his greatness. But wickets are more important. And of course he took a hoard of wickets - he's got the record for being a fast bowler. But I've seen Tests where Australia needed wickets more importantly than they needed a good economy rate, and I think other bowlers offered a more immediate, imminent attack. I think that's what I'm trying to say - other bowlers offer a more immediate attack.

With a Wasim (I rate McGrath better than Wasim in Tests) you got the sense he could take a wicket with any ball. McGrath was more methodical and patient - great qualities. But there were times I felt Australia would have benefited more with a player who could swing the ball better, of deliver a ball with more pace and bounce etc.

All of this is really harsh on McGrath since he's one of the 10 best bowlers ever I think. He did take wickets. He took a lot of wickets. He was economical, and that added to his greatness. But for instant immediate threatening bowling, I think there were better.

That and I saw him play a lot during the 90s, and nobody ever rated him in the league of Wasim and Ambrose back in those days. People here throw stats at me like his strike rate and average and it means little to me. I saw him play, saw the impact he had in games. It wasn't until 1999 he was the world's best fast bowler.

As for Lillee, Lillee was the most over-bowled fast bowler in history. He deserves credit for being able to bowl prolonged spells, and being asked to take the ball at ANY time. But I don't want to talk about Lillee, I do that too much here.

What i gauge from your posts is that you rate Akram very highly. Where in your list of top bowlers would Wasim lie? top 15? top 10? top 5?

 

[Francis]

I rank McGrath better than Wasim in Tests for the reasons SS mentioned - McGrath was more economical over time. Like I said, that does add to his greatness.

I rank Wasim better in ODI's because he was a better death bowler. Because he was more likely to have an immediate impact that lended itself well to ODI opening bowling too.

Wasim would be in my top 10 best Test bowlers ever... but so would McGrath. It's tough actually, they're so close. Wherever they'd be in my list, I think McGrath would only just be above Wasim.

But I've seen a lot of Glenn McGrath. I had the good/bad fortune to have suffered from some health difficulties during my life, and I often spent much time watching Test cricket on TV. I used to be able to watch full days of Test cricket. McGrath is one brilliant bowler. But I've seen other bowlers who have had a bigger say on their team winning, even if their stats don't look as pleasing to the eyes at times.

But it's really consistency (a great attribute) that puts him above Walsh and Akram for me (I'm not sure if I'd rate McGrath better than Ambrose though). Other provided more impacting performances I think. This isn't denying McGrath had a great many impacting performances. I'll never forget him tearing through Pakistan in Perth. But I prefer the imminent attacking presence of some other bowlers.

But when people call him the best bowler ever, they overrate him. I don't think many cricket experts would do that. Top 10 bowler of all time? Yes. Best bowler ever? No.

 

[Maximus0723]

where would one put pigeon in the ranks of great australian fast bowlers?

3rd? 4th? 5th?

lillee and lindwall would/should be ahead of him, in my opinion.
then perhaps davidson, and perhaps even miller.

really not sure about this...

1st.
Lillee could have been in the same plane if he had played more outside of Aus and Eng. But he didn't, I am not going to hold that against him, but it doesn't help him either. So pretty neutral there.

 

[Furball]

Commentary at Sachin's wicket.

Sachin's wicket
Krejza to Tendulkar, OUT, And more drama as the Aussies charge their way into the Test match. Tendulkar is run out. He pushed it to covers and set of for the run and he was middle of the crease when he realised Dhoni has not budged from the other end. Too late. Gone! And India lead by by 252 runs. Game on. Thrilling stuff. And that's tea.

I said earlier the lead was 272, but it was less. It was just 252!!!

Then White and Hussey are brought on and the game changes with India stretching the lead into the 340+ zone.

And then... over number 77 Watson is brought back on. Over number 78 a wicket falls. Over number 80 another wicket falls. Over 81 another wicket falls. Over 83 the last wicket falls.

It's pretty damn obvious that the decision to bowl White and Hussey cost Australia any chance of winning when they were in the game prior to that.

You realise the "game on" doesn't imply Australia were in with much of a chance of winning. Tendulkar running himself out opened the door slightly.

I'd back India to defend 253 in the 4th innings at home 99 times out of 100.

 

[Jono]

No, that pitch was flat as a pancake. Watch Australia in that 4th innings.

Hayden and Hussey were absolutely mauling it. If they didn't need 4+ rpo they could have chased 280. Instead they went super aggressive because they had to and hence lost wickets. Katich's was a T20esque dismissal.

I watched every ball of the match. It was obvious that Australia were in the game. They made 209 having to bat like retards. The suggestion they couldn't have made 40-50 more is ridiculous.

 

[Maximus0723]

Yes the fact McGrath was always economical adds to his greatness. But wickets are more important. And of course he took a hoard of wickets - he's got the record for being a fast bowler. But I've seen Tests where Australia needed wickets more importantly than they needed a good economy rate, and I think other bowlers offered a more immediate, imminent attack. I think that's what I'm trying to say - other bowlers offer a more immediate attack.

In what Tests McGrath didn't fulfil the above criteria that you mention?

 

[silentstriker]

You realise the "game on" doesn't imply Australia were in with much of a chance of winning. Tendulkar running himself out opened the door slightly.

I'd back India to defend 253 in the 4th innings at home 99 times out of 100.

Um, not on that pitch.

 

[Jono]

Yep. A pitch where an 8-1 field was used. A pitch where at one stage every single fielder other than a slip was out on the boundary on the fifth day with Hayden and Hussey at the crease.

Sure Dhoni is a defensive captain, but he wouldn't do that on a pitch favouring spin FFS.

 

[pup11]

Bradman, he isn't a ****ing god and people shouldn't jump on posters who question his superiority with genuine, valid questions. Any such question is generally answered condescendingly and the posters shooed away. Those sort of condescending answers by Aussie fanboys has made me dislike him as a player. Worst set of fanboys in cricket are Bradman's.

























Now replace the name Bradman with Tendulkar and you will see that both of those statements are true.

What else do you expect when you go about saying such silly things. Mate..Bradman is not some mythical character that people keep praising out of madness, he is a bloke who averaged almost 100 in a era of uncovered pitches with no fancy protective equipment or bats full of sweet spots like the one's we have today, if you still can't understand why he is and would remain the best batsman ever than their isn't much one can do about that.

Also fully agree with Jono's views that the Nagpur test was lost becuase Ponting screwed up, there have been numerous ocassions when Ponting has made stupid decisions but then we had an all conquering side which covered up things up most of the times. The notion that he is a good ODI captain is true but only when you compare his test captaincy to his ODI captaincy and reason for that is that you really don't need to be very imaginative as a captain in the ODI format and that suits Ponting.

Ponting has never been a shrewd captain and his strength has always been to be a good leader of men and that quality has earned him the respect of his team-mates and the Australian fans, but his captaincy skills really can't be counted as a big strength of him as a player becuase if anything it has only weighed him down since the Australian team has come back to the pack.

 

[Blaze 18]

What else do you expect when you go about saying such silly things. Mate..Bradman is not some mythical character that people keep praising out of madness, he is a bloke who averaged almost 100 in a era of uncovered pitches with no fancy protective equipment or bats full of sweet spots like the one's we have today, if you still can't understand why he is and would remain the best batsman ever than their isn't much one can do about that.

He is the greatest cricketer ever, but that doesn't mean he is above criticism or scrutiny.

 

[Shri]

What else do you expect when you go about saying such silly things. Mate..Bradman is not some mythical character that people keep praising out of madness, he is a bloke who averaged almost 100 in a era of uncovered pitches with no fancy protective equipment or bats full of sweet spots like the one's we have today, if you still can't understand why he is and would remain the best batsman ever than their isn't much one can do about that.

Exactly, fanboy.

 

[Spark]

I think the Bradman question is more complex than that. The only time most people get involved is when people starting saying Tendulkar was equal or better than him, which strikes me and many others as nothing less than patent nonsense.

 

[Burgey]

He is the greatest cricketer ever, but that doesn't mean he is above criticism or scrutiny.

Of course he should be subject to both of those. But as Spark says, the only time I think people get the Tom Tits with anything to do with Bradman is when people want to compare Tendulkar, Lara or another contemporary to him.

If people want to do that it's a matter for them, but in doing so the insult isn't actually to Bradman. Bradman has an average roughly 40% better than Tendulkar's, and of course scored a ton in one in three innings he played in at test level. The insult comes to the great players of Bradman's era as well. Because if you want to say Bradman would average roughly what Tendulkar does now (or any other great player now) then you must reduce his output by roughly 40%.

That means you reduce Hammond's by 40%, Hobbs the same. Sutcliffe, Headley, Ponsford, McCabe - all of them.

So if you want to suggest Bradman will average mid-high 50s now, then in order to be consistent you would need to say Hammond would average 35 now; Headley 36; Sutcliffe 36; Ponsford 28(!!!); McCabe 28(!!!).

And that's just tosh. Because great players adapt - they adjust over time to differences in the game to keep their output at or about the same level. That's actually what being great really is all about. Tendulkar himself shows it in having played for 20 or more years. The game has changed - strike rates, bats, overs bowled in a day, variations from bowlers like the doosra being developed, pitches - they've changed. But he's adapted. So would those blokes. Because they were great players.

If you were comparing Tendulkar to one of those other blokes from Bradman'sera, the comparison would be equally as impossible, but would at least make some sense.

Comparing Bradman to Tendulkar (or to anyone else) is crazy, frankly. The bloke beggars belief. I can only imagine what it must be like to watch a bloke who is 40%+ better than Tendulkar, Lara, Chappell, Richards, Pollock bat. In fact, I actually can't imagine it. And I think that's what makes it so very hard to believe.

But he did it. Over 20 years, and with a six year hiatus in the middle for good measure.

 

[Jono]

Great post.

Bradman WAFG!

 

[benchmark00]

Great post.

Bradman WAFG!

Burgey fanboy.