Team of over-rated test cricketers

If you had to put together a team of over-rated test cricketers playing TODAY who would be in your side?

this would be mine:

1.Mohammed Hafeez- I think he's a good cricketer however he has a poor record and gets bigged up a lot of commentators
2.Tamim Iqbal- What has he actually done?
3.Phil Hughes- The guy is awful! Why do the aussie selectors persist with him?
4.Mohammed Ashraful- Promised so much but dismally failed...has been given 1000 chances by selectors
5.Angelo Matthews
6.Ravindra Jadeja- two triple f/c centuries yes...but a test average of under 20 from 6 test matches IN INDIA!!
7.Matthew Wade (wk)
8.Robin Peterson
9.Umar Gul- class in limited overs, but average at best in tests!
10.Tim Southee
11.Tino Best- only averages 2 wickets per test...however he does try hard.

Jadeja is not that bad? Scored 43 today and took 2 - 40 off 29 overs in Aussie's innings. I would expect his batting average to rise if he continues to play. And there's nothing wrong with his test bowling average and economy rate - pretty good in fact....

There are question marks over Jadeja's batting, but nobody is over-rating him in my view. He'll need runs in the second innings of this match to be first choice in SA I'd imagine.

Tamim and Ashraful have been a little disappointing - Tamim was electric in those 2 Tests in 2010 but, yes, overall very poor. Ashraful seems to have found some form lately after a very extended lull.

I think Peterson's very decent actually, as South African spinners go.

Agree with you that Best, Gul and Wade are somewhat overrated. And Mathews is certainly still finding his way in Tests.

Tamim Iqbal in my view is not overrated. Bangladesh hardly play enough test matches and Tamim is still not 24. While his figures aren't excellent, they aren't bad for an upcoming young opener of an upcoming young side.
Anyways, the very concept of over rating itself is debatable, its a very relative concept.
And Ravindra Jadeja overrated? If anything the poor guy has been seriously underrated. People said he can't bat or bowl in test cricket. He comfortably outbowled Harbhajan Singh, Pragyan Ojha and Nathan Lyon in the series and has been a consistent threat with the ball during the Australian series, and even in his debut test against England, he bowled close to 70 overs at a more than healthy economy rate and knocked over the likes of Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott.
His batting hasn't taken off, he did come into the test side on the back of some big runs at FC level, but there was no hype around his batting whatsoever. And even after such a creditable showing in his short test career, where he's playing only his 5th test, not played 6 tests, the 'Sir Ravindra Jadeja' nonsense continues, and even on cricinfo pages, he's often the subject of some rather ludicrous jokes where even some pathetic comentators get involved ever so gladly.

Perhaps we ought to pencil in Jadeja for the team of under-rated test cricketers.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Perhaps we ought to pencil in Jadeja for the team of under-rated test cricketers.

Very much agreed.

Bit harsh on Robin Peterson, no-one rates him in the first place.

Based on the current England-NZ test series, a whole squad of over-rated test cricketers can be made from those in the current England team.

gboycottnut wrote:Based on the current England-NZ test series, a whole squad of over-rated test cricketers can be made from those in the current England team.

I don't agree..

No one really rates Robin as one of the best spinners in the world.

Trust me if, SA could play another seamer they would (and we have a lot that on average and strike rate would be chosen way ahead of Robbie). But we need a spinner to do a holding job between the newish ball and the reverse swinging old ball. Also the other reason SA needs a spinner is so they can keep their over rates up.

Also he is a handy bat when we are in trouble (not really and alrounder).

If anything, I think he is a bit underrated. He averages 1 higher than Swann with the bat and 3 higher with the ball and 14 higher than ajmal with the bat and 6 higher with the ball. Also SA is probably the worst place for spin bowlers.

Tendulkar

msp83 wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Perhaps we ought to pencil in Jadeja for the team of under-rated test cricketers.

Very much agreed.

Another superb bowling performance by Jadeja for India - 5 wickets

Man of the match for Jadeja

Have a look at tim southee's record in Asia, then think again.

Still there will be the jokes and stupid negativity around the lad.
Interesting that Ajinkya Rahane made a right mess of his debut.

Looks like the england team saw this thread and decided to nominate themselves...

Ian Bell, Stuart Broad and Morne Morkel are 3 players among the current lot playing international cricket who are overrated in my view. Now let me try and make myself clear, I do believe they are all good test cricketers. But the moment Bell score some decent run, he becomes better than Pietersen, Cook, Prior and other consistent performers in the England side, there is a certain style and beauty to Bell's batting, but his inconsistencies haven't quite gone away, although SA 2010 looked like the emergence of a new Ian Bell.
As far as Broad goes, again people thought he was the next in line after Ian Botham and Andrew Flintoff. But Broad's batting has declined and at the moment he's nothing more than a capable slogger. His bowling has a touch of class about it, but again inconsistency is a serious issue with him as well.
Morne Morkel has all the right attributes of a quality fast bowler. He's in elite company with Dale Steyn and Vernon Philander to be backed up by Jacques Kallis. But Morkel, despite all the endorsements of people, hasn't quite lived up to his potential and billing as yet.

I don't think he ever will msp, morkel is too mellow, he doesn't have a killer instinc, as far as whether he is over rated, I don't think so, he has more detractors than fans.

Biltong, if Morne doesn't make the step up to the next level, that will be very disappointing. He has a great deal going for him, it will be a pitty if he just ends up as a good but not outstanding fast bowler.
But Guru Garry is there, so is Allan Donald, and Morne has the likes of Steyn and Philander along side him in the bowling unit. Perhaps he'll find a way to make the step up, but he can do that after next Feb!.

Haha, look he is 28 years old now, he has been around for what four years now?

He has his moments, but it isn't consistently world class.

Think Morne made his debut against India in 2007. So that is 6 years of international cricket.
Someone like James Anderson took almost 6 years to make the step up from a good bowler to one of the best in his generation. Zaheer Khan took 6 years to emerge into one of India's best ever seamers despite early promise.
It won't be easy for Morkel, despite all good attributes of a fine fast bowler, he does seem to lack something, perhaps as you hinted, its a mental thing with him.

Yes, I think sometimes we need to accept that some cricketers just have a ceiling, and in this case I think Morne as a support bowler to Philander and Steyn, is just that

Broad definitely has to be included in a team of over-rated test cricketers. How on earth can a test calibre player good enough to bat at number 7 in the England test team bat like a Devon Malcolm/Alan Mullally/Phil Tufnell calibre of a number 11 slogging batsman is beyond me.

gboycottnut wrote:Broad definitely has to be included in a team of over-rated test cricketers. How on earth can a test calibre player good enough to bat at number 7 in the England test team bat like a Devon Malcolm/Alan Mullally/Phil Tufnell calibre of a number 11 slogging batsman is beyond me.

At the moment Broad is a poor man's Tim Southee

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Broad definitely has to be included in a team of over-rated test cricketers. How on earth can a test calibre player good enough to bat at number 7 in the England test team bat like a Devon Malcolm/Alan Mullally/Phil Tufnell calibre of a number 11 slogging batsman is beyond me.

At the moment Broad is a poor man's Tim Southee

Judging by the way he batted in the first innings of this test, Broad is more like a poor man's Graeme Dilley of 1981!

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Kevin Pietersen yet.

I have to be honest, I think Jimmy Anderson is probably the most overrated player around. Not that he isn't very good, just that he isn't anything like as good as some people make him out to be.

dyrewolfe wrote:I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Kevin Pietersen yet.

KP isnt overrated...he's a very good cricketer!

I'm surprised our Kiwi posters haven't just listed the current England team!

Overrated by who? As I often say in such discussions, I don't overrate or underrate anybody - I rate them just the right amount thank you very much.

To be honest I don't like articles talking about "overrating" or "worst ever test cricketers". Every single person (in the post war years at least, I recognise that in the 19th century the odd cap may have been given for other than cricketing reasons) who has ever played international cricket (for any team) is a very good player, who has made a big commitment, practiced incredibly hard to get to where they are. I don't like disparaging them.

Take Phil Hughes for example - to refer to him as awful is clearly nonsense - they guy has several test centuries, has scored 3 (at least) fifties in his last 2 series. He is not an awful player, at worst he is not good enough (yet?) to play test cricket. Personally I think he's very talented, hard working, but with a couple of technical issues which still need to be sorted.

I don't know anyone who over-rates Jadeja TBH - underrated perhaps... Very useful bowler, terrific fielder and just needs that big innings in test cricket to get going. India is no longer an easy place to bat - of the current two test series taking place I know which place I'd rather be as a batsman, and it ain't India.

Mike Selig wrote:Overrated by who? As I often say in such discussions, I don't overrate or underrate anybody - I rate them just the right amount thank you very much.

To be honest I don't like articles talking about "overrating" or "worst ever test cricketers". Every single person (in the post war years at least, I recognise that in the 19th century the odd cap may have been given for other than cricketing reasons) who has ever played international cricket (for any team) is a very good player, who has made a big commitment, practiced incredibly hard to get to where they are. I don't like disparaging them.

Take Phil Hughes for example - to refer to him as awful is clearly nonsense - they guy has several test centuries, has scored 3 (at least) fifties in his last 2 series. He is not an awful player, at worst he is not good enough (yet?) to play test cricket. Personally I think he's very talented, hard working, but with a couple of technical issues which still need to be sorted.

I don't know anyone who over-rates Jadeja TBH - underrated perhaps... Very useful bowler, terrific fielder and just needs that big innings in test cricket to get going. India is no longer an easy place to bat - of the current two test series taking place I know which place I'd rather be as a batsman, and it ain't India.

I think Hughes has had enough chances. Please, lets stop banging on about his talent. Not good enough, sorry.

Good shout on Barbie. Not sure Morne is overrated though.

Mike Selig wrote:Overrated by who? As I often say in such discussions, I don't overrate or underrate anybody - I rate them just the right amount thank you very much.

To be honest I don't like articles talking about "overrating" or "worst ever test cricketers". Every single person (in the post war years at least, I recognise that in the 19th century the odd cap may have been given for other than cricketing reasons) who has ever played international cricket (for any team) is a very good player, who has made a big commitment, practiced incredibly hard to get to where they are. I don't like disparaging them.

Take Phil Hughes for example - to refer to him as awful is clearly nonsense - they guy has several test centuries, has scored 3 (at least) fifties in his last 2 series. He is not an awful player, at worst he is not good enough (yet?) to play test cricket. Personally I think he's very talented, hard working, but with a couple of technical issues which still need to be sorted.

I don't know anyone who over-rates Jadeja TBH - underrated perhaps... Very useful bowler, terrific fielder and just needs that big innings in test cricket to get going. India is no longer an easy place to bat - of the current two test series taking place I know which place I'd rather be as a batsman, and it ain't India.

Yes Phil Hughes is very talented at batting but talent is only one facet nowadays to succeed well in modern test cricket. Technically Phil Hughes is probably just as bad as what Don Bradman was, and it can be strongly argued that had the Don played cricket now he wouldn't have scored as many runs as he did back in the dark ages of the 1930's when there were no video analysis and computer technology available to help opposition teams to plan individual strategies/bowling plans to contain and to get a player dissmissed.

Bradman was technically bad?

Stella wrote:Bradman was technically bad?

It can be argued that he was actually technically bad as his bat pickup from the bat resting position on the batting crease involved the usage of a very big looping kind of action and he didn't play many of his shots with a straight bat in which he showed to the bowler the bat maker's name as it were. Then again, with his incredible hand eye coordination he got away with not having to rely on playing those traditional orthodox type straight batting shots which great batsmen like Hutton, Hobbs and Boycott made as part of their batting trademark.

Bradman had a great technique that worked for him. Not classical but very affective.

Stella wrote:Bradman had a great technique that worked for him. Not classical but very affective.

That is because he had the advantage over other players at that time of having an excellent hand to eye coordination honed from hours of practising hitting a golf ball with a single stump.

Mike Selig wrote:Overrated by who? As I often say in such discussions, I don't overrate or underrate anybody - I rate them just the right amount thank you very much.

To be honest I don't like articles talking about "overrating" or "worst ever test cricketers". Every single person (in the post war years at least, I recognise that in the 19th century the odd cap may have been given for other than cricketing reasons) who has ever played international cricket (for any team) is a very good player, who has made a big commitment, practiced incredibly hard to get to where they are. I don't like disparaging them.

Take Phil Hughes for example - to refer to him as awful is clearly nonsense - they guy has several test centuries, has scored 3 (at least) fifties in his last 2 series. He is not an awful player, at worst he is not good enough (yet?) to play test cricket. Personally I think he's very talented, hard working, but with a couple of technical issues which still need to be sorted.

I don't know anyone who over-rates Jadeja TBH - underrated perhaps... Very useful bowler, terrific fielder and just needs that big innings in test cricket to get going. India is no longer an easy place to bat - of the current two test series taking place I know which place I'd rather be as a batsman, and it ain't India.

Mike has pretty much summed up my view on this. Unless there are any former internationals on here we can assume anyone picked to play for his country is better than us , so a degree of respect is due them , even in the case of players who appear to have been quickly exposed as not up to the standard required.

I do agree that some players seem to attract rather more positive (or negative ) comment than their raw figures appear to justify , but in most such cases you will find plenty of people to disagree with the majority view : half the threads on here wouldn't exist otherwise

I will say that I feel Hughes for example has been given rather favourable treatment by the Australian selectors , who apparently think his talents are worth some extra investment at short term cost. In this case it is my opinion they are wrong , but I am not so arrogant as to assume this means their's are automatically without foundation...eventually it will presumably become clear which judgement is correct.

I would also agree that Jadeja was probably underrated by the general public , although I suspect his stocks have risen after his recent matches.

Anyway I don't want to spoil anyone's fun ... If you want to use this thread to bash KP or whoever , knock yourselves out

CF wrote:If you had to put together a team of over-rated test cricketers playing TODAY who would be in your side?

this would be mine:

1.Mohammed Hafeez- I think he's a good cricketer however he has a poor record and gets bigged up a lot of commentators
2.Tamim Iqbal- What has he actually done?
3.Phil Hughes- The guy is awful! Why do the aussie selectors persist with him?
4.Mohammed Ashraful- Promised so much but dismally failed...has been given 1000 chances by selectors
5.Angelo Matthews
6.Ravindra Jadeja- two triple f/c centuries yes...but a test average of under 20 from 6 test matches IN INDIA!!
7.Matthew Wade (wk)
8.Robin Peterson
9.Umar Gul- class in limited overs, but average at best in tests!
10.Tim Southee
11.Tino Best- only averages 2 wickets per test...however he does try hard.

hafeez had an outstanding 2012
Tamim- slightly overrated, but still young an injuries have occured in wrong times
Huges - still young
Ashraful - everyone has figured him out, he isnt very good, he is terrible, but on his day, one of the worlds greatest
Mathews - i like the guy
Jadeja - good player of shorter formats
Wade - havent seen him play
Peterson - who rates him
Gul- he is only rated highly in shorter formats
Southee - still young, potential
Best - no one rates him, inconsistent

I guess the Aussie selectors persist with Hughes as they see something of a young Don Bradman in his batting.