Current overrated XI

Furthermore, big deal if he's made a couple of tons, others on that list have done more.

Smith is unfairly and too harshly judged here. He has issues with his batting but he gets the job done more or less. Also, I've heard a few of his interviews and he doesn't at all come out as arrogant either. Maybe he was earlier, don't know. Similar to Ganguly in that regard.

Gayle is seriously overrated.

Henry wrote:

Get How and Southee out of there. Southee hasn't played as many matches to be over-rated yet, and How actually looks to be one of the few in the NZ top order who could become decent test batsmen.

Dunno who could take How's spot (Maybe Gayle), but Southee could be replaced by Irfan Pathan I guess.

Yeah, Pathan was MASSIVELY over-rated in tests. The comedown he had the last year before making a comeback was inevitable.

Good to see no one has questioned Vettori's spot on this list.

From Indians, the way Kaif was treated by some quarters used to do my head in.

AB de Villiers is a middle order batsman definitely overrated. If Stephan Fleming hadn't retired he'd be almost first on the list.

Red wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

Red wrote:Symonds surely is, has maybe only had one telling innings. Most of the time his higher scores have followed a flood of runs from the top order players and he hasn't had to face the world's best bowlers (i.e. his own). Batting #6 for oz is a very protected position. Would agree with Clarke for the same reasons.


I.Sharma has done nothing wrong so far.

Yeah sure. Apart from both his tons have come when we have been in the sh!t.

Coming in at 5-84 and 4-119 (becoming 6-134) and he smacks a couple of 150+ scores.

But during that first one against England he was plumb LBW early. That reprieve probably saved his test career.

Against India he was caught behind before he reached 50. With better umpiring he'd be tonless. That reprieve was the catalyst basically behind the bad blood in the Indian series. At least the seeds were sown then.

That is such a pathetic reason. Can you name any batsmen who has never benefited from bad decisions? Still takes guts and skill to pull your team out of the fire. Plus he is amazing in ODIs.

And he was sawn off at Perth against India.

Red wrote:
I.Sharma has done nothing wrong so far.

Surely 6 @ 60 in Aus was nothong to write home about.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:
I.Sharma has done nothing wrong so far.

Surely 6 @ 60 in Aus was nothong to write home about.

Another proof that stats mean FA a lot of the time.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:
I.Sharma has done nothing wrong so far.

Surely 6 @ 60 in Aus was nothong to write home about.

Steyn won't be sending many letters home either then . . .

[quote="taipan"]

Red wrote:
I.Sharma has done nothing wrong so far.

Surely 6 @ 60 in Aus was nothong to write home about.[/quote

Well he mastered Punter who was rated as the world's best batsman at the time. Is only 19, bowled long spells and without luck. Filled in at late notice. In any case who is overrated him? He is just lauded as being a bowler with a great future.

A lot of the Indians here have been rating him over Steyn

PearlJ wrote:

Red wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

Red wrote:Symonds surely is, has maybe only had one telling innings. Most of the time his higher scores have followed a flood of runs from the top order players and he hasn't had to face the world's best bowlers (i.e. his own). Batting #6 for oz is a very protected position. Would agree with Clarke for the same reasons.


I.Sharma has done nothing wrong so far.

Yeah sure. Apart from both his tons have come when we have been in the sh!t.

Coming in at 5-84 and 4-119 (becoming 6-134) and he smacks a couple of 150+ scores.

But during that first one against England he was plumb LBW early. That reprieve probably saved his test career.

Against India he was caught behind before he reached 50. With better umpiring he'd be tonless. That reprieve was the catalyst basically behind the bad blood in the Indian series. At least the seeds were sown then.

That is such a pathetic reason. Can you name any batsmen who has never benefited from bad decisions? Still takes guts and skill to pull your team out of the fire. Plus he is amazing in ODIs.

And he was sawn off at Perth against India.

Point is though, without those lucky reprieves his career would have been cactus. He was lucky they persisted with him as long as they did. He averaged 19 before that innings against England. And that was after coming in often when the team had already set a great platform for him.

Red wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

Red wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

Red wrote:Symonds surely is, has maybe only had one telling innings. Most of the time his higher scores have followed a flood of runs from the top order players and he hasn't had to face the world's best bowlers (i.e. his own). Batting #6 for oz is a very protected position. Would agree with Clarke for the same reasons.


I.Sharma has done nothing wrong so far.

Yeah sure. Apart from both his tons have come when we have been in the sh!t.

Coming in at 5-84 and 4-119 (becoming 6-134) and he smacks a couple of 150+ scores.

But during that first one against England he was plumb LBW early. That reprieve probably saved his test career.

Against India he was caught behind before he reached 50. With better umpiring he'd be tonless. That reprieve was the catalyst basically behind the bad blood in the Indian series. At least the seeds were sown then.

That is such a pathetic reason. Can you name any batsmen who has never benefited from bad decisions? Still takes guts and skill to pull your team out of the fire. Plus he is amazing in ODIs.

And he was sawn off at Perth against India.

Point is though, without those lucky reprieves his career would have been cactus. He was lucky they persisted with him as long as they did. He averaged 19 before that innings against England. And that was after coming in often when the team had already set a great platform for him.

He wasn't lucky, Red, you farkin dipshit, the selectors saw he added something important to the team and gave him the chance to show it . . .

For all of the recent strides Symonds has made in test cricket, at the end of his career I still feel it will be his ODI exploits that people will remember him by.

taipan wrote:A lot of the Indians here have been rating him over Steyn

Well Steyn has the opportunity to perform against us downunder this summer. His last visit to our shores was inglorious so if we compare form in Australia to date Sharma is ahead.

What are stats anyway? We all know Smith deserves to be overrated yet on reflection his aren't too bad - averaging nearly 49 as an opener at a strikerate of 61 while captaining his side. Yet the purists know he's no great shakes.

Henry wrote:For all of the recent strides Symonds has made in test cricket, at the end of his career I still feel it will be his ODI exploits that people will remember him by.

Well his ODI career has been markedly longer than his test career anf he is probably one of the very top ODI players of the decade . . . so there's nowt wrong with that

tac wrote:

Henry wrote:For all of the recent strides Symonds has made in test cricket, at the end of his career I still feel it will be his ODI exploits that people will remember him by.

Well his ODI career has been markedly longer than his test career anf he is probably one of the very top ODI players of the decade . . . so there's nowt wrong with that

What I mean is, I think he'll become like Bevan- ie an ODI great but not quite up to it at test level.

Henry wrote:

tac wrote:

Henry wrote:For all of the recent strides Symonds has made in test cricket, at the end of his career I still feel it will be his ODI exploits that people will remember him by.

Well his ODI career has been markedly longer than his test career anf he is probably one of the very top ODI players of the decade . . . so there's nowt wrong with that

What I mean is, I think he'll become like Bevan- ie an ODI great but not quite up to it at test level.

I agree Henry. Symonds was also lucky that we could 'carry' him for a period of time. I wonder how he would have performed in a more lowly team where he came in at 4/30 quite often, not on a rare occasion. He will never go down as one of our better #6 test batsmen.

Red wrote:
What are stats anyway? We all know Smith deserves to be overrated yet on reflection his aren't too bad - averaging nearly 49 as an opener at a strikerate of 61 while captaining his side. Yet the purists know he's no great shakes.

The royal "we"?

A lot of forummers here say he isn't overrated.

WTF has purists to do with it. Bradman was never rated the most stltist batsman around. All that counts is getting the job done and Smith appears to be doing it.

Most of the regular forummers here know I hold no brief for Smith, but saying he is overrated is just your normal anti SA BS, and fortunately everyone here knows it.

Henry wrote:

tac wrote:

Henry wrote:For all of the recent strides Symonds has made in test cricket, at the end of his career I still feel it will be his ODI exploits that people will remember him by.

Well his ODI career has been markedly longer than his test career anf he is probably one of the very top ODI players of the decade . . . so there's nowt wrong with that

What I mean is, I think he'll become like Bevan- ie an ODI great but not quite up to it at test level.

You need to have another look at Bevan's stats . . .

TBH, no. Smith makes easyish runs... he's gotten better over the last year though.

What's Bevan's stats got to do with it? The fact is, he was an ODI great, but his batting (ignore the 6 month period when he was Australia's second best spinner) wasn't up to it at test level. I think it will be the same with Symonds.

Henry wrote:What's Bevan's stats got to do with it? The fact is, he was an ODI great, but his batting (ignore the 6 month period when he was Australia's second best spinner) wasn't up to it at test level. I think it will be the same with Symonds.

Ummm, Roy has already surpassed Bevo by quite a way and will only continue to improve . . ..