Underrated test cricketers

Status
Not open for further replies.


If we are straying from current players I will have Phil Jacques. Averaged 47 from 11 tests before injury intervened.

Andrew Symonds was also a superb middle order batsman who liked his grog a bit too much.

In fact any Aussie occasional test player from 1990 to 2010 would qualify. They had an embarrassment of riches.
 
chopsfc007 said:
so someone who averages mid 30s batting is good enough ian bell must be top top class then
Click to expand...
Ian Botham's test average is 33..... I'd always thought that was pretty low and I that I mean he was a better batter than that. I'd imagine the reason it's so low was his style and that he normally batted down the order where he had to swing the bat a bit. Stats on their own don't explain everything.
 
Bri said:
Ian Botham's test average is 33..... I'd always thought that was pretty low and I that I mean he was a better batter than that. I'd imagine the reason it's so low was his style and that he normally batted down the order where he had to swing the bat a bit. Stats on their own don't explain everything.
Click to expand...
he has batted high up for a while now he is a decent player but that's it plenty other players play attacking and are miles better than he is even in his own team
 
smoker said:
If we are straying from current players I will have Phil Jacques. Averaged 47 from 11 tests before injury intervened.

Andrew Symonds was also a superb middle order batsman who liked his grog a bit too much.

In fact any Aussie occasional test player from 1990 to 2010 would qualify. They had an embarrassment of riches.
Click to expand...

Was always a fan of Paul Reiffel growing up when he played alongside McGrath.

Michael Bevan was always exciting to watch too but probably better ODI player.

Can I have Damien Martyn in there or is it silly to call him underrated?
 
chopsfc007 said:
he has batted high up for a while now he is a decent player but that's it plenty other players play attacking and are miles better than he is even in his own team
Click to expand...

You don't really get this all-rounder concept do you? :lol:

We'll be thrapping ourselves daft if Stokes has averages like Watto's in ten years.

chopsfc007 said:
so someone who averages mid 30s batting is good enough ian bell must be top top class then
Click to expand...

Eh? Ian Bell is a top class batsman. He almost single handedly won the Ashes in 2013. He has been out of form since, and debatable whether he is suited to the modern one day game, but his record speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
smoker said:
You don't really get this all-rounder concept do you? :lol:

We'll be thrapping ourselves daft if Stokes has averages like Watto's in ten years.



Eh? Ian Bell is a top class batsman. He almost single handedly won the Ashes in 2013. He has been out of form since, and debatable whether he is suited to the modern one day game, but his record speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
the all rounder concept that doesn't get many hundreds doesn't get many wickets lol

got him got top scorer in this innings so hope he goes big here
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
Stats can mean anything tho but. Think about it, while Flintoff had to play against Australia Watson got away with playing against England, bound to have bettered his stats
:p
Click to expand...
not too mention playing in Aussie conditions is far easier then England early summer
 
smoker said:
Looks like Shane Watson is the top answer. :lol:

Someone wake me up when Woakes or Stokes have achieved as much as him.

Shane Watson: Batting 35.51, Bowling 32.71, top score 176 = SHIT
Andrew Flintoff: Batting 31.77, Bowling 32.78, top score 167 = LEGEND



An all rounder who is good enough to open the batting. Think about it for a second marra.

Even better at one day.
Click to expand...
Watson's only taken 70 wickets in 54 test matches and he's scored 4 hundreds in that time. He wouldn't get in the team as a top order batsman (where he's batting at the moment) on his runs alone and he wouldn't get in the side as a bowler alone if he took that many wickets in a match. He's a handy cricketer but he doesn't bowl often enough (largely due to injury) to warrant a place as a genuine all-rounder in my opinion and his batting record should be better for the talent he has. I think he's one who hasn't fulfilled his potential rather than an over-rated player.
 
Another decent fifty from the lad in Melbourne...

scotch said:
not too mention playing in Aussie conditions is far easier then England early summer
Click to expand...

Not if you are a swing bowler like Watto.:lol:

Best bowling 6/33 at Headingley.

mikemanc said:
Watson's only taken 70 wickets in 54 test matches and he's scored 4 hundreds in that time. He wouldn't get in the team as a top order batsman (where he's batting at the moment) on his runs alone and he wouldn't get in the side as a bowler alone if he took that many wickets in a match. He's a handy cricketer but he doesn't bowl often enough (largely due to injury) to warrant a place as a genuine all-rounder in my opinion and his batting record should be better for the talent he has. I think he's one who hasn't fulfilled his potential rather than an over-rated player.
Click to expand...

Underrated.

The effectiveness of a bowler is measured in his average and Watson has taken wickets when he has bowled, despite being at the medium end of fast-medium, bowling on unsympathetic Australian wickets.

Likewise the effectiveness of a bowler is measured in batting average not numbers of centuries. Even so he has scored 4 test centuries and 9 ODI centuries which compares favourably with any all-rounder England has produced bar Botham.

You are right he has failed to meet his potential, largely due to factors outside his control like injuries and strong competition for places.
 
Last edited:
smoker said:
If we are straying from current players I will have Phil Jacques. Averaged 47 from 11 tests before injury intervened.

Andrew Symonds was also a superb middle order batsman who liked his grog a bit too much.

In fact any Aussie occasional test player from 1990 to 2010 would qualify. They had an embarrassment of riches.
Click to expand...

Stu MacGill - Never even had a chance to be rated really but would have been England's greatest spinner of the modern era if he'd been English :lol:
 
scotch said:
200 test wickets, hard to be considered underated
Click to expand...

I looked at his record after posting that as I realised I didn't actually know what it was.

And f***ing hell, aye! What would ordinarily be considered a really good test career I'd say is underrated because he was always second fiddle to one of the best cricketers ever.
 
smoker said:
Another decent fifty from the lad in Melbourne...



Not if you are a swing bowler like Watto.:lol:

Best bowling 6/33 at Headingley.



Underrated.

The effectiveness of a bowler is measured in his average and Watson has taken wickets when he has bowled, despite being at the medium end of fast-medium, bowling on unsympathetic Australian wickets.

Likewise the effectiveness of a bowler is measured in batting average not numbers of centuries. Even so he has scored 4 test centuries and 9 ODI centuries which compares favourably with any all-rounder England has produced bar Botham.

You are right he has failed to meet his potential, largely due to factors outside his control like injuries and strong competition for places.
Click to expand...
His ODI record is very good but irrelevant as the thread is about test cricketers. For a guy batting in the top order his average isn't good enough. Any overs you get from him are a bonus, he's a batsman who bowls a bit. Was watching a big bash game earlier and they had a poll about whether he'd done enough in this match to keep his place, 55% said no. Sounds like there's a bit of a debate about him in Australia too. Gilchrist wasn't as supportive as I thought he might be, Mark Waugh obviously said nowt being a selector.
 
I've mentioned him on similar threads to these before but Matthew Elliott should be on this list, I think he only played about 10 tests for Australia in the 90s (can't be arsed to check) but looked a very good batsman, scored a couple of centuries and rescued the Aussies from deep shit against us in one of the 1997 Ashes tests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top