Undervalued Cricketers

[Jamurp]

Is Stuart Clark worthy of this thread? Seems to rarely get spoken about, but 94 test wickets at 23 to go with 53 wickets in ODIs, filled a role there for a while really well after debuting in international cricket late in his career.

 

[western royboy]

Is Stuart Clark worthy of this thread? Seems to rarely get spoken about, but 94 test wickets at 23 to go with 53 wickets in ODIs, filled a role there for a while really well after debuting in international cricket late in his career.

Played a fair bit realistically and was very good at, wasn’t stiff as I recall just took his chance when it appeared and never let it go. For a time Bichel, Kasper and Brett Lee were awfully stiff to be in the McGrath, Gillespie, Warne era where each one of them realistically just got scraps. I was playing lower grades at Randwick in 97 and Anthony Stuart was virtually on the plane when his body gave way and he never got it right again - reckon he would have killed it in the UK - but sliding doors

 

[Number37]

Greg Rowell
Dominated Sydney grade cricket.

 

[BronCrow]

Does Ben Hilfenhaus belong in this thread?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mego Red]

David Warner.

 

[Number37]

Travis Head.

 

[Kyptastic]

Does Ben Hilfenhaus belong in this thread?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Unlucky to be stuck on 99 Test wickets, bowled some absolute peaches. Check out the Dravid wicket here:

 

[Mofra]

Doug the Rug?

Had a really good year or two, 50 test wickets at ~26 and a couple of 5-fors. Plus the character-factor

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Unlucky to be stuck on 99 Test wickets, bowled some absolute peaches. Check out the Dravid wicket here:

Was a better bowler before the national team got hold of him IMO.

They modified his action to lessen the stress on his back, which allowed him to bowl faster and shorter - then got him to bang the ball in short of a length just like the others. He lost a lot of his variation and control - was a lesser bowler after the change.

 

[Kyptastic]

Was a better bowler before the national team got hold of him IMO.

They modified his action to lessen the stress on his back, which allowed him to bowl faster and shorter - then got him to bang the ball in short of a length just like the others. He lost a lot of his variation and control - was a lesser bowler after the change.

I think McDermott fixed him in that Indian test summer, got him bowling fuller again. Got injured the next year and with the rise of Hazlewood and Starc never got another look in.

 

[Gethelred]

Mitch Starc, probably.

 

[JackOutback]

Mitch Starc, probably.

Schrodinger's cricketer...underrated and overrated at the same time.

Given his red ball form of late, shouldn't have been playing. But picks up a wicket on the first ball

 

[Gethelred]

Schrodinger's cricketer...underrated and overrated at the same time.

Given his red ball form of late, shouldn't have been playing. But picks up a wicket on the first ball

Also, more than useful with the bat without quite the stats to be a bowling all rounder.

Think his bowling is wildly underrated sometimes. For all that he can go for runs a fair bit, he averages 27 in tests, and he perfectly complements Hazelwood (who is more than capable of going at 1.5 runs an over) and Cummins (also hard to score against).

History's going to be kinder to him than his contemporaries are, I think.

 

[PhatBoy]

Also, more than useful with the bat without quite the stats to be a bowling all rounder.

Think his bowling is wildly underrated sometimes. For all that he can go for runs a fair bit, he averages 27 in tests, and he perfectly complements Hazelwood (who is more than capable of going at 1.5 runs an over) and Cummins (also hard to score against).

History's going to be kinder to him than his contemporaries are, I think.

And has a very good strike rate.

I think his ability and consistency probably deserves an average around 30 but it’s very hard to argue with his figures

 

[PhatBoy]

I find it hard to believe that Bairstow - who has a test hundred in Australia - couldn’t be more of a threat than Burns or Hameed even if he’s forced to open

 

[Gethelred]

I find it hard to believe that Bairstow - who has a test hundred in Australia - couldn’t be more of a threat than Burns or Hameed even if he’s forced to open

Bairstow against the new and moving ball?

 

[western royboy]

I find it hard to believe that Bairstow - who has a test hundred in Australia - couldn’t be more of a threat than Burns or Hameed even if he’s forced to open

Crawley can play, I’m unsure why he’s not opening, Burns was always going to be a huge risk on fast pitches

 

[Santana]

Probably already been mentioned but if Phil Jaques hadn't got hurt, he would have really cemented an opening spot in the early 2010's

 

[PhatBoy]

Bairstow against the new and moving ball?

I’d take Bairstow against the new or moving ball over wood. He’s flaky, yes - and his tests as a specialist batsman in particular have a poor record (he averages 38 in the tests when he keeps, make of that what you will). But he is dangerous. Hameed I can see some merit in. He soaked up good pressure in both innings so if you’ve got strokemakers to come I can cop that. But burns isn’t good enough to soak up that same pressure imo nor can he hurt you with stroke play. At least someone like Bairstow can really give you some headaches

 

[Falconista]

Jackson Bird.
Crazy good first class bowling figures but barely plays a Test [and does pretty well when he does].

 

[Gethelred]

I’d take Bairstow against the new or moving ball over wood. He’s flaky, yes - and his tests as a specialist batsman in particular have a poor record (he averages 38 in the tests when he keeps, make of that what you will). But he is dangerous. Hameed I can see some merit in. He soaked up good pressure in both innings so if you’ve got strokemakers to come I can cop that. But burns isn’t good enough to soak up that same pressure imo nor can he hurt you with stroke play. At least someone like Bairstow can really give you some headaches

For some reason, they really like Burns. It made sense while he was productive, but he's not been truly productive for at least a year.

I don't think Bairstow's the answer, though. He plays through the line with an angled bat, hard hands, and is prone to reading the wrong line against the swinging ball. We thought Watson had LBW problems; he'd be nothing to Bairstow against a decent in-ducker bowler.

 

[sdfc]

Bruce Yardley.

 

[PhatBoy]

For some reason, they really like Burns. It made sense while he was productive, but he's not been truly productive for at least a year.

I don't think Bairstow's the answer, though. He plays through the line with an angled bat, hard hands, and is prone to reading the wrong line against the swinging ball. We thought Watson had LBW problems; he'd be nothing to Bairstow against a decent in-ducker bowler.

Burns sorry, not wood. I’m an idiot

Bairstow has developed some really bad habits in his last dozen tests or so but I think they’re relatively quickly rectified if he gets the right guidance.

 

[Plugger35]

Jacob Oram.

 

[PhatBoy]

Jacob Oram.

He had the ability to be a lot better than he was