It depends what you mean by overated. To me Smith isn't overated because I have never thought he was that great. Its a subjective thing.
For example when I was first watching cricket I was living in England as I am now and there seemed to wide spread opinion about David Gower being a great batsmen. I thought that Gower was overated. Yes Gower was a good batsmen, great to watch but I never thought he dilvered what the hype seemed to be.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Gower was sublime. To me, he remains the embodiment of the game. I also have time for less sublime players like Kirsten and Chanderpaul... but if I were to take up batting in a serious way, my inspiration would come from my recollections of Gower, and my aspiration would be to play the occasional shot that Gower would have been pleased to have called his own - and given the choice between a sublime shot that would get me no runs and an ugly shot that might get me four I'd take the former option every time

Sadly, some folk seem to completely lose sight of the aesthetics of (read: joy to be had in playing) the game

I'd consider Botham, Robin Smith, Lamb, Gooch and Flintoff far greater candidates for the term "over-rated"...

Thats what I mean about subjective!
I can't disagree about Gower's style and I am not saying he wasn't a good Test match batsmen. But sometimes I think his lack of contribution got ignored by the big David Gower fan club. Sometimes a stubborn Steve Waugh would of done England better.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Botham on this board in UNDERRATED!

He has a record better than any other English bowler in modern times, is Englands leading catcher and scored 14 test century's (the same number as Nasser Hussain!)

Whilst his career averages are merely good, the fact that he took 27 5 wicket hauls, scored 14 tons and took 120 catches shows he could play. Never mind the fact that he contributed to many an England win by regularly performing with both bat and ball in the same match - just look up his stats for the number of centuries and 5/10 wicket hauls in the same match.

You are being harsh on Smith, fair comment on Lamb and Gooch and I'll let Ern defend Flintoff .

__________________
Mark.

A lot of people say that Gower was a real under-performer, even inconsistent. Yet he played over 100 Tests, scored 18 centuries and averaged 44, which is good by the standards of any time. Maybe he was an underperformer, but statistically he still measures up to "grittier" batsmen like Gooch.

At his best he was special... though not necessarily better than, Willis, whose 5 seasons from 76/77 to 78/9 (when Botham started, and was at his best) saw him return 22 @ 20.86, 27 @ 19.77, 21 @ 21.19, 25 @ 18.48 and 20 @ 23.05 (during which period Mike Hendrick returned 14 @ 20.71, 13 @ 21.07 and 23 @ 17.04 in successive seasons).

Throughout most of his career (and the bit most of us remember better, as it was longer and later), Botham was no better than DeFreitas with the ball... and the resulting overall record is good, but not special. Fraser, for example, deserves credit for fully justifying better end-of-career figures, and the average of 28.4 (compared with Simon Jones' 28.23 and Gough's 28.39) doesn't put him far ahead of the likes of Caddick, Dilley and Hoggard.

I'm not disputing that he was an excellent player at his peak... but he gets over-rated by many on the basis of "character" rather than bowling: had he been (personality wise) more reticent... or public school educated... or generally less of a "lad"... he'd not get set apart from other excellent cricketers.

He was, he was an under-achiever.

David Gower was probably one of the most naturally gifted left handed players of his generation, but he was lazy and preferred to socialise with his colleagues than spend hours upon hours honing and perfecting his game. That he was able to do this and still be successful in International Cricket says an awful lot about how much raw natural talent he had.

He could quite easily have become the best left handed batsmen ever to have played the game in modern times, but he decided what he wanted and that was a balance between success and social pleasures and he simply wasn't willing to put in the effort and work that would have brought him that success. Neither should we criticise him for it, he found his 'comfort zone' and his 'balance' and players like Harmison would do well to emulate him.

Was David Gower over-rated? Not in my opinion. Did he under-achieve and fail to fulfill that wonderful inate talent he had? Absolutely, and therein lies the difference.

Tuffnel was another one in the Gower mould, immensely talented, but prefered the booze, women and ciggies that would prevent him from ever fully realising that talent.

England have produced an awful lof of these type of players in the past and their indiscipline is one of the reasons the players of those generations never came to dominate the game as the Australians did. Our wonderfully talented under-achieving players against the grit, determination and street brawler characteristics of the Australians - there could only ever be one winner.

Once again I find myself disagreeing with Rachael - what a surprise.

It amuses me that you compare Botham with the 'specialist' bowlers of his generation. In case you've forgotten, Botham was an allrounder and as such he should be compared as an allrounder. That you compare his bowling figures with 'specialist' bowlers says a lot about just how good he was.

Botham's stats as an allrounder are up there with the very best allrounders to have played the game in recent times and as such he is and always will be, one of the best all round cricketers to have ever played the game and certainly the best this country has ever produced.

But you just carry on comparing him to 'specialist' cricketers and we can all sit back and marvel at just how good Sir Ian Botham was.

Over-rated? Never. Under-achieved? Probably, he liked his booze like Tufnel and Gower.

Gower I still agree was a good test match batsmen. But....
I remember when Gower made his first double century against India. A weak bowling attack would be an accurate discription.
He hammered the Australians in the mid 80's. This was a relatively weak attack considering what had been before and what was to follow.
So I felt he was overated in the sense he never reached into greatness. He was probably a few crucial innings short of getting some of the eulogies he seemed to get.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

His overall career record is not much different to Willis' and far superior to Hendrick. Botham first 50 matches were something like over 250 wickets at 22 and lots of runs at nigh on 40 (with about 20 5 wicket hauls and about 13 test hundereds and that is a lot better than good!

His end of career figures are still far ahead of those bowlers in terms of wickets, 5 wicket hauls and overall effectiveness. You then have to look at his batting record..... Which is a million miles better than the likes of Ramps and is at good as the likes of Hussain. Then the slip catching and the fact that in his youth he was an excellent outfielder with a fantastic arm.


I agree he had all the talent in the world and the likes of Lillee and Marshall the two best fast bowlers of the last 35 years both rate him as one of the best batsman they bowled to.


I couldnt agree more Scott. For the record Botham is still Englands LEADING wicket taker in tests, joint leading catcher in tests and scored more test tons than most genuine batsman who played in the 70's/80's and 90's. I'm sorry but you cant argue with that record.


Botham is one of the FEW genuine allrounders to have played the game nearly all others are batsman who bowl or bowers who bat.

__________________
Mark.