• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The best batsman and bowler of the 1990s

Ilovecric

U19 Cricketer
ponting only scored 6 hundreds in the 90's at ~44, probably a bit of a stretch to put him as one of the best in the decade, especially comparing to tendulkar (22 hundreds, ave 58) and others who performances were much stronger and for longer periods.
His time of consistency certainly should leave a hole in how he's remembered - meaning he should't be compared with lara and sachin.
 

Migara

International Coach
Best batsmen 1990-1999 (>40 innings)
Code:
Player	Ave
SR Tendulkar	58.00
SR Waugh 	53.10
BC Lara		51.60
GA Gooch 	51.55
R Dravid 	49.96
SC Ganguly 	49.63
PA de Silva 	46.82
Saeed Anwar 	46.10
Saleem Malik	45.97
JC Adams	45.60
Tendulkar, Waugh and Lara heads the list. Gooch and Dravid had been very good. Interesting to see Ganguly, de SIlva and Anwar high up in the leist as well. And PAdams as well.
 

Migara

International Coach
Top bowlers (>40inn)

Ambrose, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Donald are quite close to each other. Compare this with 2000s, and you'll definietly see the difference. Although the bowling average has risen only about 3 runs in 2000s, in 1990s better bowlers had been distinctly better, and crap ones are crappier.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
His time of consistency certainly should leave a hole in how he's remembered - meaning he should't be compared with lara and sachin.
Given he really only played for a few years in the 90s I'm not sure it counts so much. In the 00s his average is just short of 60, which is phenomenal. If I had to have someone bat for my life I'd take Ponting to do so over the other two batsmen.

Having said that, while I would rate Ponting as the best player of pace of the three, he was by far the worst player of spin which puts him very marginally behind the other two in how I rate them.

EDIT: In the 00s Ponting averages 5 runs higher than Lara and 6 runs higher than Tendulkar, in the 90s he averaged 8 runs less than Lara and 14 runs less than Tendulkar. Given that he now has the superior average it goes to show how a small sample size can skew the way you look at any player.

At the same stage in their careers (~2000 runs) Lara was averaging nearly 60, Tendulkar just cracked an average of 50 and Ponting averaged 44. Such a small sample size really cannot tell the true story for a modern batsman.
 
Last edited:

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
The best at their peak:
Waqar c1991
Lara c1994

The best overall during the decade:
Ambrose
Tendulkar
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
I too am actually quite surprised as to how many people have put Donald as the better bowler tham Ambrose in the 90s.

Not saying its wrong, but interesting.
Always thought Donald more dangerous. It's quite something that with the aura he had, the fiery persona he showed, that he is so underrated. His record in the 90s is ridiculously good. Something tells me if he were Australian and in the #1 team he would have gotten a lot more spotlight.
 

MrIncredible

U19 Cricketer
Bowler: Ambrose
Batsman: Steve Waugh (performed great vs great bowling attacks of his time where 'others' failed)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I too am actually quite surprised as to how many people have put Donald as the better bowler tham Ambrose in the 90s.

Not saying its wrong, but interesting.
I don't particularly have a problem with anyone considering Ambrose better than Donald (and the 1990s made-up essentially the entire careers of the two so that's a career as well as decade matter), but I think the main reason for it probably has a lot to do with the fact that Ambrose was essentially simply indominatable - no-one, ever, got on top of him, it just wasn't possible. He had times when he wasn't all that effective, but the only way to stop him getting wickets was to block him out - I honestly can't think of a single occasion where someone went after him and didn't pay the price.

Donald on the other hand had the odd occasion - no more than the odd occasion, but it did happen - when he was off-peak, and when he was off-peak he was anodyne and easily got after. As a batsman you never had much of a hope of either surviving or scoring very quickly against Donald when he was on top of his game, because he was a master of just about everything you could wish for in a seam bowler, something Ambrose wasn't. But the fact that it's impossible to recall an occasion where someone got on top of Ambrose (because such a thing pretty much never happened) makes quite an impact.

Come what may, Ambrose and Donald are two of the finest bowlers to have played the game we recognise as cricket, let's put it that way. Anything dividing the two is very fine indeed.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Come what may, Ambrose and Donald are two of the finest bowlers to have played the game we recognise as cricket, let's put it that way. Anything dividing the two is very fine indeed.
Yeah spot-on. Different in many ways, though, so they will have different appeals for different people.

Both were great to watch. In full flow Donald in particular was one of the finest sights you're likely to see on a cricket pitch.
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
Always thought Donald more dangerous. It's quite something that with the aura he had, the fiery persona he showed, that he is so underrated. His record in the 90s is ridiculously good. Something tells me if he were Australian and in the #1 team he would have gotten a lot more spotlight.
And he wouldn't have had to bowl against the Australian batsmen.:laugh:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Indeed not. He'd have had to bowl against the South Africans instead. And, unless you're suggesting that that (bowling at the South African batting) would have been some sort of tea-party, then quite why bowling at South Africans rather than Australians is so funny is beyond me.
 
Last edited:

Top