Greatest cricketers since 1980

[taipan1]

It's either because everyone here is biased or because of the simple fact that Pollock and Barrington played their cricket in the 50s and the 60s and the title of the Thread is 'Greatest Cricketers since 1980'.

Silly me.

All the talk of Sobers, Bradman and Hobbs confused me.

 

[weldone]

It's either because everyone here is biased or because of the simple fact that Pollock and Barrington played their cricket in the 50s and the 60s and the title of the Thread is 'Greatest Cricketers since 1980'.

But how did Wisden come to know that simple fact? Or, you when preparing your all-time list? I guess that's what taipan was referring to...

Edit: taipan didn't mean that. But he could well have, going with the flow of the thread...

 

[Teja.]

But how did Wisden come to know that simple fact? Or, you when preparing your all-time list? I guess that's what taipan was referring to...

Edit: taipan didn't mean that. But he could well have, going with the flow of the thread...

If I came across as more offensive than I intended to, I apologize, taipan.

weldone,

I just felt that AB was being criminally underrated here and said he was ranked fifth best batsman of all time by Wisden(and me). If you felt I was deviating the thread too much, I apologize, again.

 

[taipan1]

If I came across as more offensive than I intended to, I apologize, taipan.

weldone,

I just felt that AB was being criminally underrated here and said he was ranked fifth best batsman of all time by Wisden(and me). If you felt I was deviating the thread too much, I apologize, again.

No prob, just thought the discussion was about greatest batsmen, Didn't read the title fully

 

[shankar]

Of the batsmen I've seen and followed:

Tier1:
Sachin
Lara
S.Waugh

Tier 2:
Ponting
Dravid
Kallis

Tier3:
Inzamam (should maybe be in Tier2)
Sehwag
Hayden
Slater
Sangakkara
Laxman
Martyn
Taylor
Kirsten

Tier 4:
Smith
Chanderpaul (maybe tier 3)
Jayawardena
Pietersen
Thorpe
Azharuddin
Ganguly
Anwar
Hooper
Langer
etc...

Many batsmen would change between 3 and 4 if I did it again probably..

 

[kingkallis]

Of the batsmen I've seen and followed:

Tier1:
Sachin
Lara
S.Waugh

Tier 2:
Ponting
Dravid
Kallis

Tier3:
Inzamam (should maybe be in Tier2)
Sehwag
Hayden
Slater
Sangakkara
Laxman
Martyn
Taylor
Kirsten

Tier 4:
Smith
Chanderpaul (maybe tier 3)
Jayawardena
Pietersen
Thorpe
Azharuddin
Ganguly
Anwar
Hooper
Langer
etc...

Many batsmen would change between 3 and 4 if I did it again probably..

You may wanna give a place to Mohammad Yousuf, atleast in Tier 3.

 

[kingkallis]

I started following cricket from early 90s...so my pick would be based on what I've witnessed.

Level 1 :

Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Ricky Ponting
Jacques Kallis
Steve Waugh

Level 2 :

Rahul Dravid
Matthew Hayden
Kevin Pietersen
Inzamam ul Haq
Aravinda de Silva
Adam Gilchrist [ For his match turning knocks ]
Mohammad Yousuf
Virender Sehwag [ He might get a promotion after completing 100 games ]
Andy Flower
Mark Taylor
Greame Smith
Garry Kirsten
Martin Crowe
Micheal Hussey
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
Micheal Slater
Kumara Sangakkara
Graham Thorpe

Level 3 :

Mark Waugh
Stephen Fleming
Justin Langer
Mohammad Azharuddin
Saurav Ganguly
Mahela Jayawardene
Gautam Gambhir [ Let him play on bouncy wickets to prove that he can be in level 2 ]
Saeed Anwar
Daryll Cullinan
Micheal Atherton
Alec Stewart
Damien Martyn
Andrew Strauss
Sanath Jayasuriya
Marvan Atapattu
Younis Khan
Murray Goodwin
Paul Collingwood
Carl Hooper

Level 4 :

Hansie Cronje
Nasser Hussain
Andrew Flintoff
Herschelle Gibbs [ Wasted... ]
Nathan Astle [ Wasted... ]
Chris Gayle [ Wasted... ]
Ramnaresh Sarwan
Jonty Rhodes
Grant Flower

Its a huge list...

 

[taipan1]

.

 

[shankar]

You may wanna give a place to Mohammad Yousuf, atleast in Tier 3.

Oh yes forgot him...I'd put him tier 4 though.

 

[weldone]

If I came across as more offensive than I intended to, I apologize, taipan.

weldone,

I just felt that AB was being criminally underrated here and said he was ranked fifth best batsman of all time by Wisden(and me). If you felt I was deviating the thread too much, I apologize, again.

Not at all. I never complained against you. In fact these deviations add colour to these kinds of threads, otherwise the world would be too boring.

By the way, almost a year ago I prepared my own ranking of batsmen using stats. It took a long time as I factored in too many inputs, made the ranking system statistically logical and getting those input data from cricinfo for each batsmen wasn't the easiest thing on earth. I remember the top 7 looked like -

Donald Bradman
Jack Hobbs
Leonard Hutton
Garfield Sobers
Walter Hammond
Sachin Tendulkar
George Headley

I'm planning to re-do the exercise using the latest available data and slightly changed method (more statistically logical and coherent). But that'd require a huge amount of time and devotion from my side.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting 5 years ago (2006) had a better reputation than he does now. Wrongly IMO, but it's how fickle fans, and even experts, are.

There were articles about him being comfortably 2nd to Bradman in Australia. Not sure that is as clear cut to many people with his average falling from 60 to 55.

It's stupid, because what he accomplished from the beginning of his career to 2006 haven't changed. Just saying that the general consensus has changed.

I think when players tend to be on the rise or at a peak and are getting all the headlines people often fight against quickly naming them the greatest x or y of something. In reality, as you say, he probably has done worse since then but I guess the idea of him being better than Border has slowly become more fathomable and from my experience on the net is probably held more widely now.

 

[honestbharani]

Not at all. I never complained against you. In fact these deviations add colour to these kinds of threads, otherwise the world would be too boring.

By the way, almost a year ago I prepared my own ranking of batsmen using stats. It took a long time as I factored in too many inputs, made the ranking system statistically logical and getting those input data from cricinfo for each batsmen wasn't the easiest thing on earth. I remember the top 7 looked like -

Donald Bradman
Jack Hobbs
Leonard Hutton
Garfield Sobers
Walter Hammond
Sachin Tendulkar
George Headley

I'm planning to re-do the exercise using the latest available data and slightly changed method (more statistically logical and coherent). But that'd require a huge amount of time and devotion from my side.

I just think it is very very difficult to quantify the effects of a weak side on a batsman. From my own experience at school and office level cricket, I think it is a burden and it drags down your performance than any real elevation but I can see there are others who are characteristically suited to playing the "savior" role and who may not do that well as part of a stronger team.


That said, I do think AB and Lara were mighty awesome to have carried their respective batting line ups.. Lara more than AB coz I think it is easier to carry a side where your batsman are **** but at least give a **** about cricket than carrying a side where your batsmen are **** and don't give a **** about it either...

 

[Jono]

I think when players tend to be on the rise or at a peak and are getting all the headlines people often fight against quickly naming them the greatest x or y of something. In reality, as you say, he probably has done worse since then but I guess the idea of him being better than Border has slowly become more fathomable and from my experience on the net is probably held more widely now.

Hmm, agree to disagree I guess.

Ponting in 2006 was the best peak of a batsman I've ever seen probably. And at that time I reckon the call for him being the 2nd best since Bradman was at its strongest point from what I recall.

Nonetheless, the best bit about Ponting's epic 2005 and especially 2006 was I had a huge argument at my cricket club with a mate in around December 2005 that Ponting was better than Hayden, and had the better career at that point. It was heavily disputed and went on for like 2 days straight. NowadaysI bring it up to him all the time to brag that I was right. He often replies with "I was right at that point in time", but even in 2005 I think Ponting was slightly better. Since then he's broadened that gap significantly one would feel.

 

[weldone]

coz I think it is easier to carry a side where your batsman are **** but at least give a **** about cricket than carrying a side where your batsmen are **** and don't give a **** about it either...

I must admit that I'm not very good at filling up the gaps (filling up the stars, in this case)...

 

[vcs]

I think when players tend to be on the rise or at a peak and are getting all the headlines people often fight against quickly naming them the greatest x or y of something. In reality, as you say, he probably has done worse since then but I guess the idea of him being better than Border has slowly become more fathomable and from my experience on the net is probably held more widely now.

From my experience, the people who offer a counter-balancing opinion tend to be in the minority. Sports reporting and fan opinions usually always uphold the current generation as the best ever and it takes a lot of insight, research and willingness to delve into the history books not to get carried away and average fans aren't usually willing to put in the effort.

The tendency to call the current top dog the greatest ever is annoying but I hate it even more when people retroactively downgrade players if they hit a slump or retire on a low.. "he wasn't really that good anyway", "beat up on weak opposition", "the competition wasn't that great" etc.

 

[Ikki]

I think in terms of the superficial bandwagon fan, yes. But the fans who tend to follow the sport more fervently and who would actually know what someone like Border did, I find, are less gung-ho on pronouncing the next x or y.

 

[0RI0N]

The tendency to call the current top dog the greatest ever is annoying but I hate it even more when people retroactively downgrade players if they hit a slump or retire on a low.. "he wasn't really that good anyway", "beat up on weak opposition", "the competition wasn't that great" etc.

can we include the
" E & F (Ponting and Hayden) weren't really good because they never faced Q & A - (two of the greatest bowlers in the last 20yrs - Warne and McGrath)" argument ?Usually trying to downgrade E & F's batting.
I have seen pillocks use that excuse on this here website.
How the hell are Aus TEST batsmen supposed to face Aus TEST bowlers in TESTS?
They know who they are.

 

[vcs]

can we include the
" E & F (Ponting and Hayden) weren't really good because they never faced Q & A - (two of the greatest bowlers in the last 20yrs - Warne and McGrath)" argument ?Usually trying to downgrade E & F's batting.
I have seen pillocks use that excuse on this here website.
How the hell are Aus TEST batsmen supposed to face Aus TEST bowlers in TESTS?
They know who they are.

OK by me.

Also the tired "Sachin didn't do well against McGrath and Warne together and accumulated his record against Australia against mediocre bowlers blah blah" err.. it's not supposed to be an individual contest, Tendulkar represents India against Australia (not Warne/McGrath) and whatever bowlers they see fit to put out.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

OK by me.

Also the tired "Sachin didn't do well against McGrath and Warne together and accumulated his record against Australia against mediocre bowlers blah blah" err.. it's not supposed to be an individual contest, Tendulkar represents India against Australia (not Warne/McGrath) and whatever bowlers they see fit to put out.

Actually the argument is more that he didn't face them often enough.To say he didn't do well would be plain wrong.He played two full series against them,one in Aus and one in Ind.Was MoS in the one in Aus in 99,and averaged 50+ in the 2001 series,scoring a match-winning(eventually series winning) century in the third and final test.His overall average against them is brought down to 43 or something because of the 2 tests he played in the 04 series when India pressed the panic button and rushed him back when he wasn't anywhere close to 100% fit.

The didn't face McGrath/Warne argument re: Ponting is a more interesting one.On one hand,it is an advantage that he didn't have to face the two best of his generation compared to another bat,whoever it may be,who faced and did reasonably well against both.On the other hand,blokes like Vincent,Salman Butt and some Bang batsman I can't remember have scored centuries against McGrath/Warne.So it's surely not a stretch to think Ponting would have fared decently.

 

[Sir Alex]

Viv = 6th for me. Can see why people wouldn't agree, but yeah always felt Viv was a little overrated and Greenidge and Lloyd more than a little underrated.

EDIT:-As a Test Batsman of course, As an ODI Batsman, Viv is, far and away, the greatest ever IMHO.

Don't agree. Sachin managed a better average than Sir Viv for more matches than Viv played in his entire career.

Will stop here, as there exists a thread for that.