Greatest cricketers since 1980

[Teja.]

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.

Yeah, don't mind other people thinking Sachin is better. I'm a Viv convert though.

 

[blahblahblah]

Yeah, don't mind other people thinking Sachin is better. I'm a Viv convert though.

differs from person to person

 

[tooextracool]

based on the thread on sagakkara where some posters seem to be in a hurry to bunch him with greater batsman, i am starting this thread to categorize test cricketers into various levels of greatness. and predict who cricket history would consider all time greats out of those who played between 1980 - 2010.

i will start with the batsmen and divide them into four different levels of greatness if that makes sense at all. I will try to limit each level to 10 at the most. will do the same exercise for bowlers later. I have not ranked the players within each level.

The Greatest Batsmen since 1980

Level 1

Viv Richards
Greg Chappell
Sunil Gavaskar
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Ricky Ponting

Level 2

Matthew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Rahul Dravid
Allan Border
Steve Waugh
Javed Miandad
Inzamam Ul Haq
Jacques Kallis
Adam Gilchrist
Martin Crowe

Level 3

Kumar Sangakara
Mohammad Yousuff
Kevin Pietersen
Mahela Jayawardane
Gordon Greenidge
Graeme Smith
David Gower
Shiv Chanderpal
Andy Flower
Justin Langer

Level 4

David Boon
Michael Clarke
Graham Gooch
VVS Laxman
Mark Waugh
Damien Martyn
Sanath Jayasuriya
Aravinda de silva
Richie Richardson
Michael Hussey

this thread is meant to be as dumb as everything else i have ever written on cricket web. and it is meant to be fun. so u r welcome to join the spirit and throw in stats, circular arguments, individual biases and a bit of humor to make the discussion as alive as possible.

Edit: Dropped Clive Lloyd, Saeed Anwar and Desmond Haynes from the original list and brought in Andy Flower, Graeme Smith and Michael Clarke

Graham Thorpe >>> about half the names in Level 4.

 

[Burgey]

AB not in level one?

Man, I am disappoint.... So hard to appreciate now just how difficult it was to get him out, even back when he played.

 

[Burgey]

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.

TBF, there is no way Tendulkar should have been MOTS in 99. He played well though.

 

[Furball]

AB not in level one?

Man, I am disappoint.... So hard to appreciate now just how difficult it was to get him out, even back when he played.

Didn't hit enough sixes mate.

Who cares that he batted against some of the greatest bowlers of all time in their own backyards and maintained an average of over 50 away from home? The guy only had 2 shots, clearly guys who've made a career out of slogging piss poor bowlers are better.

 

[bagapath]

Didn't hit enough sixes mate.

Who cares that he batted against some of the greatest bowlers of all time in their own backyards and maintained an average of over 50 away from home? The guy only had 2 shots, clearly guys who've made a career out of slogging piss poor bowlers are better.

I know you are taking a piss at me for saying AB was limited in his stroke production. I still stand by my opinion, mate. When everything is equal, as it is the case between AB and the other batters who I consider to be better than him, style or lack of it is always the clincher for me. Thats why I prefer Lara to Sachin and Marshall to McGrath. AB was not pleasing to the eye by any stretch of imagination. Believe me, I am possibly his biggest fan outside his wife's family. But I won't be able to bunch him with Viv or Brian or Sachin. And no one - no one - rated above him made a career out of slogging piss poor bowlers.

 

[Furball]

I know you are taking a piss at me for saying AB was limited in his stroke production. I still stand by my opinion, mate. When everything is equal, as it is the case between AB and the other batters who I consider to be better than him, style or lack of it is always the clincher for me. Thats why I prefer Lara to Sachin and Marshall to McGrath. AB was not pleasing to the eye by any stretch of imagination. Believe me, I am possibly his biggest fan outside his wife's family. But I won't be able to bunch him with Viv or Brian or Sachin. And no one - no one - rated above him made a career out of slogging piss poor bowlers.

Believe it or not, I'm not having a dig at you, you explained yourself earlier in the thread and it's not for me to tell you how you should rate players. It's more a reaction against how little Border is mentioned when we talk about great batsmen of the last 30 years.

 

[bagapath]

here is the tough one; a combined list of whatever we have out there so far. I am also going to factor in non statistical factors like captaincy, playing for a weaker team, long lasting postive influence in the game etc. when these elements are added some players go up a level and some come down. so, this list doesn't always have to match the earlier batting, bowling, arounder lists. I am going to stick to three levels of 10 players each.

Top 30 Greatest Cricketers since 1980

Level 1:

Viv Richards
Imran Khan
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Dennis Lillee
Allan Border
Richard Hadlee
Muralitharan

Level 2:

Ian Botham
Adam Gilchrist
Sunil Gavaskar
Greg Chappell
Kapil Dev
Wasim Akram
Ricky Ponting
Curtley Ambrose
Glenn McGrath
Jacques Kallis

Level 3:

Virender Sehwag
Rahul Dravid
Javed Miandad
Allan Donald
Waqar Younis
Steve Waugh
Shaun Pollock
Andy Flower
Matthew Hayden
Kumar Sangakara

EDIT: Rearranged the names within each level to match my personal preference

 

[Shri]

Would defo have Mcgrath in level one. Dunno who to replace though.

 

[Ikki]

Didn't disagree with a whole lot of what you put so I just rearranged the names.

Top 30 Greatest Cricketers since 1980

Level 1:

Shane Warne
Imran Khan
Adam Gilchrist
Viv Richards
Ricky Ponting
Richard Hadlee
Glenn McGrath
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Malcolm Marshall

Level 2:

Allan Border
Steve Waugh
Jacques Kallis
Muralitharan
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Wasim Akram
Allan Donald
Curtley Ambrose
Dennis Lillee

Level 3:

Waqar Younis
Shaun Pollock
Matthew Hayden
Javed Miandad
Virender Sehwag
Rahul Dravid
Andy Flower
Kumar Sangakara
Greg Chappell
Sunil Gavaskar

 

[Furball]

Would defo have Mcgrath in level one. Dunno who to replace though.

If we're talking about performances after 1980, my gut instinct tells me he should be there instead of Lillee.

 

[Ikki]

Although I generally agree that Lillee was a "greater" cricketer pre-1980, he actually played 35/70 tests post-1980.

 

[bagapath]

Ikki... can agree with all your calls because this is so subjective and they all are champion cricketers separated from one another by mere decimals. but greg chappell deserves to be in level 2 in place of allan donald. and, for god's sake, dont put murali anywhere other than level 1. gilchrist can be swapped for him. or mcgrath. in fact, i believe murali is a more important test cricketer than even ponting; by a whisker, may be, but ahead for sure. there is no way 10 test cricketers are more important than him in the history of the game, leave alone last 30 years.

 

[Ikki]

The reason I didn't put Murali in Level 1 is because I don't think as a whole cricketer he was as good as McGrath or Gilchrist. Gilchrist I rate in the pantheon of great cricketers. He practically revolutionised his position and is one of the few dead certs in an all-time great XI. McGrath I rate simply because I don't think any fast bowler will have his record, or play long enough to have it - or have a record as good as his if they played as long - and is one of the bright spots in what hasn't been the best era for fast bowling. I think I rate his intangibles also, in that it's largely due to characters like his and Warne that we were #1 for so long. I think Ponting is well-placed and is only easily outshined by the top 3 in my list of my players. His all-time great batting, his all-time great fielding and his record breaking captaincy puts him on a higher plane than Murali IMO, obviously. I think if there wasn't a Warne who did what he did, at least to the same degree, then he'd be up there. But already having Warne, with all his other qualities I guess makes me rate him less. It would be like having an equivalent to Gilchrist.

WRT to Chappell, I just think he played too little cricket. Gavaskar suffers worse because his record is not very good post 1980.

I think the neutral choice, in terms of what most people would agree to being the greatest cricketer post 1980, would be Imran. His captaincy, bowling, even batting towards the end...and in general how he made Pakistan a force is hard to beat. The only reason I have Warne above him is because I saw much more of him (his whole career practically) and am convinced he is the greatest match-winner of all-time - however I may seem to define that.

I didn't really think about it a lot, I'm sure there are players I could swap around if I thought about it more.

 

[bagapath]

cool... rearranged the names in my list to match my preferences.

I think murali is the greatest match winner in the history of the game and his contribution to sri lankan cricket is more valuable than wg grace's role in the early days of test cricket or headley's heroics for windies. but, this is just my opinion.

 

[honestbharani]

The reason I didn't put Murali in Level 1 is because I don't think as a whole cricketer he was as good as McGrath or Gilchrist. Gilchrist I rate in the pantheon of great cricketers. He practically revolutionised his position and is one of the few dead certs in an all-time great XI. McGrath I rate simply because I don't think any fast bowler will have his record, or play long enough to have it - or have a record as good as his if they played as long - and is one of the bright spots in what hasn't been the best era for fast bowling. I think I rate his intangibles also, in that it's largely due to characters like his and Warne that we were #1 for so long. I think Ponting is well-placed and is only easily outshined by the top 3 in my list of my players. His all-time great batting, his all-time great fielding and his record breaking captaincy puts him on a higher plane than Murali IMO, obviously. I think if there wasn't a Warne who did what he did, at least to the same degree, then he'd be up there. But already having Warne, with all his other qualities I guess makes me rate him less. It would be like having an equivalent to Gilchrist.

WRT to Chappell, I just think he played too little cricket. Gavaskar suffers worse because his record is not very good post 1980.

I think the neutral choice, in terms of what most people would agree to being the greatest cricketer post 1980, would be Imran. His captaincy, bowling, even batting towards the end...and in general how he made Pakistan a force is hard to beat. The only reason I have Warne above him is because I saw much more of him (his whole career practically) and am convinced he is the greatest match-winner of all-time - however I may seem to define that.

I didn't really think about it a lot, I'm sure there are players I could swap around if I thought about it more.

read the cricinfo article on MUrali.. You can think what you want, but statistically it was proved he was the most important player for his team of all time... Or something to that effect.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, Murali in Level 2 is a bit of a joke IMO.

 

[vcs]

You might have a case for saying Murali wasn't as good an all-round cricketer as Gilchrist.. but McGrath?

That cricinfo article on Murali was incredible, though I'm always a bit dubious of comparisons with other sports.

 

[kingkallis]

Murali always had the pressure to deliever as well...

McGrath or Warne did not have to go through that - even MacGill bowled well than Warne on numerous occassions!

His contribution to Sri Lankan cricket was awesome as someone earlier said.

I would always put him in the category of greats!