Greatest cricketers since 1980

[bagapath]

Ikki's hypothesis is a good one - it could be argued that the reason Murali did well in Sri Lankan victories was because his doing well was the reason for the victory.

of course, I get his point. I am not saying murali is a bigger match winner just because he has contributed more in SL victories than Warne in Aussie victories since that is an unfair comparison: SL needed murali to do well to win, and Australia didnt need warne all the time. I get that.

but still... isn't contributing to victories the biggest prereq to be called a match winner? warne did it many a time and deserves the tag; so did murali. had murali played for australia i dont think his record would be lesser than warne's. similarly warne, had he played for lanka, wud have taken 6 wkts a test.

their performance in the classic SL - Aus series in 2004 prove this point. Australia won the series 3-0, warne walked away with the MOS award. Murali got more wickets but his team could not capitalize on his heroics. individually, though, it was pretty even stevens if you ask me. murali bowled a lot more, hence conceded three runs more per wicket and also got extra wickets. but ultimately warne + 10 others beat murali.

I can imagine an aussie team without warne still winning matches. but SL without murali would be just marginally above west indies or bangladesh. having one of them in the top level and the other one below is unfair. kind of like splitting sachin and lara.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki.... you are writing the very definition of a match winner for murali and then giving the title to warne, who you are actually defining as just one of the important players in his team and not necessarily the match winner.

"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 said that when I reasoned out why I put Warne as #1. I just knew different people have different definitions of that. To give you another example, it's why I rate Lillee ahead of Hadlee or even Warne over McGrath. I think, for the large part, a lot of the people within cricket agree with the positions of those cricketers with respect to one another. For me, many cricketers are practically level in statistical analysis but there are certain things that linger in the mind for me; and Warne changing matches, almost at will, will long stay in my memory. I remember writing before that had I not seen Warne, I probably would have judged him mainly by his stats, and I probably couldn't fathom just how good it was to watch him or understand just how important his contribution in a match may have been, even if it wasn't statistically the best contribution.

For that reason, if nothing else, I will always give credence to what their contemporaries say about other players. Although, as you've seen in the Sobers discussion, within a certain boundary of rational thought.

 

[Migara]

Ikki's hypothesis is a good one - it could be argued that the reason Murali did well in Sri Lankan victories was because his doing well was the reason for the victory.

But that hypothesis not even remotely applicable to put Murali in tier 2 and Warne in tier 1. The real hypothesis is called the BIAS. That is the CORRECT and ONLY reason for such rating.

 

[Ikki]

The only reason Murali is not in level 1 is because I had to limit the list to 10 names. He is just as great a cricketer as all those guys and is on their 'level', not a level below but the same level. But I could only name 10 players, and that is what I went with.

The only players I was willing to swap with Murali in level 1 were the bottom 4 (McGrath, Sachin, Lara and Marshall). Now if I remove any of those, I get the same whinging. But it's not because I don't think they're as good, but simply because I could only list 10 names and I decided, at that moment, to list those names. In retrospect, I should probably have Marshall higher up - as he was probably the best all-round cricketer of the others - above McGrath, Sachin and Lara and it's a toss-up between those 3 and Murali.

EDIT: TBF, the more I look at it the more I think Kallis should be there for either Sachin or Lara. He simply was the better cricketer of those 3. The only reason Ponting is as high up as he is, is for his incredible fielding and leadership, otherwise he would be below Kallis too.

 

[Sir Alex]

Seriously mates, Ikki himself has admitted he is biased. There is no way he's going to be convinced Murali belongs to the first group. He is wrong imho, but that's a stance he's taken since atleast Sep 2005, and I don't think a few posts are going to change that.

Same with Ponting as well. LMAO, leadership, yeah, with that team, anyone could captain in his sleep. The true test of Ricky came post 2007, and Australia slipped from no.1 to no.4 and likely will go down to No.5 in rankings.

 

[vcs]

Sachin's bowling > Ponting's fielding and leadership, for me.

 

[Shri]

THERE IS NO MURALI!!!z

 

[Beleg]

some of the lists are myopic or ridiculous.

level 1

murali
warne
akram
imran
sachin
lara
marshall
hadlee
mcgrath
waqar
donald


level 2

ponting
dravid
inzamam
hayden
kallis
miandad
waugh
border

 

[Ikki]

Sachin's bowling > Ponting's fielding and leadership, for me.

Since I've seen you post a lot of reasonable posts, I gotta ask; are you serious?

Tendulkar's bowling is a non-factor in his legacy as a cricketer.

Seriously mates, Ikki himself has admitted he is biased. There is no way he's going to be convinced Murali belongs to the first group. He is wrong imho, but that's a stance he's taken since atleast Sep 2005, and I don't think a few posts are going to change that.

Same with Ponting as well. LMAO, leadership, yeah, with that team, anyone could captain in his sleep. The true test of Ricky came post 2007, and Australia slipped from no.1 to no.4 and likely will go down to No.5 in rankings.

What? I said he does belong to that group. There is only a 10 name limit, however.

No matter what you wish to say about the quality of the team, he was certainly a better leader and captain than both Tendulkar and Lara.

 

[Sir Alex]

Since I've seen you post a lot of reasonable posts, I gotta ask; are you serious?

Tendulkar's bowling is a non-factor.




What? I said he does belong to that group. There is only a 10 name limit, however.

No matter what you wish to say about the quality of the team, he was certainly a better leader and captain than both Tendulkar and Lara.

No. Under his captaincy, Australia has fallen to it's lowest rankings possibly ever. Cannot win a test in India, cannot win a series in England. I don't think Tendulkar or Lara ever had got the kind of criticisms Ponting's captaincy has got in the last few years, Nagpur- 08, the last test against Pakistan, etc etc..

 

[vcs]

Since I've seen you post a lot of reasonable posts, I gotta ask; are you serious?

I know it's a bit out there, but yeah, he's had a knack of taking some very useful wickets for us. I'll modify that statement to Tendulkar's bowling > Ponting's fielding. I don't expect anyone to agree though, because his stats are very ordinary and don't bear out the statement at all.

Ponting deserves a lot of credit for his captaincy for keeping a winning team running, he doesn't deserve the abuse he got after Ashes 2005 but at the same time, his winning percentages don't mean he's a better captain than Lloyd, Fleming, Imran Khan etc.

 

[Shri]

Poontang just happened to be a captain who had the best of resources at his disposal. Steve Waugh was way better afaic.

 

[Ikki]

No. Under his captaincy, Australia has fallen to it's lowest rankings possibly ever. Cannot win a test in India, cannot win a series in England. I don't think Tendulkar or Lara ever had got the kind of criticisms Ponting's captaincy has got in the last few years, Nagpur- 08, the last test against Pakistan, etc etc..

Haha, is this not trolling? I ask the mods because this post doesn't deserve a retort.

 

[Sir Alex]

I know it's a bit out there, but yeah, he's had a knack of taking some very useful wickets for us. I'll modify that statement to Tendulkar's bowling > Ponting's fielding. I don't expect anyone to agree though, because his stats are very ordinary and don't bear out the statement at all.

Ponting deserves a lot of credit for his captaincy for keeping a winning team running, he doesn't deserve the abuse he got after Ashes 2005 but at the same time, his winning percentages don't mean he's a better captain than Lloyd, Fleming, Imran Khan etc.

2001 Kolkota and 2004 Adelaide comes to mind..

Won a match on his own with bowling against Australia in 1998 at Kochi, and repeated it in Dhaka the same year. But for his injuries, he definitely would've contributed much more with the ball.

 

[Ikki]

I know it's a bit out there, but yeah, he's had a knack of taking some very useful wickets for us. I'll modify that statement to Tendulkar's bowling > Ponting's fielding. I don't expect anyone to agree though, because his stats are very ordinary and don't bear out the statement at all.

Ponting deserves a lot of credit for his captaincy for keeping a winning team running, he doesn't deserve the abuse he got after Ashes 2005 but at the same time, his winning percentages don't mean he's a better captain than Lloyd, Fleming, Imran Khan etc.

Fair enough for having convictions about it. But I think it's not even that close. Ponting probably has as many run-outs as Tendulkar has wickets. I jest, a little, but I am not sure of the exact stats...gotta be close. Will probably go down as one of, if not the, greatest all-round fielder of all-time.

For myself, I don't rate bowling like that in this discussion. If I did, I'd have Steve Waugh even higher - and he was a proper bowler for a while. Anyway, it's just not enough, not consistent enough and not notable enough in a 20 year career.

 

[Jono]

I love Sachin vcs, but even if we were to limit this to test cricket, Ponting's fielding > Sachin's bowling.

Disagree with the general statement that allrounders are better than specialists though. But that's an argument for another day.

 

[four_or_six]

Haha, is this not trolling? I ask the mods because this post doesn't deserve a retort.

Ikki - if you would like to report a post, please do so via the report post function. And if a post doesn't deserve a retort in your opinion, please do not make one.

To everyone posting in this thread - please, keep it civilised. Have a discussion on the cricket without attacking other posters, trolling or complaining of trolling. We do not want to be closing yet another decent thread today because it has gone off the rails.

 

[vcs]

Fair enough for having convictions about it. But I think it's not even that close. Ponting probably has as many run-outs as Tendulkar has wickets. I jest, a little, but I am not sure of the exact stats...gotta be close. Will probably go down as one of, if not the, greatest all-round fielder of all-time.

That could be the case. I don't watch Australia field much and hence miss Ponting's fielding and you probably haven't watched Sachin take a lot of crucial wickets for us, so we only have to go by what we see.

 

[Sir Alex]

No, nowhere I've said Ponting sucks because he is ****ty captain. His legacy is secure as a batsman, and perhaps the best Australian since the Don himself. But his captaincy, altogether a different thing.

 

[vcs]

I love Sachin vcs, but even if we were to limit this to test cricket, Ponting's fielding > Sachin's bowling.

Disagree with the general statement that allrounders are better than specialists though. But that's an argument for another day.

I admit I could be wrong there. I don't know how many run-outs Ponting has but I always feel fielders have much more of a direct and decisive impact on the game in limited overs cricket.