Greatest cricketer post 1990

[Teja.]

Cos he doesn't belong in the argument?

Nah, Between Kallis and Pollock tbh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah, Between Kallis and Pollock tbh.

I think you can make a pretty fair argument for a few others; incidentally I don't think Tendulkar is one despite his current lead.

Tendulkar has contributed to one facet of cricket - batting. And he's barely (if at all) actually broken away from the batting pack in the period. People can think what they want but the only thing that sets him apart from Kallis, Ponting or Lara in the period is longevity.

I know people were told to consider ODIs which does make it a bit different I suppose, but I still don't see how, even if you think Tendulkar's been the best batsman of the period, how it's by a bigger margin than Kallis's bowling, Gilchrist's wicket keeping or even Ponting's leadership and captaincy can make up for. And that's before we even look at McGrath who was IMO far further ahead of the pack as a bowler than Tendulkar was as a batsman, or Pollock - the Kallis of bowlers.

 

[vcs]

Think Tendulkar definitely has a fair case.. if Ponting's fielding/captaincy should be taken into account, so should Tendulkar's bowling and 200-odd international wickets. He also has a fairly sizable gap over everyone else on run-aggregates and international hundreds.

 

[smash84]

I think you can make a pretty fair argument for a few others; incidentally I don't think Tendulkar is one despite his current lead.

Tendulkar has contributed to one facet of cricket - batting. And he's barely (if at all) actually broken away from the batting pack in the period. People can think what they want but the only thing that sets him apart from Kallis, Ponting or Lara in the period is longevity.

I know people were told to consider ODIs which does make it a bit different I suppose, but I still don't see how, even if you think Tendulkar's been the best batsman of the period, how it's by a bigger margin than Kallis's bowling, Gilchrist's wicket keeping or even Ponting's leadership and captaincy can make up for. And that's before we even look at McGrath who was IMO far further ahead of the pack as a bowler than Tendulkar was as a batsman, or Pollock - the Kallis of bowlers.

PEWS I think the gap between Tendulkar and the next best ODI batsman is far greater than that between Mcgrath and other ODI bowlers viz Wasim, Murali, Waqar, Donald, (and even Warne) as ODI bowlers.

 

[Cevno]

PEWS I think the gap between Tendulkar and the next best ODI batsman is far greater than that between Mcgrath and other ODI bowlers viz Wasim, Murali, Waqar, Donald, (and even Warne) as ODI bowlers.

Ambrose.

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS I think the gap between Tendulkar and the next best ODI batsman is far greater than that between Mcgrath and other ODI bowlers viz Wasim, Murali, Waqar, Donald, (and even Warne) as ODI bowlers.

Was talking about Tests alone.

I'm interested in knowing how many of the people who voted for Tendulkar would've still done so if they based their decision only on Tests.

 

[Prince EWS]

Think Tendulkar definitely has a fair case.. if Ponting's fielding/captaincy should be taken into account, so should Tendulkar's bowling and 200-odd international wickets. He also has a fairly sizable gap over everyone else on run-aggregates and international hundreds.

That Ponting captained a very successful Test team, and his overall ability as a leader, gives him faaaaaar more credit in my book than the fact that Tendulkar was a vaguely useful part-time bowler who took 44 Test wickets (which is one wicket every four Tests) at an average of over 50.

I've restrained myself from posting in this thread too much up until now because I have a mental block preventing me to combine ODIs and Tests in any useful way, but I honestly think anyone who would've voted for Tendulkar if it was a Tests-only thread is kidding themselves just as much if not more than the bloke who voted for Ponting.

 

[Cevno]

I think you can make a pretty fair argument for a few others; incidentally I don't think Tendulkar is one despite his current lead.

Tendulkar has contributed to one facet of cricket - batting. And he's barely (if at all) actually broken away from the batting pack in the period. People can think what they want but the only thing that sets him apart from Kallis, Ponting or Lara in the period is longevity.

I know people were told to consider ODIs which does make it a bit different I suppose, but I still don't see how, even if you think Tendulkar's been the best batsman of the period, how it's by a bigger margin than Kallis's bowling, Gilchrist's wicket keeping or even Ponting's leadership and captaincy can make up for. And that's before we even look at McGrath who was IMO far further ahead of the pack as a bowler than Tendulkar was as a batsman, or Pollock - the Kallis of bowlers.

Was Mcgrath really that ahead of Curtly Ambrose,Waqar Younis,Wasim Akram and by a bigger margin than Tendulkar ahead of Lara,Ponting ?
Specially if you consider ODI's too.

I don't think so.

And if you are taking into account Ponting's captaincy then also have to take into account Tendulkar's twice plus his 200 international wickets as a bowler.

Plus the fact that Tendulkar out of the contenders is the only one who has been playing this whole time period plus has had twice as long a career as most on it can't be discounted.

Bowlers can play for a shorter duration in any case and contribute lesser in that regards too.

 

[vcs]

That Ponting captained a very successful Test team, and his overall ability as a leader, gives him faaaaaar more credit in my book than the fact that Tendulkar was a vaguely useful part-time bowler who took 44 Test wickets (which is one wicket every four Tests) at an average of over 50.

I've restrained myself from posting in this thread too much up until now because I have a mental block preventing me to combine ODIs and Tests in any useful way, but I honestly think anyone who would've voted for Tendulkar if it was a Tests-only thread is kidding themselves just as much if not more than the bloke who voted for Ponting.

Was talking more about his ODI bowling TBH. Anyway, I think he was a more valuable bowler than his raw figures reflected especially in ODIs, but maybe that's just me.

I definitely think Ponting belongs in this thread as well FWIW.

 

[Prince EWS]

Was Mcgrath really that ahead of Curtly Ambrose,Waqar Younis,Wasim Akram and by a bigger margin than Tendulkar ahead of Lara,Ponting ?

Yes IMO.

Specially if you consider ODI's too.

As I said, I'm not really capable of doing that. I watch and enjoy ODIs, and I find discussions about ODI players and performances interesting, but if I'm asking to combine Tests and ODIs I'll still always just base it completely on Tests because I personally find them infinitely more important.

 

[Prince EWS]

Was talking more about his ODI bowling TBH. Anyway, I think he was a more valuable bowler than his raw figures reflected especially in ODIs, but maybe that's just me.

I definitely think Ponting belongs in this thread as well FWIW.

As I said in that post, I'm not too fussed if people voted for Tendulkar because they put a lot more weight on ODIs, but if anyone would've done it based purely on Test cricket, they're kidding themselves IMO.

 

[Cevno]

That Ponting captained a very successful Test team, and his overall ability as a leader, gives him faaaaaar more credit in my book than the fact that Tendulkar was a vaguely useful part-time bowler who took 44 Test wickets (which is one wicket every four Tests) at an average of over 50.

I've restrained myself from posting in this thread too much up until now because I have a mental block preventing me to combine ODIs and Tests in any useful way, but I honestly think anyone who would've voted for Tendulkar if it was a Tests-only thread is kidding themselves just as much if not more than the bloke who voted for Ponting.

Ponting's ability as a leader has been really tested in the last one year ,tbh and he is not coming out of it any better than Tendulkar as a leader himself , if not worse.

 

[vcs]

As I said in that post, I'm not too fussed if people voted for Tendulkar because they put a lot more weight on ODIs, but if anyone would've done it based purely on Test cricket, they're kidding themselves IMO.

Think the OP specifically mentioned to take both into account, so I'd assume most of the voters did so.. obviously the degree of importance that people assign varies.

 

[Debris]

Ponting's ability as a leader has been really tested in the last one year ,tbh and he is not coming out of it any better than Tendulkar as a leader himself , if not worse.

To be fair, Tendulkar always had more talent at his disposal than Ponting currently does.

 

[smash84]

Yes IMO.



As I said, I'm not really capable of doing that. I watch and enjoy ODIs, and I find discussions about ODI players and performances interesting, but if I'm asking to combine Tests and ODIs I'll still always just base it completely on Tests because I personally find them infinitely more important.

Even in test matches I don't think that the difference between McGrath and the other fast bowlers was as great as that between Tendulkar and other batsmen. Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Wasim, and Waqar are quite good (some might rate Ambrose even higher than McGrath). Tendulkar averaged in the mid to high 50s for most part of the 90s which contained some of the best bowling attacks in history. And while it can be said that there were a few bowlers in McGrath's league there were even fewer batsmen in Tendy's league in the 90s (since Tendy had passed the age of 20).

And yes Ponting was good while his team was good enough to put pressure on the opposition. Now that he has a **** team he does find it difficult to be as good a batsman as he used to be. He is now a mere shadow of his former self. It makes me appreciate the likes of Allan Border and Imran Khan even more.

 

[Burgey]

Ponting's ability as a leader has been really tested in the last one year ,tbh and he is not coming out of it any better than Tendulkar as a leader himself , if not worse.

Except he keeps fronting up to do the gig.

 

[Burgey]

Nah, Between Kallis and Pollock tbh.

Then the thread should simply state "Which of these two is the best cricketer since 1990?" and list them as the only poll options (with irrelevant third option tbf).

 

[archie mac]

As I said in that post, I'm not too fussed if people voted for Tendulkar because they put a lot more weight on ODIs, but if anyone would've done it based purely on Test cricket, they're kidding themselves IMO.

 

[archie mac]

I guess what I am arguing here is that cricket matches with Warne in them were inherently more interesting and he did more for the promotion of the game. Plus he basically resurrected the art of spin bowling by demonstrating that it was useful on pitches that were not turning square. The state of spin bowling before he arrived was pretty dire.

I also give Shane Warne a lot of the credit for the change in attitudes of test sides. Games of cricket became more about winning than not losing. You only need to compare the winning percentages (and losing) of Australian sidse of the 90s to the Windies sides of the 80s to see the difference.

I don't know if you can remember the way that cricket was played in the 80s but it was fairly dull. None of the other mentioned had such an effect on the way the game was played as he had.

I think most credit goes to the captains of the period and not Warne. Taylor and SRW should claim most credit

I also think Warne would have been a fine captain of Aust (Tests)

 

[archie mac]

I think Shane Warne, at least in test matches, seemed to have a marginally greater bearing on the field. I hope people don't kill me for saying this given how much McGrath is worshipped on CW.

I was lucky enough to watch all of the careers (all of the Tests involving Aust anyway) of Ambrose, Wasim and McGrath and would have McGrath a clear third tbh

I would rate McGrath

Last for the yorker (Ambrose first)

Last for swing bowling (Wasim first)

Last for the bouncer (Ambrose first)

Last for pace

Behind Ambrose for accuracy

Still hard to fault the record of McGrath