Greatest cricketer post 1990

[Debris]

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)

We will have to agree to disagree about the influence of Warne on Australia's style of play. I saw a change in Border's captaincy when Warne was available which preceded Taylor taking over. No arguing that Australia back much more adventurous once Taylor took over though. Maybe a case of captain and senior players being like-minded.

 

[archie mac]

We will have to agree to disagree about the influence of Warne on Australia's style of play. I saw a change in Border's captaincy when Warne was available which preceded Taylor taking over. No arguing that Australia back much more adventurous once Taylor took over though. Maybe a case of captain and senior players being like-minded.

My post was not clear, I agree Warne had a large influence but imo not as great as the captains of the era, but your point is well made having Warne gave captains more options

 

[Jono]

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.

Look at Sachin's record in the 90s compared to his contemporaries. That's half the damn decade we're discussing.

 

[Jono]

I don't get this statement i don't see how his cricketing influence was more then say a Shaun Pollock its not like there are great leg spinners cropping up from every other cricketing country sure he had an interesting life off the field but he was not the first to have one Imran before him and even Keith Miller who was well before him had been on this path and his main stream appeal was also pretty much matched by a lot of his contemporaries Sachin,Flintoof,Lara and Shoaib to name a few.I have no issues in you calling him the greatest ever as he was that damn good but the argument you put forward is a bit flawed imo

Re: Warne, I think Greg Baum put it best in a recent article:

During Shane Warne's reign, we were led to believe that in backyards across the land kids were bowling "leggies". Clearly, that wasn't the case. They weren't in official spin schools either, as there weren't any. The only accurate forecast of the time was that Warne was a once-in-a-generation bowler, and his replacement should not be expected to emulate his skills.

All this talk about Warne making spin bowling cool again, well there can't have been that many people doing it. You'd think one of them would at least be able to be of test standard if there were!

Warne was absolutely magnificent at what he did. But he's had less influence over his country's future spin bowlers compared to what Sachin has had on future batsmen in India, where every kid worked their butt off to be the next Sachin.

 

[slog sweep]

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

That is the correct assessment, Archie Mac.

1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Wasim Akram
3. Glenn McGrath

I am not really sure on what basis you can argue that McGrath is comfortably ahead of Ambrose, when they were pretty similar bowlers, except that Ambrose was even more dynamic and probably an even greater game-breaker and match-winner. More importantly, he had the stunning ability to consistently get the job done in big matches when it really mattered, and when his team needed him the most. The West Indies fall from grace in the 90s, would have been so much worse if not for the brilliance of Ambrose. Similarly, if you substituted Ambrose for McGrath in that great Australian team, would they have been any less dominant or successful. I don't think they would be.

People who have a love of statistics seem to rate McGrath pretty highly, but based on everything I have read, most of their peers who actually had to face them in the heat of battle, generally rate Curtly Ambrose and Wasim Akram as the two best fast bowlers of the last 20 years. Shane Warne rated Ambrose as the best bowler he played with or against, basically saying that Ambrose could do everything that McGrath did, but that he was even more explosive. Most of the top batsmen around the world seem to echo similar sentiments, naming either Ambrose or Akram as the best fast bowler they faced during their career. They usually go on to say, that they were both close to unplayable in their prime.

Curtly Ambrose was arguably the most influential and greatest match-winner of any of the players in this list, and if you could only choose one of these guys in your team, a lot of good judges around the cricket world would choose him first.

 

[archie mac]

That is the correct assessment, Archie Mac.

1. Curtly Ambrose
2. Wasim Akram
3. Glenn McGrath

I am not really sure on what basis you can argue that McGrath is comfortably ahead of Ambrose, when they were pretty similar bowlers, except that Ambrose was even more dynamic and probably an even greater game-breaker and match-winner. More importantly, he had the stunning ability to consistently get the job done in big matches when it really mattered, and when his team needed him the most. The West Indies fall from grace in the 90s, would have been so much worse if not for the brilliance of Ambrose. Similarly, if you substituted Ambrose for McGrath in that great Australian team, would they have been any less dominant or successful. I don't think they would be.

People who have a love of statistics seem to rate McGrath pretty highly, but based on everything I have read, most of their peers who actually had to face them in the heat of battle, generally rate Curtly Ambrose and Wasim Akram as the two best fast bowlers of the last 20 years. Shane Warne rated Ambrose as the best bowler he played with or against, basically saying that Ambrose could do everything that McGrath did, but that he was even more explosive. Most of the top batsmen around the world seem to echo similar sentiments, naming either Ambrose or Akram as the best fast bowler they faced during their career. They usually go on to say, that they were both close to unplayable in their prime.

Curtly Ambrose was arguably the most influential and greatest match-winner of any of the players in this list, and if you could only choose one of these guys in your team, a lot of good judges around the cricket world would choose him first.

No argument from me, well written Although SS might have something to say

 

[vcs]

look at sachin's record in the 90s compared to his contemporaries. That's half the damn decade we're discussing.

awta.

 

[Uppercut]

Bizarrely renaming wickets and runs "statistics" has long been a fun method of attempting to devalue the achievements of the world's most successful cricketers in comparison to the others.

 

[Uppercut]

Look at Sachin's record in the 90s compared to his contemporaries. That's half the damn decade we're discussing.

Ponting's miles ahead of the pack for a huge chunk of the 2000s tbf.

 

[vcs]

But no one's denying Ponting has a reasonable case as well.

 

[Uppercut]

Ponting? The best cricketer of the last twenty years?

If no one's denying that he has a reasonable case then I demand to know why the hell not.

 

[thierry henry]

Bizarrely renaming wickets and runs "statistics" has long been a fun method of attempting to devalue the achievements of the world's most successful cricketers in comparison to the others.

lol yeah

Apparently cricket matches are decided by asking the players how they felt and who seemed better. Runs and wickets, that's for maths geeks.

 

[ankitj]

I am all for stats and I am interested in knowing why McGrath was ahead of Ambrose statistically (leave alone much ahead). They both have similar averages, if anything Ambrose is slightly ahead. And of course Ambrose produced some extremely destructive spells. It's only in the number of matches and wickets that McGrath beats him, but then they played for a similar number of years so Ambrose can't be faulted for playing fewer matches. And I am also of the opinion that playing strong team helps your stats a little.

This is not to say that McGrath wasn't phenomenal but next best to Ambrose in the given period IMO.

 

[archie mac]

lol yeah

Apparently cricket matches are decided by asking the players how they felt and who seemed better. Runs and wickets, that's for maths geeks.

Yes because that is what people say on here?

 

[thierry henry]

Yes because that is what people say on here?

Pretty much

 

[bagapath]

I am all for stats and I am interested in knowing why McGrath was ahead of Ambrose statistically (leave alone much ahead). They both have similar averages, if anything Ambrose is slightly ahead. And of course Ambrose produced some extremely destructive spells. It's only in the number of matches and wickets that McGrath beats him, but then they played for a similar number of years so Ambrose can't be faulted for playing fewer matches. And I am also of the opinion that playing strong team helps your stats a little.

mcgrath has a superior wkt/test ratio. 4 vs 4.5 is a big difference over long careers like they had. mcgrath had a significantly better strike rate. and his average is only slightly higher despite him playing well into the batsman friendly era of noughties. and, ambrose had a crap record against india. pigeon was successful against almost everyone he faced including india.

of course, i am not saying one is significantly better than the other, though mcgrath might have his nose ahead by a milli meter.

 

[archie mac]

Pretty much

Ha ha, not worth arguing with that logic

 

[thierry henry]

Ha ha, not worth arguing with that logic

Indeed

 

[ankitj]

mcgrath has a superior wkt/test ratio. 4 vs 4.5 is a big difference over long careers like they had. mcgrath had a significantly better strike rate. and his average is only slightly higher despite him playing well into the batsman friendly era of noughties. and, ambrose had a crap record against india. pigeon was successful against almost everyone he faced including india.

of course, i am not saying one is significantly better than the other, though mcgrath might have his nose ahead by a milli meter.

For me WPM doesn't really count because that gets affected by how much you get to bowl each match etc. If average and SR don't agree, I tend to tilt towards averages as number of runs is the real cost of taking wickets. I don't hold performance against India so much against Ambrose because India clearly were not the best players of pace.

Anyhow, I see the case in favour of McGrath (my preference for Ambrose is mostly due to personal tastes). McGrath had one of the most phenomenal careers for any fast bowler but I don't see how he is much ahead of the pack as was being said. In fact, Donald is not a long way behind these two either.

 

[bagapath]

For me WPM doesn't really count because that gets affected by how much you get to bowl each match etc. If average and SR don't agree, I tend to tilt towards averages as number of runs is the real cost of taking wickets. I don't hold performance against India so much against Ambrose because India clearly were not the best players of pace.

Anyhow, I see the case in favour of McGrath (my preference for Ambrose is mostly due to personal tastes). McGrath had one of the most phenomenal careers for any fast bowler but I don't see how he is much ahead of the pack as was being said. In fact, Donald is not a long way behind these two either.

donald is indeed a long way behind these two using your own yardstick. his average was higher. and he performed badly against australia, the best team of his generation. so... there you go. if you rank ambrose, mcgrath and donald close to each other because they deserve to be treated on par, then it is fine. if you bring in stats then he will be the last - especially since you dont seem to care about the SR much which donald has in his favor actually.