Greatest cricketer post 1990

[slog sweep]

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.

International sportsmen are trained and programmed to win. Don't you think that the players that they would rate the highest, are those that they consider to be the greatest match-winners, and those that give their team the best chance of securing victory.

Anybody with even a little bit of common sense would see it as logical to consult the opinions of international cricketers who have been there and know what it takes to be great, when trying to ascertain who are the best players going around. When a guy like Shane Warne rates Curtly Ambrose as the best bowler he played with or against, or when somebody like Brian Lara rates Wasim Akram as the best bower he ever faced, then I would take their opinion seriously.

Sporting champions are usually pretty hard markers, and when they go out of their way to categorically declare somebody as the best, it usually means that guy is pretty exceptional.

 

[ankitj]

@Bagapath - Granted. Donald though made a late entry in test cricket because of SA's isolation, else I have a feeling that he could have matched the stats of Ambrose/McGrath.

 

[Cevno]

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.

Mcgrath just had a better strike rate by 2.6 ,so do not where you are getting "significantly better" from ?

Ambrose had 2.26 wickets per innings and Mcgrath had 2.31 ,so they are very hard to split considering Ambrose was easily more economical.

They are very very hard to split statistically,and even in terms of player opinions.

 

[Debris]

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.

OK, I will have a go at arguing the other side of ambrose vs mcgrath.

Firstly, in what universe was Ambrose more accurate than McGrath. It certainly was not this one. Anyone who thinks that needs to go back and watch footage of the two bowlers again.

McGrath was much more reliable than Ambrose. Ambrose had entire series where he just seemed disinterested. It also seems that Ambrose played 86 of his 98 test matches in just 3 countries; West Indies, Australia and England (none in India?) so McGrath proved himself under a wider variety of conditions.

McGrath was a much smarter bowler than Ambrose. One of McGrath's least-recognised benefits was his ability to sum up batsman, pitch and conditions and bowl to that. I can remember one series in Australia where Ambrose spent the first half of the series bowling too short and going past the outside edge rather than taking wickets (he eventually realised and then the wickets came). Ambrose did not seem to adjust to conditions quickly.

Ambrose did not have to bowl on the roads that most wickets were in the last decade. Imagine how good McGrath would have been if he got a few more pitches with some assistance for seam.

I have a bit of a theory on the opinions on past players and why they are not necessarily reliable. It is probably a bit long to go into here but essentially I think they only remember the best things a player does and forget the bad bits.

So, in closing, McGrath is comfortably ahead of Ambrose. Well, not comfortably but ahead.

 

[Mike5181]

Mcgrath just had a better strike rate by 2.6 ,so do not where you are getting "significantly better" from ?

Ambrose had 2.26 wickets per innings and Mcgrath had 2.31 ,so they are very hard to split considering Ambrose was easily more economical.

They are very very hard to split statistically,and even in terms of player opinions.

Ambrose didn't play seven years in the 2000's where the walls of possibility in relation to runs scored really started to kick off. Both Legends though.

2.49 Eco vs 2.3 is not a big gap either.

Personally McGrath > Ambrose

 

[archie mac]

International sportsmen are trained and programmed to win. Don't you think that the players that they would rate the highest, are those that they consider to be the greatest match-winners, and those that give their team the best chance of securing victory.

Anybody with even a little bit of common sense would see it as logical to consult the opinions of international cricketers who have been there and know what it takes to be great, when trying to ascertain who are the best players going around. When a guy like Shane Warne rates Curtly Ambrose as the best bowler he played with or against, or when somebody like Brian Lara rates Wasim Akram as the best bower he ever faced, then I would take their opinion seriously.

Sporting champions are usually pretty hard markers, and when they go out of their way to categorically declare somebody as the best, it usually means that guy is pretty exceptional.

Don't bother using logic with this fellow I and many others have tried in the past

Your points are still well made by the way

 

[bagapath]

@Bagapath - Granted. Donald though made a late entry in test cricket because of SA's isolation, else I have a feeling that he could have matched the stats of Ambrose/McGrath.

on the other hand, i feel he does match them in stats already. his superior SR compensates for a slightly higher average. and he has a solid wk/mtch ratio. in my opinion an average < 24, SR < 57, ER < 3, wkt/mtch > 4 and 5 wkt hauls in excess of 10 would put all fast bowlers within one bracket. minor variations in individual elements can be ignored within this group. this puts, in my books, lillee, marshall, mcgrath, ambrose, donald, imran, hadlee and holding in one category. that is how it should be because stats cant be used beyond a point to split players.

 

[ankitj]

International sportsmen are trained and programmed to win. Don't you think that the players that they would rate the highest, are those that they consider to be the greatest match-winners, and those that give their team the best chance of securing victory.

Anybody with even a little bit of common sense would see it as logical to consult the opinions of international cricketers who have been there and know what it takes to be great, when trying to ascertain who are the best players going around. When a guy like Shane Warne rates Curtly Ambrose as the best bowler he played with or against, or when somebody like Brian Lara rates Wasim Akram as the best bower he ever faced, then I would take their opinion seriously.

Sporting champions are usually pretty hard markers, and when they go out of their way to categorically declare somebody as the best, it usually means that guy is pretty exceptional.

I for one give will not give much weightage to opinions of ex-cricketers in rating a player although they are always interesting to listen to. They sure know the nuances of the game better than the casual followers but it's not as if they always agree and it's not that their opinions cannot be biased. How many of us will take even half of Bradman's all time XI into our XIs? How many of us agree that Tendulkar is better than Viv Richards, Wally Hammond and Greg Chappell put together as Gavaskar once said? How many of us agree with the great Imran Khan that Inzamam was the best player of pace since Viv Richards?

Also, who a cricketer finds hard to play may not necessarily tell you so much about who had most success against him. Lara was dismissed by McGrath 15 times in 24 matches while Akram got Lara only 2 times in 7 matches. Irrespective of what Lara says, I will pick McGrath to play against him. And then you have a Tendulkar who says he found Pedro Collins, Abur Razzaq and Hansie Cronje toughest to play. Who is he kidding?

 

[bagapath]

Mcgrath just had a better strike rate by 2.6 ,so do not where you are getting "significantly better" from ?

Ambrose had 2.26 wickets per innings and Mcgrath had 2.31 ,so they are very hard to split considering Ambrose was easily more economical.

They are very very hard to split statistically,and even in terms of player opinions.

of course they are. and that is what i have been saying.

but a difference in SR of 3 balls is significant. it is the same difference between ambrose and pollock. and between pollock and srinath. it is not a clincher, though. they are very hard to split. purely interms of stats, mcgrath is slightly ahead in my opinion. that doesnt mean i wont choose ambrose over him sometimes.

 

[archie mac]

I for one give will not give much weightage to opinions of ex-cricketers in rating a player although they are always interesting to listen to. They sure know the nuances of the game better than the casual followers but it's not as if they always agree and it's not that their opinions cannot be biased. How many of us will take even half of Bradman's all time XI into our XIs? How many of us agree that Tendulkar is better than Viv Richards, Wally Hammond and Greg Chappell put together as Gavaskar once said? How many of us agree with the great Imran Khan that Inzamam was the best player of pace since Viv Richards?

Also, who a cricketer finds hard to play may not necessarily tell you so much about who had most success against him. Lara was dismissed by McGrath 15 times in 24 matches while Akram got Lara only 2 times in 7 matches. Irrespective of what Lara says, I will pick McGrath to play against him. And then you have a Tendulkar who says he found Pedro Collins, Abur Razzaq and Hansie Cronje toughest to play. Who is he kidding?

I agree with some of that, but when a player is regularly nominated by contemporaries then surely you have to take notice?

 

[thierry henry]

International sportsmen are trained and programmed to win. Don't you think that the players that they would rate the highest, are those that they consider to be the greatest match-winners, and those that give their team the best chance of securing victory.

No, not in a million years.

As you say, the guys are out there intensely focusing on the game, particularly their own games. The last thing on their mind is rationally and logically analysing the comparative merits of opposing players.

In my experience playing even low level sport, actually playing the game is a hopeless position from which to compare the abilities of players. You have much more important things on your mind, like watching the ball.

 

[thierry henry]

Don't bother using logic with this fellow I and many others have tried in the past

Your points are still well made by the way

Archie, go **** yourself you smarmy old ****

 

[archie mac]

Archie, go **** yourself you smarmy old ****

I have never reported a post, so won't start now, but you usually don't resort to cheap shots so I will just ignore your childish outburst

Now go to your room you young whipper-snapper

 

[thierry henry]

I have never reported a post, so won't start now, but you usually don't resort to cheap shots so I will just ignore your childish outburst

Now go to your room you young whipper-snapper

Go on, report me. It'll be fun.

 

[Prince EWS]

Don't bother using logic with this fellow I and many others have tried in the past

Archie; there's no need to be so patronising towards posters. All it does is initiate conflict, even if you don't directly abuse anyone.

Archie, go **** yourself you smarmy old ****

I realise you get baited on a regular basis by several posters but you've warned about this a but it doesn't mean you have you have the right to just starting flinging abuse at people when it happens. You've been warned a couple of times about this recently; cut it out.

 

[thierry henry]

Dammit PEWS, such a buzzkill

 

[archie mac]

Archie; there's no need to be so patronising towards posters. All it does is initiate conflict, even if you don't directly abuse anyone.QUOTE]


Just trying to keep things lively, no offence intended to TH


My first warning (well sort of) on CW

 

[thierry henry]

ffs archie stop being so nice

 

[archie mac]

ffs archie stop being so nice

Ha ha, mate you can't be too bad, you like cricket

Too nice? *#@%@ Hope that helps

 

[slog sweep]

No, not in a million years.

As you say, the guys are out there intensely focusing on the game, particularly their own games. The last thing on their mind is rationally and logically analysing the comparative merits of opposing players.

In my experience playing even low level sport, actually playing the game is a hopeless position from which to compare the abilities of players. You have much more important things on your mind, like watching the ball.

I pretty much disagree with all of this. I am not sure how anybody can simply watch the ball, and not think about anything else.

Champion sportsmen are all very intelligent, and have the ability to do more than one thing at once. Nobody gets to the top on dumb luck, or simply natural ability. It is a combination of intelligence, aptitude and physical ability.

A great batsman will be watching the ball in flight, but in between deliveries, he will be thinking about the state of the game, what his team needs from him, and how the opposition is trying to get him out. He will keep an eye on the opposition captain and any field changes he makes, and will be analyzing how the bowler is trying to dismiss him. In addition, he will also be making his own plans to combat this mode of attack.

I cant speak for your own sporting abilities, but all champion sportsmen not only have an intuitive sense of their own greatness, but are completely aware of the quality and greatness of their opponents.