Greatest cricketer post 1990

[Uppercut]

Sort McGrath's figures by "batsmen dismissed" under "bowling formats" in Statsguru.

 

[ankitj]

Fun stat just for you! McGrath averages 9 against Atherton and 41 against Lara.

That stat on cricinfo just gives you the average of the scores at which the batsman was when dismissed by McGrath. Includes runs scored off other bowlers in those innings and excludes runs scored off McGrath in innings when McGrath didn't dismiss the given batsman. Totally useless stat that. At one point Tendulkar's average against Akhtar was 0.5!

 

[Uppercut]

That stat on cricinfo just gives you the average of the scores at which the batsman was when dismissed by McGrath. Includes runs scored off other bowlers in those innings and excludes runs scored off McGrath in innings when McGrath didn't dismiss the given batsman. Totally useless stat that. At one point Tendulkar's average against Akhtar was 0.5!

Yeah, you sure?

Ah yeah, you're right. I didn't think they'd give such a useless stat, I wonder why they do. How odd.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah. Mohd Kaif was dismissed by McGrath in only one match where he scored 55. Kaif's average against McGarth is therefore given as 55. They need to get rid of that ridiculous stat. I ran into someone in another forum who quoted Tendulkar's average against Akhtar to show how the former was totally owned Tendulkar.

 

[TumTum]

Yeah, you sure?

Ah yeah, you're right. I didn't think they'd give such a useless stat, I wonder why they do. How odd.

Score sheets don't include from whom the runs were scored off. They do now with commentary though.

 

[vcs]

I must admit I like entertainers and always thought McGrath rather boring, still his record is a great one and his status will only grow over time

One thing I always do when watching cricket is try and work out how the bowler is trying to dismiss the batsman. McGrath's plan seemed to be the same to almost every batsman, effective but boring

They always said Lillee struggled to dimiss tailenders because he tried to bowl for edges, I wonder how McGrath faired against the tail compared to other fast bowlers?

Yeah, I had that impression from some of your previous posts.

 

[Jarquis]

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.

AWTA

 

[Ikki]

Although everyone's definition of "great" differs, seeing Tendulkar up there is a bit of a stretch to say the least IMO.

The guy only excelled in one facet of the game and it's debatable if he is even the best in that facet alone. Someone said Ponting isn't the best since 1990 and I think that's true...yet even Ponting has more of a case: as a great a batsman; one of the greatest fielders of all time; record breaking test captain; and arguably the greatest ODI captain of all-time, undefeated in WCs.

And that's not to make this a Ponting v Sachin thing...not at all; I don't think either should be it. I guess it's a combination of things but whilst they are rare...there are no shortages of great batsmen.

Specialised batting greats like Ponting, Lara and Sachin occur every decade. Even great fast bowlers occur a lot. Conversely, you have to go back to O'Reilly and Grimmett to see any spinners as talented as Warne or Murali. There have been no keeper-batsmen to Gilchrist's level. The only batting all-rounder close to Kallis is Sobers.

On the other hand, whilst Kallis is exceptionally talented and rare...I could pick Lara/Ponting/Sachin/McGrath/Wasim, etc over him. For the reason that these players are much more likely to make a match-winning (which probably has it's own varied definition) contribution. TBF, this Indian series aside I haven't seen Kallis pull out the kind of performances the aforementioned have given repeatedly and garnered a reputation for.

People point to his bowling...yeah it's great but he takes little more than 1 wicket an inning. He can make some good contributions with the ball but he's mostly an economic bowler. Maybe it's me, but bowling all-rounders are far more valuable than batting all-rounders. Having said that, he has a great case also, but I wouldn't pick him.

Anyway, it's obvious who I picked .

 

[smash84]

Although everyone's definition of "great" differs, seeing Tendulkar up there is a bit of a stretch to say the least IMO.

The guy only excelled in one facet of the game and it's debatable if he is even the best in that facet alone. Someone said Ponting isn't the best since 1990 and I think that's true...yet even Ponting has more of a case: as a great a batsman; one of the greatest fielders of all time; record breaking test captain; and arguably the greatest ODI captain of all-time, undefeated in WCs.

And that's not to make this a Ponting v Sachin thing...not at all; I don't think either should be it. I guess it's a combination of things but whilst they are rare...there are no shortages of great batsmen.

Specialised batting greats like Ponting, Lara and Sachin occur every decade. Even great fast bowlers occur a lot. Conversely, you have to go back to O'Reilly and Grimmett to see any spinners as talented as Warne or Murali. There have been no keeper-batsmen to Gilchrist's level. The only batting all-rounder close to Kallis is Sobers.

On the other hand, whilst Kallis is exceptionally talented and rare...I could pick Lara/Ponting/Sachin/McGrath/Wasim, etc over him. For the reason that these players are much more likely to make a match-winning (which probably has it's own varied definition) contribution. TBF, this Indian series aside I haven't seen Kallis pull out the kind of performances the aforementioned have given repeatedly and garnered a reputation for.

People point to his bowling...yeah it's great but he takes little more than 1 wicket an inning. He can make some good contributions with the ball but he's mostly an economic bowler. Maybe it's me, but bowling all-rounders are far more valuable than batting all-rounders. Having said that, he has a great case also, but I wouldn't pick him.

Anyway, it's obvious who I picked .

interesting observation. Nice to see that you are back ..................even I voted for Shane Warne but one of the assumption behind my choices was that I find ATG inherently more valuable than ATG batsmen. ATG bowlers are a rare breed.

 

[slog sweep]

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.

Most of what you have written here, is inaccurate.

On what planet, is a man who takes over 400 wickets at 20.9, and has one of the best records of any fast bowler in the history of the game, 'disinterested'. Based on your theory, one can only imagine what he would have achieved, if he actually bothered to switch on. The West Indies decline of the 90s would have been even more stunning, if not for the brilliance of Ambrose and Lara. Right up until the time of his retirement, Ambrose kept them competitive, with his ability to take the big wickets at the big moments. Their problems in the late 90s were more symptomatic of inconsistent batting, than any major decline in the output of Ambrose and Walsh. You only have to see how woeful they have become since his departure, to realize what a colossus Ambrose was.

The notion that McGrath was a far smarter bowler than Ambrose is, again, ridiculous, and would be disputed by all of the batsmen who faced them both. Like all of the great West Indian fast bowlers, Ambrose had a brilliant cricket brain and was able to make the necessary adjustments against different opponents, and in different conditions. His adjustments were subtle, and based on the technical shortcomings of the prevailing
batsman.

A player like Mark Waugh, for example, had very indecisive footwork, so Ambrose would push him back, pin him to the crease, and trap him with a fast off-cutter. Steve Waugh, on the other hand, had an exaggerated back and across trigger movement, and didn't always get his weight transference right when coming forward, so Ambrose would lure him with a fuller length, and have him caught behind the wicket. If you were unable to appreciate the astuteness of his brain, it says more about your inability to understand the nuances of the game, than anything to do with the intelligence of the great fast bowler.

You are also wrong when trying to question Ambrose ability to succeed in all conditions. On the five cricketing continents, Africa, Asia, America, Oceania and Europe, he averages under 23.7 on all of them, including 22.5 on the Asian sub-continent. He missed the 1994 tour of India because of shoulder surgery, but was successful in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Similarly, your argument that McGrath would have been even more successful if he had more opportunities on the seam friendly pitches of the 90s, is also incorrect. McGrath took 266 wickets at 22.8 in the 90s, and 297 wickets at 20.5 post 2000. People talk about pitches getting flatter post 2000, but the quality of batting techniques has also seriously deteriorated. Opening batsmen like Chris Gayle and Virender Sehwag have major technical failings, and are often exposed by the moving ball and quality bowling.

Finally, if you don't think that Ambrose was every bit, if not more accurate than McGrath, then you probably need to go and watch footage of those tapes, instead of instructing others to do so. He had incredible control, and was virtually impossible to dominate.

When trying to separate two champions like McGrath and Ambrose, there is literally a whisker in it. In terms of skill and consistency, there is nothing between the two, but ultimately I would give the edge to Ambrose, on the basis that on his best days, he was even more dynamic and destructive than McGrath.

 

[smash84]

Most of what you have written here, is inaccurate.

On what planet, is a man who takes over 400 wickets at 20.9, and has one of the best records of any fast bowler in the history of the game, 'disinterested'. Based on your theory, one can only imagine what he would have achieved, if he actually bothered to switch on. The West Indies decline of the 90s would have been even more stunning, if not for the brilliance of Ambrose and Lara. Right up until the time of his retirement, Ambrose kept them competitive, with his ability to take the big wickets at the big moments. Their problems in the late 90s were more symptomatic of inconsistent batting, than any major decline in the output of Ambrose and Walsh. You only have to see how woeful they have become since his departure, to realize what a colossus Ambrose was.

The notion that McGrath was a far smarter bowler than Ambrose is, again, ridiculous, and would be disputed by all of the batsmen who faced them both. Like all of the great West Indian fast bowlers, Ambrose had a brilliant cricket brain and was able to make the necessary adjustments against different opponents, and in different conditions. His adjustments were subtle, and based on the technical shortcomings of the prevailing
batsman.

A player like Mark Waugh, for example, had very indecisive footwork, so Ambrose would push him back, pin him to the crease, and trap him with a fast off-cutter. Steve Waugh, on the other hand, had an exaggerated back and across trigger movement, and didn't always get his weight transference right when coming forward, so Ambrose would lure him with a fuller length, and have him caught behind the wicket. If you were unable to appreciate the astuteness of his brain, it says more about your inability to understand the nuances of the game, than anything to do with the intelligence of the great fast bowler.

You are also wrong when trying to question Ambrose ability to succeed in all conditions. On the five cricketing continents, Africa, Asia, America, Oceania and Europe, he averages under 23.7 on all of them, including 22.5 on the Asian sub-continent. He missed the 1994 tour of India because of shoulder surgery, but was successful in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Similarly, your argument that McGrath would have been even more successful if he had more opportunities on the seam friendly pitches of the 90s, is also incorrect. McGrath took 266 wickets at 22.8 in the 90s, and 297 wickets at 20.5 post 2000. People talk about pitches getting flatter post 2000, but the quality of batting techniques has also seriously deteriorated. Opening batsmen like Chris Gayle and Virender Sehwag have major technical failings, and are often exposed by the moving ball and quality bowling.

Finally, if you don't think that Ambrose was every bit, if not more accurate than McGrath, then you probably need to go and watch footage of those tapes, instead of instructing others to do so. He had incredible control, and was virtually impossible to dominate.

When trying to separate two champions like McGrath and Ambrose, there is literally a whisker in it. In terms of skill and consistency, there is nothing between the two, but ultimately I would give the edge to Ambrose, on the basis that on his best days, he was even more dynamic and destructive than McGrath.

woah.....top notch post SS....keep up the good work

 

[Cevno]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

In the 1990's which was a tougher period for batting Sachin had a clear advantage over the rest of the contenders.He makes it on the basis of that alone.

Then Since then he is at the very top again,though batting was a bit easier in the earlier part of 2000's and some not so great batsmen also boosted their averages and came close to the top-


http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting


Not too forget his awesomness in ODI's ,where he has been at the top throughout.
To add to that he has near 200 international wickets, has been captain twice and a good fielder,if not great.

It is sheer weird to suggest for me his is not the best batsmen of the period and Specially not a contender for this.
In fact a case can be made for him to be on the list twice.
There is not any player who has been on top throughout the whole period like Him and has faced injuries and reinvented themselves so many times and still been at the top.
And that is not counting off the field factors .

 

[smash84]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

In the 1990's which was a tougher period for batting Sachin had a clear advantage over the rest of the contenders.He makes it on the basis of that alone.

Then Since then he is at the very top again,though batting was a bit easier in the earlier part of 2000's and some not so great batsmen also boosted their averages and came close to the top-


Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


Not too forget his awesomness in ODI's ,where he has been at the top throughout.
To add to that he has near 200 international wickets, has been captain twice and a good fielder,if not great.

It is sheer weird to suggest for me his is not the best batsmen of the period and Specially not a contender for this.
In fact a case can be made for him to be on the list twice.
There is not any player who has been on top throughout the whole period like Him and has faced injuries and reinvented themselves so many times and still been at the top.
And that is not counting off the field factors .

Please don't mention Sachin's captaincy. As great a batsman that he is he has to be one of the ****tiest captains ever.

 

[bagapath]

slog sweep... why are you not posting more often? top post.

 

[Cevno]

Please don't mention Sachin's captaincy. As great a batsman that he is he has to be one of the ****tiest captains ever.

Agreed.
To be fair mentioned it because captaincy of some other """""ty captains was mentioned .

But to be fair to him he had real ordinary sides both times and the second time of asking did a good job to stabilise the situation after the match fixing controversy and settle the situation to smoothen Ganguly's job.

The interest was dropping at the time and it was imperative to have someone like him at the top that time.

 

[smash84]

Agreed.
To be fair mentioned it because captaincy of some other """""ty captains was mentioned .

But to be fair to him he had real ordinary sides both times and the second time of asking did a good job to stabilise the situation after the match fixing controversy and settle the situation to smoothen Ganguly's job.

The interest was dropping at the time and it was imperative to have someone like him at the top that time.

yeah but he had terrible losing streaks even when captain second time round IIRC. It is hard to recall any other player who has been such a top player and an equally terrible captain.

But you might be right that he was probably the best bet under the circumstances.

 

[Teja.]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

In the 1990's which was a tougher period for batting Sachin had a clear advantage over the rest of the contenders.He makes it on the basis of that alone.

Then Since then he is at the very top again,though batting was a bit easier in the earlier part of 2000's and some not so great batsmen also boosted their averages and came close to the top-


http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

I know this may sound terribly patriotic of me, but can we see their bowling figures please?

 

[vcs]

Most of what you have written here, is inaccurate.

On what planet, is a man who takes over 400 wickets at 20.9, and has one of the best records of any fast bowler in the history of the game, 'disinterested'. Based on your theory, one can only imagine what he would have achieved, if he actually bothered to switch on. The West Indies decline of the 90s would have been even more stunning, if not for the brilliance of Ambrose and Lara. Right up until the time of his retirement, Ambrose kept them competitive, with his ability to take the big wickets at the big moments. Their problems in the late 90s were more symptomatic of inconsistent batting, than any major decline in the output of Ambrose and Walsh. You only have to see how woeful they have become since his departure, to realize what a colossus Ambrose was.

The notion that McGrath was a far smarter bowler than Ambrose is, again, ridiculous, and would be disputed by all of the batsmen who faced them both. Like all of the great West Indian fast bowlers, Ambrose had a brilliant cricket brain and was able to make the necessary adjustments against different opponents, and in different conditions. His adjustments were subtle, and based on the technical shortcomings of the prevailing
batsman.

A player like Mark Waugh, for example, had very indecisive footwork, so Ambrose would push him back, pin him to the crease, and trap him with a fast off-cutter. Steve Waugh, on the other hand, had an exaggerated back and across trigger movement, and didn't always get his weight transference right when coming forward, so Ambrose would lure him with a fuller length, and have him caught behind the wicket. If you were unable to appreciate the astuteness of his brain, it says more about your inability to understand the nuances of the game, than anything to do with the intelligence of the great fast bowler.

You are also wrong when trying to question Ambrose ability to succeed in all conditions. On the five cricketing continents, Africa, Asia, America, Oceania and Europe, he averages under 23.7 on all of them, including 22.5 on the Asian sub-continent. He missed the 1994 tour of India because of shoulder surgery, but was successful in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Similarly, your argument that McGrath would have been even more successful if he had more opportunities on the seam friendly pitches of the 90s, is also incorrect. McGrath took 266 wickets at 22.8 in the 90s, and 297 wickets at 20.5 post 2000. People talk about pitches getting flatter post 2000, but the quality of batting techniques has also seriously deteriorated. Opening batsmen like Chris Gayle and Virender Sehwag have major technical failings, and are often exposed by the moving ball and quality bowling.

Finally, if you don't think that Ambrose was every bit, if not more accurate than McGrath, then you probably need to go and watch footage of those tapes, instead of instructing others to do so. He had incredible control, and was virtually impossible to dominate.

When trying to separate two champions like McGrath and Ambrose, there is literally a whisker in it. In terms of skill and consistency, there is nothing between the two, but ultimately I would give the edge to Ambrose, on the basis that on his best days, he was even more dynamic and destructive than McGrath.

Great post. I enjoyed reading the highlighted part.

 

[Cevno]

I know this may sound terribly patriotic of me, but can we see their bowling figures please?

Whose bowling figures?

 

[vcs]

I know this may sound terribly patriotic of me, but can we see their bowling figures please?

Whose picture is that?