Greatest cricketer post 1990

[Prince EWS]

Whose picture is that?

That's HD Ackerman. I'm pretty sure it was Donald who actually said that, so Teja ****ed up a bit and got the wrong commentator IMO. I could be wrong though.

 

[Teja.]

Disappointed tbh.

 

[Teja.]

That's HD Ackerman. I'm pretty sure it was Donald who actually said that, so Teja ****ed up a bit and got the wrong commentator IMO. I could be wrong though.

Pretty sure it was Ackerman tbh.

 

[Teja.]

That's HD Ackerman. I'm pretty sure it was Donald who actually said that, so Teja ****ed up a bit and got the wrong commentator IMO. I could be wrong though.

Pretty sure It was Ackerman tbh.

 

[vcs]

That's HD Ackerman. I'm pretty sure it was Donald who actually said that, so Teja ****ed up a bit and got the wrong commentator IMO. I could be wrong though.

Disappointed tbh.

OK, get it now.

 

[morgieb]

Pretty sure It was Ackeman tbh.

Hi Marcuss

 

[archie mac]

Great post. I enjoyed reading the highlighted part.

Are you being sarcastic?????????

Mark Waugh had fantastic footwork all the shots and should have had a far better average, made batting look easy and surely that is a sign of a class player?

Also watched him play some fine innings against some very good attacks when others failed surely his footwork would have let him down in these innings

 

[Teja.]

Mark Waugh should have had a far better average,

Er, No.

 

[vcs]

Are you being sarcastic?????????

Mark Waugh had fantastic footwork all the shots and should have had a far better average, made batting look easy and surely that is a sign of a class player?

Also watched him play some fine innings against some very good attacks when others failed surely his footwork would have let him down in these innings

Didn't mean to criticise the Waughs at all, they were great. I meant to say I thought he described Ambrose's strategy against them very well.

 

[archie mac]

Er, No.

Good post very informative

Didn't mean to criticise the Waughs at all, they were great. I meant to say I thought he described Ambrose's strategy against them very well.

Oh, ok no worries

Yes was a good post. That was the only part I did not agree with

 

[Teja.]

Good post very informative

IMHO,

Mark Waugh having fantastic footwork and all the shots in the book are means to the end of the scoring of runs. Having fantastic footwork and shots does not making him inherently better than a slogger who nudges the bad ball for singles and scores the same amount of runs.

I don't see how having a good technique and better strokeplay makes you deserve a far better average if you keep getting yourself out that way.

To use the obvious example, Mark was a much more free-flowing bat than Steve, yet he was considerably worse.

 

[archie mac]

IMHO,

Mark Waugh having fantastic footwork and all the shots in the book are means to the end of the scoring of runs. Having fantastic footwork and shots does not making him inherently better than a slogger who nudges the bad ball for singles and scores the same amount of runs.

I don't see how having a good technique and better strokeplay makes you deserve a far better average if you keep getting yourself out that way.

To use the obvious example, Mark was a much more free-flowing bat than Steve, yet he was considerably worse.

Not that I agree with much of that, but much better argument

I think it makes him much better than a slogger who is relying on luck not skill, as edges could go anywhere.

Steve was more effective, yes I agree

 

[vic_orthdox]

Good post very informative



Oh, ok no worries

Yes was a good post. That was the only part I did not agree with

My memory always, for some reason, associates Courtney Walsh with the dismissal of Mark Waugh described. Trapped on the crease, hit on the kneeroll, and then he'd lean over and use his bat to hold himself up as the umpire gave him out.

 

[archie mac]

My memory always, for some reason, associates Courtney Walsh with the dismissal of Mark Waugh described. Trapped on the crease, hit on the kneeroll, and then he'd lean over and use his bat to hold himself up as the umpire gave him out.

I remember that a couple of times, was a strange habbit, but I remember even when he lost his balance to a bouncer he seemed to fall with elegance

 

[benchmark00]

It's out of Gilchrist and Kallis.

Can't split them.

 

[Jono]

Yeah that's a good battle for 2nd place, behind McGrath.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah that's a good battle for 2nd place, behind McGrath.

Nah ****.


Clearly I cbf reading the rest of this thread, but I imagine this has been touched on a gooch load of times, but for me the term 'cricketer' relates to multiple facets of the sport, in most cases.

The best cricketer of all time is clearly Bradman, because his ridiculous batsmanship makes up for his lack of bowling prowess.

McGrath wasn't that good at bowling as to make up for his failings as a batsman.

Kallis and Gilchrist were just purely great cricketers. Different cricketers. But both great.

 

[Jono]

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 .

If you're including Ponting's ODI captaincy record, that means you're taking into account ODI cricket.

If you're taking into account ODI cricket, Sachin most definitely belongs in this debate.

 

[Renegade]

It was bizarre to see that Akram didn't even got a single vote. I think diabetes has lot to do in bringing him down, quite apparent from the difference in performance:

Span		Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10	
	
1993-1996	28	50	1135.5	266	2954	142	7/119	11/179	20.80	2.60	47.9	10	2		

1997-2002	32	56	1027.1	235	2725	103	6/61	11/110	26.45	2.65	59.8	4	1

 

[The Sean]

What are his post-1997 numbers excluding his last 8 Tests? I reckon they'd be pretty good, as I recall it was those last 8 Tests that really did for him statistically.